Jesus Becoming Jesus, Volume 2: A Theological Interpretation of the Gospel of John: Prologue and the Book of Signs 0813230454, 9780813230450

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
Part I. Introducing Jesus
1. The Prologue
2. The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles
Part II. The Book of Signs
3. Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana
4. Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit
5. The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son
6. The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son
7. Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood
8. Who Is Jesus?
9. Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind
10. I Am the Good Shepherd: The Father’s Son
11. I Am the Resurrection and the Life
12. The Coming of the Hour
Conclusion
Suggested Further Reading
Index

Citation preview

Jesus Becoming Jesus

Jesus Becoming Jesus Volume 2

A Theological Interpretation of the Gospel of John: Prologue and the Book of Signs n Thomas G. Wei na ndy, O FM , C a p.

The Catholic University of America Press Washington, DC

Copyright © 2021 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Weinandy, Thomas G. (Thomas Gerard), author. Title: Jesus becoming Jesus / Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. Description: Washington, D.C. : The Catholic University of America Press, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017056272 | ISBN 9780813230450 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Gospels—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Synoptic problem. | Jesus Christ—Biography. Classification: LCC BS2555.52 .W44 2018 | DDC 226/.06—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017056272 This is volume 2, A Theological Interpretation of the Gospel of John: Prologue and the Book of Signs, 2021. ISBN 9780813233963 (pbk.: alk. paper); ISBN 9780813233970 (ebook)

To Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, Lazarus, Martha, and Mary

Contents

Preface ix Acknowledgments xvii PART I. INTRODUCING JESUS 1 1. The Prologue

3

2. The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

50

PART II. THE BOOK OF SIGNS 83 3. Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

97

4. Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

115

5. The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

155

6. The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

185

7. Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

215

8. Who Is Jesus?

258

9. Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

314

10. I Am the Good Shepherd: The Father’s Son

338

11. I Am the Resurrection and the Life

358

12. The Coming of the Hour

396

Conclusion 432 Suggested Further Reading  449 Index 451

vii

Preface

A

lthough I did not intend to write the first volume of Jesus Becoming Jesus, A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, for the reasons noted in the preface to that book, I did intend to write this subsequent second volume, A Theological Interpretation of the Gospel of John: Prologue and the Book of Signs. The most obvious reason is that, having examined the Synoptic Gospels, I thought that it would be scripturally and theologically advantageous to continue with John’s Gospel. Moreover, in writing the Synoptic book, my love for the Scriptures intensified, and even though I am a historical systematic theologian, I felt emotionally and intellectually compelled to assume the greater challenge of theologically examining the Gospel of John. I am pleased that I took up this more demanding task, if for no other reason than I have come to appreciate even more the theological depth of John’s Gospel. I hope that those who read this book will also come to treasure more its doctrinal value. What I did not foresee, at the outset, is that my theological interpretation of John would itself demand two volumes. By the time I had finished examining chapter 6 of the Gospel and observed how much I had already written, I realized that two volumes on John would be necessary—one volume would have been too bulky for a reader to hold! So it is my hope that the person who has this book in hand will, in a few years, have in hand the third volume in this series, and the second on John. Thus this volume theologically interprets John’s Prologue and his Book of Signs, that is, chapters 1 through 12. The subsequent volume will examine the Book of Glory and the passion and resurrection narratives, that is, chapters 13 through 21. In the remainder of this preface, I provide some of the theological and scriptural presuppositions that governed my interpretation of John’s Gospel. Some of these I articulated at the outset in volume 1, on the Synoptics, so here I will do so only in summary form. (For this reason, the reader may wish to read the preface of that volume.) With the above in mind, we can proceed. ix

x

Preface

Scripture and Theology I am a systematic theologian trained in historical theology, and so I am writing what may not be considered a normal scriptural commentary on the Gospel of John. I am writing a theological interpretation. As a systematic or doctrinal theologian, I am attempting to discern the theological and doctrinal content of John’s Gospel. This means that I will not be treating many of the issues that Scripture scholars normally address when writing their scriptural commentaries, such as textual and form criticism, nor will I employ what is known as the historical critical method. Such would be outside my competence, and more importantly, these methods of scriptural interpretation would not advance what I am attempting to achieve theologically. I believe that the strength of this book lies in the fact that I am doing it as a systematic theologian, searching out John’s doctrinal content. This does not make my book any less scriptural. I hope that, as such, it will help the reader find John’s Gospel more exciting and fruitful to read, and to cherish more deeply the doctrinal truth that it contains. John’s Gospel is itself theological in nature—revealing the doctrine of the Incarnation and so Jesus’ true identity as the Father’s Son (see Jn 20:31). As with volume 1, on the Synoptics, I am attempting to apply the teaching of the Second Vatican Council as found in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (DV). There the Council rightly perceives a close unity between the written word that is the New Testament and the oral kerygmatic preaching that gave rise to it, as well as the living magisterial and theological tradition that flows from it (see DV 9 and 11). Scripture, then, must be read within the ever living apostolic tradition, and it must also continually be interpreted within the light of later magisterial conciliar teaching—the doctrine that flowed from it. Likewise, it must be studied within the subsequent theological tradition, a tradition that continually finds its life-giving source in Scripture. Together, Scripture and tradition ever more clearly proclaim, protect, and enhance the church’s understanding of what the Father has revealed through his Word/Son in communion with the Holy Spirit. Per Dei Verbum, “sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church” (DV 10). Because Scripture and the church’s magisterial and theological tradition flourish together, I have attempted in my theological interpretation of the Gospels to follow Dei Verbum’s significant interpretive principle: Sacred theology relies on the written Word of God, taken together with sacred Tradition, as on a permanent foundation. By this Word

Preface

xi

it is most firmly strengthened and constantly rejuvenated, as it searches out, under the light of the faith, the full truth stored up in the mystery of Christ. Therefore, the “study of the sacred page” should be the very soul of sacred theology. (DV 24) I have, then, endeavored to allow John’s Gospel to be the soul of my theological interpretation, while simultaneously employing the church’s sacred theological tradition to enhance my examination of it. Thus my goal is to provide an interpretation of John’s Gospel that would be both genuinely faithful to it, as well as authentically enrich and accurately illuminate its theological content. As in writing my theological interpretation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I have not read or consulted any biblical commentaries on the Gospel of John, though I have read such commentaries over the course of my academic life. I avoided such commentaries because I did not want to engage in arbitrating various scholarly debates. Thus there are no footnotes to any secondary literature other than to some of my own pervious work that may be relevant to the topic at hand. I simply desired to offer, in an unencumbered manner, my theological reading of John’s Gospel. There are, as there was in writing the previous volume, three components that make up my present study: (1) the text of the Bible itself as canonically given, (2) my own theological and academic background, and, hopefully, (3) the light of the Spirit of truth. The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels I am confident that there existed, within the apostolic church, only one kerygmatic tradition, an oral tradition, founded upon eyewitnesses, that embodied a genuine universal Gospel as to who Jesus is and what he historically did and said. Simultaneously, within that same apostolic tradition, there resided a theological interpretation or revelatory elucidation of who Jesus is and the saving significance of his historical actions and teaching. If such is the case, the question arises as to why John’s Gospel is different in content and style from the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, each in their various ways and with their own individual theological emphases, present a consistent narrative of this kerygmatic tradition that appears, in a historical sense, more “true to life” than that of John’s Gospel. In the Synoptics, Jesus speaks and relates to people in a manner that is in keeping with how human beings normally relate and interact— though his actions, such as his miracles, and the content of what he says are uniquely his own as the divine Messiah. The Gospel of John, by way of faithful

xii

Preface

enhancement, provides a deeper or more reflective theological interpretation of the key mysteries within the one kerygmatic historical tradition. These central mysteries, the major themes of John’s Gospel that will become evident in our study, converge on the fundamental mystery of the Incarnation—on the Word, who is eternally with God and is God, and who took on human flesh in all its weakness. John’s reflective or contemplative approach does not depart from what is historical, nor does it undermine or differ from the historicity contained within the Synoptics. In some instances, John, as an eyewitness, testifies to a historical event and setting with an eye on detail that exceeds that of the Synoptics, which often rely on the one kerygmatic tradition that does not always contain all of the historical or geographic particularities. What John newly provides, through his own unique historical narrative that sometimes contains events not found in the Synoptics, is a revelatory lens or hermeneutical template, by which the one kerygmatic tradition can be more fully understood and theologically appreciated. As I am writing my theological interpretation of John’s Gospel, so John, as the Theologian, wrote his own theological interpretation of the one apostolic kerygmatic tradition. Thus, while he may not have read or had access to the Synoptic Gospels, because he and the synoptic authors are all working from within the one oral Gospel tradition, John becomes an interpreter of the Synoptics. He provides a more explicit or fuller theological meaning of Jesus’ words and of his salvific actions, and this revelatory understanding partially accounts for the singularity of John’s Gospel narrative, different from that of the Synoptics. This complex interrelationship between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, founded upon the one kerygmatic Gospel tradition, needs to be kept in mind throughout the present theological interpretation of John. Following from the above, what may be most noticeable in John’s Gospel is the manner in which Jesus speaks. Within the Synoptics, Jesus speaks in a much more “down-to-earth” manner. His parables are excellent examples of his “earthiness.” In the Evangelist’s Gospel, Jesus speaks in a more exalted manner, with a divine gravitas. This is especially perceived, for example, when Jesus is speaking of his relationship with “my Father,” his doing “my Father’s works,” and in his “I am” sayings. Being the Father’s Son, the Word incarnate, Jesus speaks in a manner that is congruent with who he is, as He Who is, the divine I AM. His idiosyncratic speech, then, is itself a revelation of his divine status. Moreover, what must equally be remembered is that, for John, Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Word, is speaking and acting in and through his weak human flesh, his sarx. His words and the revelation they contain may identify him as the Father’s Word, and his actions may manifest that

Preface

xiii

he is the Father’s Messianic Son, yet his words are spoken and his actions are both performed as man. This incarnational truth is what is being revealed, and it is precisely because of his fleshly nature that the Jews find it so incomprehensible and unbelievable. How could the man, Jesus, possibly be the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son? For John, what the reader is beholding in his Gospel is the marvelous mystery of the Incarnation, that the Father’s divine Son actually does exist as an authentic vulnerable human being. Given the unique manner in which Jesus speaks in John’s Gospel, however, what are we to make of the content of his words? The idiosyncratic manner in which Jesus speaks and the divine content of his words, so different in many ways from the manner and content found in the Synoptics, give the appearance that they are not actually his historical words, his ipsissima verba. As the reader will see throughout my theological interpretation of John’s Gospel, I will argue that what we find here is a literary genre that is uniquely Johannine in nature—something that only “the beloved disciple” would dare to conceive and venture to implement. Given that John is providing his own theological interpretation of the one historical apostolic Gospel tradition, the reader may not always hear the ipsissima verba of Jesus, his exact historical words, but what the reader does hear is the enriched theological thought, the fuller revelational meaning, contained in Jesus’ historical words—Jesus’ deeper intended ipsissima sententia that John now provides. Such a thesis accounts for why Jesus speaks, within John’s Gospel, in such a singular idiosyncratic manner, a voice that manifests that he is God’s Word, a voice that bears the accent of the Father’s Son. Such an understanding will be displayed, for example, in Jesus’ dialogues with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and Martha and Mary, as well as his contentious exchanges with the unbelieving Jews. Likewise, Jesus’ “I am” sayings reveal more clearly and fully who he is and the nature of his saving ministry than what is expressed in the Synoptics, though the one apostolic Gospel does provide the historical foundation for John’s Jesus to speak as he does in the Evangelist’s Gospel. John has the chutzpa to put his own theological interpretation into Jesus’ mouth because he is convinced, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that what he has Jesus say is what Jesus himself truly revealed—Jesus’ intentional ipsissima sententia. John, in and through his contemplation of the revealed mystery of Jesus, had come to take on the very mind of Jesus; his thoughts were Jesus’ thoughts. John’s interpretative words were not his own—they belonged to Jesus himself and to him alone. John was therefore impelled to have Jesus himself speak them.

xiv

Preface

Jesus Becoming Jesus: His Saving Acts As I stated in the preface to the first volume of Jesus Becoming Jesus, I have been fascinated, since my student seminary days of studying Thomistic philosophy, by the notion of “act.” God is pure act, being itself, and in the act of creation, creatures come to be in act and so further become who they are through their subsequent actions. Later, I came to realize that the persons of the Trinity are persons fully in act. The Father is fatherhood fully in act; the Son is sonship fully in act; and the Holy Spirit is love fully in act. This threefold perichoretic act is the one God fully in act. In writing my theological interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, I came to see that, although the angel Gabriel told Mary (Luke’s Gospel), and later Joseph (Matthew’s Gospel), to name their child Jesus—that is, YHWHSaves—Jesus was only Jesus in embryo. While the Son of God had assumed his saving ministry in becoming man, he had yet to complete his saving work. He was “Jesus” in potency and not yet Jesus fully in act. Thus in my interpretation of the Synoptics, I primarily focused on Jesus’ saving actions as they are narrated within Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for it was through these actions that Jesus was enacting his name and so becoming who he is—the divine Savior. “Jesus becoming Jesus” became, then, the overarching theological theme throughout the whole of that first volume. Though John’s Gospel distinguishes itself from the Synoptics, I quickly realized that Jesus becoming Jesus likewise dominates this Gospel as well. The act of becoming man is the primordial act by which Jesus becomes Jesus— that God’s Word commences, in coming to exist as man, his work of salvation. For John, therefore, as the Father brought all into existence through the creating action of his Word, so now, through that same Word, the Father is re-creating the sin-fallen world. He is doing so through the saving acts, the re-creating acts, of his now incarnate Word, Jesus, YHWH-Saves. Moreover, as testified by John the Baptist, Jesus will perform his saving acts as the sacrificial Lamb of God and so become Jesus, through the power, the divine vitality, of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that ever remains upon him. Jesus is and will become the Savior, for he is the Father’s Messianic Son, the Lord’s anointed. All the intertwining themes within John’s Gospel are, on the whole, the interweaving of Jesus’ salvific acts, acts in and through which he enacts his saving name and so becomes Jesus. Jesus’ miracles are prophetic acts that signify who Jesus is as the Father’s Son, as well as acts that testify to his being the Father’s Spirit-anointed Savior. In and through these miraculous acts, Jesus is both enacting his name and anticipating the fulfillment of his name, the saving acts of his death and

Preface

xv

resurrection. Moreover, within those miraculous signs, we behold the acts that manifest Jesus’ glory, the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father. These glory-filled action signs elicit the act of faith from those who behold them. This act of faith in turn conforms the person into an active believer— one who will consequently enact the deeds of faith. Not surprisingly, Jesus emphasizes that if the disbelieving Jews do not believe his words, they ought to believe because of his works, for his saving actions testify that he, as YHWH-Saves, is the Father’s Son. Enmeshed in his seven miracle signs are the seven “I am” sayings of Jesus. Jesus is the living bread whom his Father sends down from heaven. As the incarnate Word, he is the life-giving light of the death-darkened world. He is the gate to the sheepfold in whom, as the good shepherd, he shepherds his flock into eternal life. He is the resurrection and the life, for he will raise up all who abided in him on earth into his Father’s heavenly glory. (The remaining two “I am” sayings are found later in the Book of Glory.) These “I am” sayings denote the saving actions that Jesus enacts as Savior, the acts by which he will enact his name and so become Jesus. Also, as will become evident, the reason that Jesus literally embodies these salvific “I am” sayings ultimately resides in his being the enacted divine “I AM,” He Who Is—YHWH. As the incarnate He Who Is, Jesus, the Father’s Son, is YHWH-Saves. Similar to Jesus’ miracle signs, these sayings are also prophetic in nature, for they will only be fully enacted when Jesus enacts his decisive saving deeds—his saving death and ascending resurrection. In those conclusive salvific acts, Jesus will definitively become Jesus, for he will have enacted those re-creative works whereby humankind is freed from the perils of sin and death and offered the abundance of the Spirit’s eternal life. Within John’s Gospel, all of the above is enacted within the ever approaching “hour,” an hour that commenced when Jesus enacted his first miracle sign at the wedding feast at Cana. That “hour” will be fully enacted in the dark hour of Jesus’ it-is-finished hour of his sacrificial death, yet that dark hour of his death gives rise to the enacted glorious hour of Jesus’ resurrection. Within this conjoined sequential dark and glorious hour, Jesus, for John, definitively becomes Jesus, for in finishing his Father’s work as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son, Jesus has enacted his name—YHWH-Saves. For John, therefore, Jesus’ saving death is the last hour of sin’s death-bound creation, and his resurrection is the first hour of the world’s life-bound re-creation, a re-creation that Jesus himself now gloriously embodies. Thus the risen Jesus is the dawn of the everlasting eighth day, the dawning of the abundance of eternal life.

xvi

Preface

Jesus Becoming Jesus: His Sacramental Acts Having become the universal Savior and risen Lord, Jesus is empowered to do what John the Baptist declared of him at the onset of his public ministry—that is, to baptize in the Holy Spirit, the act whereby all who believe in Jesus’ name are born anew in the Holy Spirit and so enter into God’s everlasting kingdom. For John, this is the initiating sacrament through which believers come to abide in Jesus and so reap, in him, the benefits of his saving works. Moreover, for John, having come to abide in Jesus through the lifegiving Spirit, the faithful are able to partake of his Eucharistic risen body and blood wherein they come to abide in Jesus himself as he now exists in his risen glory. In so abiding, they share fully in his saving sacrificial death and in his risen everlasting life. Thus Jesus’ Eucharistic sacramental presence is the ultimate culminating earthly act of his being Jesus, for the faithful literally live in him who now is what he is named, YHWH-Saves. Thus both the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of the Eucharist signify, and so prophetically anticipate, Jesus enacting his name fully at the end of time. When Jesus comes and raises up all who have died in him into his risen glory, then Jesus will become Jesus fully in act, for all the saved will be the saved fully in act. Jesus will have assumed all of the faithful into himself, whereby they fully become new creations in him—Spirit-transformed and Spirit-filled children of his, and now their, heavenly Father. I realize that in articulating the manner in which Jesus becomes Jesus as narrated in John’s Gospel, I have gone well beyond what this present volume treats. Yet I thought it necessary, for the reader’s sake, to possess a clear grasp of John’s entire narrative. Only as one views the complete interwoven tapestry of John’s Gospel does one come to see the ever more radiant portrait of Jesus becoming Jesus, and in so doing does one behold in saving faith the glory of the Father’s Spirit-filled Son. Keeping in mind this introduction, we can now confidently turn to John’s Gospel itself, wherein we will discover Jesus becoming Jesus.

Acknowledgments

As a prologue to Jesus Becoming Jesus, volume 2, I want to thank those who have so generously helped me during the years of its writing. First, I am indebted to my provincial, Fr. Thomas Betz, for allowing me and encouraging me to pursue my academic writing. He actually read my previous volume on the Synoptic Gospels and told me that he liked it—I think he was telling me the truth, for he is an honest man. I am also grateful to my Capuchin brothers here at Capuchin College. They have also been encouraging and have ever shown interest in the book’s progress, even when I repeatedly had to say that I still had a long way to go. Then there are many of my academic colleagues and friends who read draft chapters. They offered insightful scriptural and theological suggestions, as well as assisted me in clarifying and developing my theological interpretations. In this regard, Dr. Daniel Keating and Dr. John Yocum stand out as faithful reviewers, men who have given generously of their time among their own busy pursuits. I could always count on them. Similarly, I offer gratitude to my good friend and Capuchin confrere Bishop William Fey, the now retired bishop of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea. In the midst of all of his pastoral work as well as in seeking out a location where he had access to a good Internet connection, Bill always provided fraternal support, theological insight, and, on occasion, bits of wry humor. I also gained another and new missionary helper for this volume, Fr. William Ryan, who ministers in the African country of Togo. Bill did yeomen’s work in correcting and improving, by way of revision, the grammatical structure of many of my overly complex sentences. Another priest was also supportive, this time from the archdiocese of Denver, Fr. James Thermos. James has been a formator of seminarians for many years, and so his spiritual insights into John’s Gospel were always most welcome. I must not forget two of my women friends, Mrs. Judith Virnelson and Mrs. Kathleen Jones, who not only prayed for the success of my undertaking but also read all of the xvii

xviii

Acknowledgments

draft chapters. I asked them to do so for two reasons: to find all of the typos, of which they found many, and also to ensure that nonacademic lay readers could understand what I was attempting to communicate. I am also grateful for the encouragement, support, and prayers of other family and friends— particularly my brother Robert, my cousins John and Louise Pohlman, Fr. James Overton, Mrs. Doris Ferlman, Ms. Geena Mary Sankoorikal, Mrs. Elizabeth Connor, and the Poor Clare Nuns in Alexandria, Virginia. Catholic University of America Press published my first volume on the Synoptic Gospels, and so I am pleased that its acquisitions editor, Mr. John Martino, eagerly urged me to pursue writing this volume on John’s Gospel. I am also once more indebted to Ms. Ashleigh McKown for her patient and meticulous work as copy editor. Furthermore, I gratefully acknowledge artist Mr. Matthew Alderman, who once again illustrated the cover of this book. Lastly, I would be amiss not to acknowledge all of the saints whose intercession I daily sought. Here I will only salute by name Thomas Aquinas, my patron saint, John the Evangelist, Ignatius of Antioch, and Joseph and Mary, for they named their son “Jesus,” and so we came to know him as our divine Savior. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. The Feast of St. Felix of Cantalice, 2020

Part I

Introducing Jesus The first chapter of the Gospel According to John introduces Jesus. It does so initially through the Prologue, which begins by declaring the divinity of the eternal person of the divine Word through whom God created all that has come to be. As such he is the light of life. This eternal, life-giving divine Word became man and in so doing enabled us to see the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. The opening chapter to this book will examine the theological content found in John’s Prologue. Chapter 2 investigates the remainder of the Gospel’s first chapter—the ministry of John the Baptist and the gathering of Jesus’ first disciples. Here, John’s Gospel further introduces Jesus, the Word Incarnate, from within the historical context that initiated Jesus’ public ministry. This historical introduction of Jesus corroborates what was first proclaimed in the Prologue—that Jesus is the Son of God. By introducing Jesus in the Gospel’s first chapter, John also apprises us of the major Christological and soteriological themes in the remainder of the Gospel. The Gospel narrative will more and more unfold and so develop these themes, often by knitting them together, for their significance is only fully grasped as they are braided together within Jesus himself and his saving work.1

1.  Some of the major themes are life and death, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, faith and disbelief, and the preexistence of Jesus as the eternal Word or Son of the Father.

1

1 n

The Prologue

The Infancy Narratives and the Prologue The primary hermeneutical principle for interpreting the Prologue is the one articulated in the preface to this book, that is, that John’s Gospel is itself a theological interpretation of the one foundational Gospel narrative as found within the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Synoptic Gospels, emphasizing various theological aspects, articulate one and the same kerygma and so narrate one and the same Gospel story concerning Jesus’ identity and his redemptive ministry. The Gospel of John presumes this same kerygmatic story but now recounts it in a higher theological key. Thus, while John’s Gospel does not commence with an infancy narrative, his Prologue encapsulates the theological content of Matthew’s—and particularly Luke’s—infancy accounts.1 Precisely because it is a poetic hymn, the Prologue heightens the theological meaning of the infancy narratives by illuminating more fully the theological splendor of the incarnational event that these historical narratives proclaim.2 Moreover, John’s 1.  John’s Gospel is more closely related at points to Luke’s Gospel than to those of Matthew and Mark. Luke could have been acquainted with Johannine material prior to the final redaction of his Gospel. Also, Mary must have been the ultimate source, if not Luke’s firsthand informant, of his infancy narrative. She also, under the guardianship of John after Jesus’ death, must have told him the manner in which her son was conceived. Thus Mary could be the link that joins Luke’s Gospel to John’s and vice versa. 2.  Scholars believe that John’s Prologue is probably an early hymn, for it is similar to the Christological hymns found in Col 1:15–20 and Phil 2:6–11. Since most scholars hold that John’s Gospel is the last to be written, this would mean that the poetic Prologue was already being sung prior to 90–100 AD, when the final redaction would have been completed. Thus, while its theological expression is unique to John’s Gospel, the hymn itself can be placed closer to the time when the Synoptic Gospels were being written, and so the theological content

3

4

Chapter 1

Prologue is a looking back, as are the infancy narratives, to provide the causal source of what later would be revealed concerning Jesus’ identity and ministry. While Matthew and Luke tie the person and ministry of Jesus to the manner of his conception, John tethers Jesus’ identity and his ministry within the eternal being of God himself. For Matthew and Luke, Jesus came to be known as the unique eternal Son of God because it was through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit that he was conceived within Mary’s womb. The singular nature of the cause, the Holy Spirit, gave rise to the singular identity of the man conceived—the Son of God. John’s Prologue, in its own distinct literary and theological genre, makes more explicit what is already enclosed in the infancy accounts. Mary’s earthly son is rightly known to be the Son of God, Emmanuel—God with us—because that Son finds his being and identity within the very eternal being and identity of God himself—he is the Father’s eternal Word and as such is the Father’s only begotten Son. Significantly, Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, who as the first human being and so having no human father is created by God as “son of God” (Lk 3:38). For John, God created all, including Adam, through his Word, the eternal Word who is the Father’s only begotten Son. Adam, as the created son of God, and Jesus, as the eternally begotten Son of God, are then conjoined. Not only did the Father create Adam, his son, through his Son, but he will re-create the race of Adam, the fallen sons of God, through his incarnate Son who became a member of Adam’s sinful race. Moreover, within the Incarnation, as Adam had no earthly father, for he was created directly by God, so Jesus has no earthly father, for he, as the Son incarnate, was conceived as man by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Prologue professes that Jesus’ earthly genealogy does not terminate simply in Adam, the son of God, but extends into eternity because his ultimate genealogical lineage resides within God himself as the Father’s eternally begotten Son. Here again, we find John’s theological understanding of Jesus building upon that of Luke’s Gospel.3 Similarly, as the Infancy Narratives do not simply look back at Jesus’ origin as the Son of God incarnate but also look forward to the subsequent Gospel narrative and therefore to the manner in which this mystery is revealed, so the Prologue does not simply look to the eternal begetting of contained in the hymn cannot be judged as discordant with that of the Synoptics. Rather, it is a particular poetic theological expression of the one Gospel tradition. Within the poetic configuration of the Prologue, John has inserted two prose references to the ministry of John the Baptist. 3.  For my theological interpretation of Luke’s genealogy, see Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 101–4 (hereafter abbreviated JBJ 1).

The Prologue

5

the Father’s Son but also to the subsequent Gospel narrative wherein the glory of the Son will be manifested through the flesh he has assumed on behalf of humankind’s salvation. Thus as the Infancy Narratives find their fulfillment and so their verification in the saving ministry of Jesus, in Jesus becoming Jesus (YHWH-Saves), particularly in his death and resurrection, so John’s Prologue sets the major themes found in the remainder of the Gospel’s narrative, again culminating in Jesus’ death and resurrection, and so their confirmation.4 Before we examine the Prologue, however, we must first briefly survey the use of the phrases “the word of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” as found within the Old Testament, for the Johannine utilization of the concepts of “Word” and “Wisdom” finds its revelatory anticipation there. The Word and Wisdom of the Lord “The word of the Lord” is one of the most recurrent expressions in the Old Testament. It does not simply designate the divine bestowing of hitherto unknown knowledge, but more importantly, it specifies an action that the Lord performed in the past, is achieving in the present, or will accomplish in the future either by himself or through a delegated person or person.5 Thus, as the rain comes down from heaven and brings forth life on the earth, “so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Is 55:10–11).6 God’s word is therefore creative. God creates the heavens and the earth and all contained therein by speaking his word (see Gn 1:1–25). Likewise, the books of the Old Testament frequently affirm, often emphatically, that events were accomplished “in accordance with” or “according to” “the word of the Lord,” thus confirming that his word was either obeyed or that what was spoken actually came to pass (see Dt 34:5; 1 Chr 11:3, 11:10). “The word of the Lord” thus contains within it a singular dynamism, a divine vigor and strength, for whatever content that follows conveys, contains, and expresses some action that finds its source within the Lord himself. Moreover, because “the word” is not simply a verbal communication but specifies an action, “the word of the Lord” also suggests that the “word” 4.  “Jesus becoming Jesus” was the overriding theme of our first volume on the Synoptic Gospels. The same will be true concerning this volume on the Gospel of John. We will take up that theme at the conclusion of this chapter. 5.  See, e.g., 1 Kgs 17; 2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezr 1:1–3; Jer 1 and 31:1; Ezek 37:1–10; and Sir 48:1–3. 6.  Unless otherwise noted, I use the Revised Standard Version, Catholic ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966).

6

Chapter 1

is alive and so possesses being—in some manner the “word” exists because it comes forth from and shares in the very life of God—He Who Is. This is especially apparent when the expression is expanded to “the word of the Lord came to me” (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 17:8, 18:1–2; this is a constant refrain within the prophetic books, particularly in Ezekiel). This “came to me” confers a reality, even an existence, to “the word of the Lord,” for only if “the word of the Lord” possesses some inherent actuality in itself can it “come” to someone. Thus “the word of the Lord” itself again possesses a vitality, something that exceeds the merely verbal and so discloses the presence of a living and active divine reality. This living divine reality associated with “the word” issues from the fact that it is from “the Lord.” The word shares in the very reality of who the living Lord is, and because of this oneness, the word is able to execute the Lord’s divine action within the historical created realm. Similarly, since the word arises from, shares in, and so executes the Lord’s personal action within the world, not only does the word assume the actuality of the Lord but also partakes of his personal character. The word is not an impersonal expression of the Lord that, in an impersonal manner, executes the actions of the Lord. The word, rather, assumes that divine personalism within “himself ” and because of this makes known the personal character of the Lord. As “the Lord” is personal, so he speaks forth into the world a personal word. Actually, it is the word that contributes to the Old Testament belief that the Lord is a personal God, for only a personal God is able to speak personally such a word. Significantly, then, the expression “the word of the Lord” contains within itself a distinction and a unity. The word is distinct from the Lord in that it issues from the Lord and so manifests the Lord as it executes the Lord’s personal action upon the earth. At the same time, the word, precisely because it is spoken by the Lord, equally participates in the one personal reality of who the Lord is. The metaphysics, contained within this biblical revelation, attests that the Lord and his word are ontologically one and that they share together their oneness in a personal manner. While the expression “wisdom of the Lord” is rarely employed (see Sir 15:18), “wisdom” is nonetheless closely associated with the Lord’s “word” and so must also be taken into account when considering John’s Prologue. Although there are many similarities between the Lord’s word and his wisdom, there are also notable differences. The word, while inhering within him, connotes the Lord’s outward expression. By means of his word, the Lord makes himself known, interacts with his people, and accomplishes his mighty deeds. The Lord’s wisdom denotes more his interior manner of being, a manner that entails all truth, goodness, and righteousness. Wisdom enables

The Prologue

7

him, in the practical matters of beneficent loving, providential caring, and just governance, to think and act in a most perfect manner.7 All that the Lord personally reveals through the action of his own word gives expression to his own personal interior wisdom. The Lord’s expressed word finds its source in the Lord’s inner wisdom. While wisdom resides in the Lord alone, he imparts his wisdom to human beings, especially to his chosen people. “All wisdom comes from the Lord” (Sir 1:1). This wisdom comes from knowing the Lord as the one true God and in listening to and obeying his word (see Sir 6:37, 15:1–2). The wise person thinks, speaks, and acts after the manner of the Lord, for that person has conformed himself into the Lord’s very likeness.8 The Old Testament understanding of wisdom finds its mature expression within the wisdom literature. Here, even more so than the word, wisdom acquires its own personal character and is “created” by the Lord from all eternity. For example, Proverbs 8:22-31: The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there was no depths I was brought forth . . . then I was beside him [the Lord], like a master craftsman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.9 Divine wisdom is personified and so expresses her own personality, though she does not exist apart from the Lord.10 Moreover, since wisdom is the Lord’s, she is “created,” brought forth, from before all else that exists. Wisdom participates in the Lord’s own eternity, and so the Lord eternally delights in the wisdom that he possesses. Wisdom personally works in tandem, as “a master craftsman,” with the Lord in the creation of the world, and so all of creation bears the mark of the Lord’s wisdom. Similar to “the word of the Lord,” “wisdom” is “personally” distinct from the Lord and yet not existing apart from him. Metaphysically, the Lord and his wisdom, while distinct, possess the same divine reality and so are, in some manner, ontologically one. This distinction arises from “wisdom” being 7.  See, e.g., Ps 104:24, Prv 3:2–3, Is 28:29, Jer 10:12, and Dn 2:20. 8.  King Solomon is the Old Testament exemplar of a person possessing the Lord’s wisdom and so acting after the manner of the Lord. 9.  See also Wis 9:9–12 and Sir 1:1–5 and 24:3–22. 10.  I have employed the feminine pronoun “she” in reference to “wisdom” since the Greek word for wisdom is feminine, Sophia.

8

Chapter 1

eternally and singularly “created” by the Lord in a manner different from all else God creates, and this same eternal singular coming forth from the Lord simultaneously founds their mutual personal ontological communion. Because of this singular ontological communion, wisdom possesses the same divine attributes as God himself. For in her [Wisdom] there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness, she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. (Wis 7:22–26) Precisely because wisdom emanates from God himself, she participates in his divine attributes in a manner different from all else God has created, for she is the one who bestows these very attributes upon all others (see Wis 7:27–28). Compared with the light of the sun and stars, wisdom “is found superior” for, while darkness may cover the sun, “against wisdom evil does not prevail” (Wis 7:29–30).11 In offering a brief overview the Old Testament notions of God’s word and wisdom, we already perceive how such revelation permeates John’s Prologue. Not only does the Prologue presuppose such a previous understanding, but it also now proclaims that God’s new revelation of “the Word” and his “Wisdom” raises the prior revelation to a radically new and definitive plane. We can now turn to the Prologue itself. The Prologue In the Beginning Was the Word Not surprisingly, but nonetheless significantly, the Prologue begins before “the beginning,” for before “the beginning” the Word already existed. 11.  At the appropriate juncture in our theological interpretation of John’s Gospel, we will also need to address the Old Testament understanding of the phrase “the spirit of God.”

The Prologue

9

In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God (ton theon), and the Word was God (theos). He was in the beginning with God (ton theon); all things were created through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. (Jn 1:1–3) The initial profession of the Prologue echoes the opening verse from the Book of Genesis: “In the beginning.” In Genesis, this phrase does not denote that there was a beginning prior to some subsequent divine action. Instead, God’s creative act constitutes and so marks “the beginning.” The beginning begins when “God created the heavens and the earth.” Equally, the Prologue is not proposing that there was a beginning and within that beginning the Word came to be and was. Nor is the Prologue stating that the beginning began with the coming to be of the Word. The beginning of the Word does not, unlike the act of creation, constitute the beginning. Rather, unlike the creative act of God that marks the beginning, the Word has no beginning, because when the beginning began, the Word was already “with God,” who has no beginning. The Word was with God—that is, not simply alongside God, but in full communion with God and so sharing in his being—precisely because he “was God.” As God already existed prior to the beginning, so the Word, who is also God, “was in the beginning with God.” Thus, while the Prologue designates the Word as theos (God) who was with ton theon (the God) at the commencement of “the beginning,” this distinction does not imply that the Word, as theos, is an inferior deity to the one who is truly “the God,” ton theon. The Prologue is instead articulating the dynamism within the very eternal being of God. The act of creation is not the beginning of God’s action, as if “prior” to that act God in himself was eternally an inert solitary being. Before the beginning began, God (ton theon) is active, for from within his eternal being, God brought forth (“spoke”) his living Word, and so the Word, having been eternally spoken by God, existed with him as God (theon). The distinction between God as ton theon and the Word as theon expresses the eternal inherent relational ontological dynamism that is God “speaking” his Word. This Johannine proclamation is noteworthy in its novelty, a newness that springs from God’s new revelatory act—that the eternal Word became flesh. Here we find the fulfillment of what was revealed in the Old Testament, even though the Israelites of old would have never considered that such a fulfillment was possible or even necessary. Within the Prologue, “the Word” is no longer simply God’s dynamic outward means of communicating and acting, but rather the Word is constitutive of the dynamism within the being of God

10

Chapter 1

himself. John marshals all that was revealed in the Old Testament concerning God’s word and subsumes it within the eternal Word. In this integration, he elevates God’s word to a new metaphysical level wherein the Old Testament revelation of God assumes a new metaphysical configuration. Nothing old is lost. Instead, it is ontologically enhanced. The one God is now revealed to be God and God’s Word. Constitutive of the divine being is the eternal act of God “speaking” his Word, a Word that ontologically “expresses” and so ontologically “is” the entirety of God’s being. Moreover, we saw in the Old Testament that the word of God finds its source and so its unity in God, and yet, as God’s word, it is distinct from God. For John, the Word is indeed a distinct person with his own distinct identity, and yet simultaneously he is in full communion with God, for he eternally expresses in himself, as God’s Word, the fullness of God’s divinity. In the Prologue, the Word is one with God, for the act that distinguishes them—God speaking his Word—is the same act that ontologically unites them as God and his Word. This eternal act is the relational communion; the Word’s being with God, which comprises God and the Word. This new revelation likewise provides the metaphysical foundation for why God was able in the past and is able in the present to relate to and be present with what is other than himself. The Lord can speak his word to others precisely because his Word first resides within him as constitutive of his very being—God speaking his Word. Similarly, God’s word within the Old Testament not only conveyed knowledge but also accomplished God’s mighty deeds. It was a dynamic word, for it came forth from the mouth of the living God. Likewise, the word of God shared in God’s personhood, for it bore within it the subjective identity of God himself. The Prologue now professes that all that was previously revealed is true precisely because the dynamic, living, and personal word of God is the living person of the Word who is God and was eternally with God from before the beginning. Lastly, within the Prologue, God as the dynamic act of eternally speaking his Word is the necessary metaphysical prelude to the divine act of creation through the Word and the divine act of the Word becoming flesh. This is why John immediately takes up, after proclaiming who the Word is, the Word’s act of creation.12 12.  Undoubtedly, John was aware of the Greek philosophic use of the term Logos (Word) as the principle of knowledge and order within the finite realm. But while this usage may bear some semblance to John’s understanding of the Logos, as witnessed by the early Fathers of the Church, the Prologue expresses an understanding of the Logos/Word that is thoroughly biblical and not an understanding that was commandeered from Greek philosophy. This becomes undeniably evident in John’s proclamation that the Word is the creator of all and the one who became man, neither of which are even remotely evident within Greek philosophy.

The Prologue

11

All Was Created through the Word Because the Word as God was with God before “the beginning” began, the Prologue next declares that “all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Genesis professes that God’s act of creation was the mere act of speaking of his word. For example, “Let there be the firmament,” and what is spoken comes to be (see Gn 1:1–25). Genesis, through the progression of seven days, enumerates all that God makes through the power of his spoken word. In so doing, Genesis distinguishes God from all that exists within the finite realm. God exists in a manner different in kind, and not in degree, from all else, for he is the author of all else. Moreover, all that God creates through his Word is good, for it comes forth from the mouth of the all-good God. John now declares that the word through which God created all things is actually the Word who is eternally with God (ton theon) and is God (theos). Thus, in communion with the Word and by means of the Word, God brings into existence all else that is. For John, the inherent eternal dynamism between God and the Word is the causal source of the singular dynamic act of creation. Moreover, the fact that God creates through the Word confirms that the Word eternally existed with God before “the beginning,” since the act of creation constitutes “the beginning” and so simultaneously attests to the Word’s divine being, for only if he is God (theos) is he able to create in communion with God (ton theon).13 The Life of Light: Creation Because all was created through the Word, the Prologue next states that “in him was life, and the life was the light of men. This light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:4–5). Since the eternal 13.  1 Cor 8:6 states, “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for [in] whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Col 1:16 states that in Christ “all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” And Heb 1:1–2 states, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” Similar to John, all of these passages speak of God creating everything either through the Lord, Jesus Christ, or through Christ, or through his Son, thus attesting that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God’s eternal divine Son/Word who existed as co-creator prior to all else that exists. Significantly, Hebrews states that God previously spoke “in many and various ways,” but now, in keeping with John’s Prologue, he has spoken through his Son, that is, the one Word of God who contains, and so expresses, the fullness of God’s being and truth.

12

Chapter 1

Word is with God and so is God, he too, like God, possesses the fullness of life.14 This life was light for all of humankind, and this life of light shines forth in the darkness, a darkness that cannot conquer this divine life of light. These verses are theologically dense, pointing to the biblical past, to what John wishes to profess about the present and what he wants to declare later concerning a future fulfillment. By way of a prolegomenon, the Word is not simply the light of life but the life of light. We do not merely see life, that which exists, in his light. Instead, only in possessing the Word’s life, by being created through him and living in him, are we able to see properly, particularly in order to see, as will be seen, his Father. The life of the Word is the ontological source of all life, and that life is itself the light by which all can be truly known and so truly live. Thus the Prologue declares that epistemology is founded upon ontology, for all being and all truth find their source in the one Word who possesses within himself the fullness of divine being and therefore the fullness of divine truth. To know truly, one must abide in the being of and live in communion with the Word.15 John initially looks back, therefore, to what he just stated, that is, the Word’s act of creation in reference to Genesis. When God created, “the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gn 1:2). Genesis is literally depicting an environment where, prior to God’s creation, there existed primordial chaos—a realm without form, an utter odious waste (in Hebrew, tohu) and a realm that is void, a vacuous abyss (in Hebrew, bohu). Absolute darkness engulfed this primeval swirling chaos like the dark churning within the murky depths of the foreboding sea. Into that primal chaos God, in creating, brings order and life—the sun and moon, the plants and animals and above all human beings. Genesis is theologically describing the darkness, the formlessness, and the void of “nothingness.”16 To properly 14.  Jesus later states, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself ” (Jn 5:26; see also Jn 11:25 and 14:6). 15.  Later in the Prologue, John declares that Jesus is “the true light that enlightens every man” (Jn 1:9). Within the body of the Gospel, Jesus proclaims himself to be “the light of the World” (Jn 8:12; see also 9:5 and 12:35). It will become evident that to see, in faith, the glory of Jesus as the Father’s Son is to live in the light of his glory, for one is in communion with him who is the life-giving light. 16.  Actually, “darkness” is not a “thing.” It is the mere absence of “light” and so is “no-thing.” Light, in contrast, is “some-thing,” in that it is that physical property that comes forth from a source (e.g., the sun) that produces light. “Darkness” being “no-thing” it is easily conquered by “light,” for the mere shining of light makes “darkness” disappear, thus revealing its “no-thingness.” The darkness of nothingness is effortlessly conquered by God in the act of creation, for he is the life of light. He simply brings “things” into existence, thus voiding the

The Prologue

13

grasp “nothingness,” one must discard even the notion of darkness. There is simply “no-thing,” not even an empty “thing” termed “darkness” in which “no-thing” is. Nonetheless, over the darkness of nothingness “the Spirit of God was moving” and God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gn 1:2–3).17 It has often been remarked, and John himself would have been aware of this, that God “created” light before he created the sun and the stars, which are the sources of light within the cosmos. Why this anomaly? John perceived two theological truths. The first may have been grasped by the author(s) of Genesis, but the second would have remained hidden. First, in creating light before the sun and the stars, God was, at the very dawn of creation, manifesting the life of light that he himself is. The first act of creation is the primordial act of God revealing himself as the divine life-giving light in whom there is no darkness. In God there is no “nothingness,” for he is the one Who Is. Only from within God’s divine life of light could the rest of creation come to be—the waters and dry land, the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, the sun and the moon, thus vanquishing the darkness of nothingness. Above all, only from within the divine life of light could God create man in his image and likeness so as to share in his divine life, the life of light whereby man could see the light of God and so come to know and love him. When human beings came to be, they saw not only all else that God created, but also they primarily saw, first and foremost, the light that is the life-giving God. It was in this divine life-giving light that humankind was to live. Second, John now grasps what was heretofore hidden. The primordial act of creation, the “Let there be light,” was actually God revealing his luminous nonexistence of “no-thing.” This nonexistence of “no-thing” is in keeping with evil not being a “thing.” It is the absence of a good. For example, blindness is the absence of sight. “Good” is “some-thing,” and thus all “things” that God creates, by the mere fact that they exist, are, as Genesis declares, good. Moreover, God in himself is not literally the fullness of light. Since he is completely immaterial, he does not possess the material reality or attribute of light. God reveals himself as “light,” and we speak of God as the absolute abundance of light so as to designate and express the reality of his unlimited supreme being—existence itself. Thus the splendor, the glory, the brilliance, and the utter luminosity of God define the veiled incomprehensible and unspeakable mystery that he is—He Who Is. 17.  Although the Book of Genesis does not explicitly state the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, that God brought everything into existence by an act of his singular almighty power, this notion implicitly resides within the first creation story. The finite realm is not God, and God is solely responsible for its existence. John’s Gospel, then, makes explicit what was implicit within Genesis, and it does so by proclaiming that the Word, who was with God before the beginning began, and so was himself God, created all that is.

14

Chapter 1

life-giving Word, the “and there was light.” The Word is the life of light through whom, with whom, and in whom all the else would come to be. The first light of creation is but a created reflection of the eternal light that proceeds from God, that is, his life-giving Word. This life-giving light that is the eternal Word dispels the darkness of nothingness, for there is in him as God no “nothingness.” The Word too is simply He Who Is. Only in the light of the living Word can the rest of creation receive the life of light, and never will the darkness of nothingness, the tohu and the bohu, overcome the life-giving light that is the Word.18 Moreover, for man to be created in the image and likeness of God is, for John, to be created in the image and likeness of his Word, for he is “the life” that “is the light of men.” We can now grasp as well the full meaning of Proverbs 8:22–31, a passage that has bedeviled theologians since Arius (early fourth century), who employed it as biblical proof that the Son of God was a creature. As John raised the biblical notion of “the word of God” to a new metaphysical level, he similarly appropriated the biblical understanding of “the wisdom of God” and elevated it to a new metaphysical level.19 God “created 18.  Here we might find the principle that existence (esse) ontologically and epistemologically precedes essence (essentia) in that within the first created light that manifests the eternal uncreated Word we behold simply undifferentiated light—light itself. It is a created light that reveals the uncreated light of the Word and so manifests not the essence of some finite being, but a created light that manifests existence itself. Only after manifesting the created light of the uncreated Word does the Word then bring into existence all that is—sun and stars, plants and animals, etc. We can now know what they are, their essence (Adam named the animals), but what is first in the order of knowledge is what is first in the order of metaphysics, knowing not what something is but that something is. It is in first coming to know that something is that we come to know what something is. The “light” of its very existence, then, declares that the Word, the very life of light, is the source of its existence, for it shares in the eternal existence of God, he who simply “IS,” and so whose very essence is simply “To Be” (see Ex 3:14). 19.  Of theological importance, the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke narrate the manner in which Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus (see, e.g., Mt 1:22–23, 2:5–6, 2:15, 2:17–18; Lk 1:26–35, 2:4). In contrast, the Prologue of John primarily focuses on the Wisdom Literature. In doing so, John portrays the coming of Jesus not so much as the fulfillment of the prophetic tradition, but as elevating it to a new level, often to a new ontological level, what was written concerning God’s Word and Wisdom. Thus the Wisdom Literature provided John with the concepts, expressions, and images that allowed him to interpret and articulate more theologically the truth contained within the fulfillment of the ancient prophesies as narrated in Matthew and Luke. What was prophetically fulfilled within the Infancy Narratives is now succinctly expressed doctrinally through the use of the Wisdom Literature. Through their respective use of the prophetic tradition and the Wisdom Literature, there is, then, a corroborative theological interplay between the Infancy Narratives and the Prologue of John. Moreover, as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies enhanced their true prophetic significance, so the enriching of what is revealed within the Wisdom Literature bestowed upon it its inherent scriptural import.

The Prologue

15

me [Wisdom and now the Word] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old,” not in the sense of bringing into existence a creature prior to his creation of all else. Rather, God created his Word/Wisdom in the sense that his first act of creation, “Let there be light,” was the revealing of his eternal Word/Wisdom. “Ages ago, I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth when there were no depths I was brought forth. . . . I (Wisdom and now the Word) was beside him, like a master workman” (Prv 8:22–30). Before the rest of creation came to be, when the dark swirling depths of nothingness still prevailed, God first set up and so brought forth into creation his eternal Word/Wisdom in that God first manifested the life-giving light of his Word/Wisdom, and so this primordial act of creation is “the first of his work, the first of his acts of old.” The “Let there be light” is God’s created revelation of his “master workman” who is “daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.” No longer, then, are wisdom and word merely personified, but they converge into one ontological reality and possess one subjective identity. God’s Word eternally springs forth from God’s Wisdom and so fully possesses God’s Wisdom, containing within himself all divine attributes—intelligence, holiness, goodness, beneficence, and the like (see Wis 7:22–27). These divine attributes, contained and manifested within the first light God created, ultimately account for why everything that God subsequently created through his Word, he who is God’s life of light and his master workman, is very good.20 For John, because the Word/Wisdom became man, and so brought 20.  In accordance with Genesis, because the life-giving light of his Word was good, John would also perceive that God separated the Word from darkness and called the light of his Word “Day.” Darkness may cyclically return daily upon the earth, “Night,” but the life-­giving light of the Word, Day, is the symbolic expectation of the Word’s dispelling, besides the darkness of nothingness, all darkness, that of Satan, sin, and death. This is in keeping with a previously quoted passage from the Book of Wisdom: “For she [wisdom] is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail” (Wis 7:29–30). The morning of “day one” anticipates, then, the glorious light of the everlasting Day when there will be a new heaven and new earth (see Gn 1:4–5). This everlasting day is envisioned in the Book of Revelation. “I saw now the temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light shall the nations walk; . . . and there shall be no night there” (Rv 21:22–27). There is no longer any need for the sun and moon to enlighten creation, for within the new creation it is Lamb, the original light at the dawn of creation, who is now everlasting light of the everlasting Day. The Word being the life of light not only as the first Day of creation but also being the everlasting Day at earth’s consummation coincides with Jesus being the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last (see Rv 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13 as well as Is 44:6 and 48:12).

16

Chapter 1

the life-giving light of salvation, he will delight “in the sons of men”—men who first delighted in him as their creator. As the life-giving light, the Word “de-lights” men because he gives them life. Thus, for John, God’s first act of creation, when the beginning first began, revealed his Word/Wisdom, who was with God and was God before the beginning began, and in so doing displayed the glory of his only begotten Son for the subsequent creation to see. God’s act of creation, the bringing into being all that is not God, is predicated upon his eternal primordial desire to manifest the splendor of his Son, and the splendor of his Son is first witnessed in God creating all things through him who is the Word—he who is the life of light of all. God created all else, particularly human beings, for the singular purpose of seeing the glory of his Son and in so seeing his glory would give him glory. The “de-light” of men is in seeing the Word—their life of light. There is, then, a communion of life and delight—the Word delighting in men to whom he has given the life of light, and men delighting in the Word from whom they have received the life of light. Within the first act of creation, then, we perceive God’s foundational act for establishing the supreme primacy of Jesus as the incarnate Word. John is here setting the theological or revelational stage for what he will soon proclaim. As the Father displayed the glory of his Word/Son within his first act of creation, so he will display the glory of his Word/Son within the Incarnation. Jesus, as the Incarnate Word, will manifest his glory, as the life-giving light, through his faithful obedience to his Father, particularly through his death on the cross. This salvific act, which fully reveals the glory of the Son as the life-giving light, simultaneously is the same act by which he glorifies his Father. As John’s Gospel will later show, because the Father has been glorified in his Son’s sacrificial death, so the Father, by raising him gloriously from the dead, will glorify Jesus, his Son, with Jesus declares to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day, he saw it and was glad” (Jn 8:56). The day that Abraham saw was not only the day upon which the Word/Son became man and so became “the light of the world” providing “the light of life,” but also the last day of Jesus’ coming in glory at the end of time, when all would share fully in his life of light (Jn 8:12). This theme of day and light is also found in Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians and in the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul speaks of Christians “beholding the glory of the Lord” and so “being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18). The author of Hebrews exhorts his readers not to fall into sin but to strive for holiness while it is still “today,” for only by striving “today” will they be able to reach the everlasting “today,” when Jesus gloriously returns, and they will enter into God’s eternal rest, first revealed when God rested on the seventh day, having completed his work of creation (Heb 3:7–4:10).

The Prologue

17

the glory he possessed both from before and within the foundation of the world (see Jn 8:54 and 17:5).21 What we will see throughout the Gospel of John is the mutual glorification of the Father and Son, a mutual glorification that is rooted in their eternal being as Father and Son.22 As the Father eternally glorified his Son in begetting him, and the Son eternally glorified his Father in being begotten, so now within the created realm the Father glorifies his Son, Jesus, and Jesus, his Son, glorifies his Father.23 What eternally plays out “in heaven” will now be historically played out on earth—the mutual glorification of the Father and the Son. Moreover, again as John will demonstrate, only by living in the life that comes from the Word, by abiding in him, can one live in the light, for he is “the life” that is “the light of men.” Then, those who live in him through faith will give him, who is their light, the glory and praise that rightly belongs to him alone and for whom they were created. The whole of John’s Gospel will develop all of the above interrelated thematic truths.24 21.  The Colossian hymn professes this same truth. God the Father “has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son . . . He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:13–17). Paul continues, as will John in his Gospel, by proclaiming that Jesus is not only the first to be manifested in the order of creation, “the first-born of all creation,” but also the first in the order of redemption, “the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent” (Col 1:18–20). Primacy belongs to Jesus alone both as Creator and as Redeemer, and so he is the supreme Lord of all. 22.  Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus prays: “Father glorify you me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made” (Jn 17:5). 23.  This glorification of the Father and the Son is the mutual all-consuming love they share with one another—that is, the Holy Spirit—who is the eternal bond of divine love. 24.  It may appear that, in the above theological interpretation of John’s Prologue, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The problem is that the Gospel of John initiates a theme (say, at point A) and proceeds to develop that theme over the course of his Gospel (at points B, C, and D). In so doing, the reader not only grows in an understanding of the theme—progressing through points A, B, C, and D—but also perceives more clearly the fuller significance of point A because of point B, and then he perceives more clearly point A and B in the light of point C, and so on it goes. There is a chiasmic flow within the whole of John’s Gospel, covering all the various theological themes contained within it. Often these themes are intertwined, which makes for the beauty of the Gospel yet simultaneously makes it frustratingly, but wonderfully, difficult to do justice to the wealth of the revelation encompassed within the Gospel by way of a clear systematic presentation. Such a Gospel could have only been written with the aid of the Holy Spirit, for only he could keep all the themes progressively flowing, often together, simultaneously.

18

Chapter 1

The Life of Light: The Hovering of the Spirit of God Before proceeding to John’s second interest, that of the Word being the incarnate life of light, we must take notice of Genesis’ portrayal of “the Spirit of God” hovering over “the face of the waters.” The Hebrew word ruah can be translated either as “spirit” or “breath.”25 The image is that of a bird hovering over its nestling chicks (see Dt 32:11). When the Spirit of God was circling over the darkened chaotic waters, God spoke his word—“Let there be light.” There is here a twofold interrelated action—the hovering of the Spirit and the speaking of God’s word results in the coming to be of light. In the light of the fullness of revelation, the revealing of the Word and the Holy Spirit, the earliest beginnings of the Christian theological tradition perceived in Genesis the prefigured anticipation of this later fullness. Thus God creates not only through his Word but also through his Spirit.26 Two points are presently at issue. First, the act of bringing forth light by means of God’s word and spirit anticipates, ever so slightly, the full revelation whereby we find that the Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit always acting in communion when performing any act within the finite historical realm. Within the Johannine context, the presence of the Spirit within the act of God speaking his creative word looks to the fullness of the Holy Spirit residing in the Word incarnate, who will always act in communion with the Spirit. Imbued with the Spirit, the Word incarnate will manifest his glory as the Father’s Son. Thus the Spirit resides in the life-giving light that is the Word, and so the gift that 25. The Revised New American Bible (Gastonia, NC: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine / Saint Benedict Press, 2011) translates it as “wind.” Within the Old Testament the expression “the Spirit of the Lord” is closely associated with both “the word of the Lord” and his “wisdom.” Although a full treatment of the Old Testament’s understanding of “spirit” cannot be given here, a few important points need to be made. As seen in Gn 1:2, God’s Spirit/breath gives life (see also, e.g., Gn 2:7, 6:17, 7:15, and 7:22; Ex 37:1–14). The Spirit of God comes upon the prophets, which is especially seen in Ezekiel (see, e.g., Ezek 2:2, 3:12–14, 3:24, 8:3, 11:1, 11:5, 11:24, 37:1, and 43:5). Here we find the close association between “the word of the Lord,” “the wisdom of the Lord,” and “the Spirit of the Lord,” in that, upon receiving the Lord’s spirit, the prophets speak the Lord’s word and so provide God’s life-giving wisdom. The Spirit of the Lord also purifies of sin and makes one holy (see, e.g., Ps 51:10–12; Ezek 36:22–29). The future messianic age will see the full outpouring of the Spirit (see Jl 2:28–29). Thus the Spirit of God expresses God’s creative and dynamic presence within the world and among his people. Like the Lord’s word and wisdom, it finds its unity within the very being of God himself and so expresses God’s creativity and holiness within the historical finite realm. Because the Spirit comes forth from the person of God, it too, like God’s word and wisdom, shares in his personalism. The Spirit of God therefore expresses what is beyond the “natural” and points to what is divine in that it empowers God’s mighty life-giving words and deeds. 26.  Various Fathers of the Church ascribed different creative aspects to the Word and the Spirit, such as the Word brings things into existence as the Spirit concomitantly beautifies them (see Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 5.6.1).

The Prologue

19

the luminous life-giving Word gives is the Spirit. By giving the life-giving light that is himself, the Word incarnate is actually giving that which he possesses by nature—the fullness of the life-giving Spirit that resides within him. Second, in the light of the fullness of revelation, we find in God’s act of creation the first ad extra mission of the Word and of the Spirit that bears upon their processions ad intra. As God the Father creates through the ad extra missions of his Son and Spirit, so must the Father, ad intra, beget/speak forth his Son/Word and breathe forth his Spirit. Moreover, as God creates through the conjoined concomitant action of his Word and Spirit, so also must his Word/Son and his Spirit be conjoined within their concomitant processions from the Father. The Father in the ad intra begetting his Son or in his speaking his Word must simultaneously breathe forth, ad intra, his Spirit if his Word and Spirit are simultaneously to act in unison ad extra. As we will see in the course of our study, integral to John’s understanding of the Trinity, first barely hinted at within Genesis itself, is the notion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist in a perichoretic manner; that is, they exist as who they are only in relationship to one another and so co-­ inhere in one another.27 The Life of Light: Redemption We can now turn to John’s second point concerning the Word being the life that is the light of men—that of the Word not only being the first light of creation, but also the life-giving light that is presently coming into the world. John makes this transition by inserting a prose component within the poetic hymn of the Prologue. “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light” (Jn 1:6–8). In John’s Gospel, Jesus will stress that he was sent by his Father, and this being sent by his Father (and his ultimate return to his Father) reveals that he is the Father’s Son. Not only, however, did the Father send his Son, but he also sent a man—John the Baptist. Although the Prologue does not provide a full historical narrative of John’s birth and ministry (nor, as we will also see in chapter 2, of Jesus’ baptism), yet it does afford its own theological interpretation of John’s birth and ministry. This is in keeping again with one 27.  This will be important in discussing later in this book the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit and the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (see Jn 15:26–27 and 16:12–15).

20

Chapter 1

of my major hermeneutical principles for interpreting John’s Gospel, that is, that it is itself a theological interpretation of the basic Gospel narrative as found within the Synoptic Gospels. In providing historical details surrounding John’s preparatory ministry for the coming of Jesus, the Synoptics demonstrate that John, by fulfilling various Old Testament prophetic passages, was wondrously conceived and divinely sent so as to prepare a way for the Lord. Thus John is not the Messiah, for he has come to preach a baptism of repentance in preparation for the Messiah (the Spirit-anointed one) who will baptize in the Holy Spirit (see Mt 3:1–12 and parallels). Once again, the Prologue makes more explicit the full theological significance of John’s birth and ministry as contained in the various Synoptic accounts. As the Prologue tethered Jesus’ identity to his being God’s eternal Word and not simply to the miraculous manner of his conception as man, and so being God’s Son as in Matthew and particularly Luke, it now perceives John’s ministry, and implicitly his birth, as the unequivocal declaration that the one to whom John bears witness is none other than that same light that is the eternal Word, he who was with God before the beginning and through whom all exists. By inserting a passage concerning the testimony of John the Baptist, the Prologue moves from the eternal realm of the Word’s divine being and his being the life of light through whom all is created to the Word’s entrance, as the life of light, into the created world itself. In so doing, the Prologue shifts the scene from the darkness of nothingness to the darkness of sin and death, and so to the darkness of unbelief. As the Word, as the life-giving light, dispelled the darkness of nothingness, so now, in coming into the world, he will dispel the darkness of sin and the nothingness of death, neither of which can overcome him. John, then, is the first to witness to the presence of the life-giving light of the Word within the sinful, death-prone world of unbelief. His entire ministry was that of testifying to the light, so that when the light did appear “all might believe,” and in so doing be set free from the darkness of sin and the nothingness of death. There is an oddity here, a peculiarity that often goes unnoticed. When one is in the dark, it is difficult to identify the objects contained within the darkness. When there is light, there is no difficulty in seeing one’s surroundings. But one normally does not point out the light that is present for the presence of light is self-evident. It needs no “testimony.” John’s ministry nonetheless was specifically to testify to the light that was present—the presence of the Word incarnate. The need for testifying to the light, which would seem to need no testimony because it is itself light, is twofold. First, the darkness of sin has so clouded the life-giving light of the Word that it cannot be

The Prologue

21

seen. (This becomes evident in what the Prologue will next declare.) Second, the Word, he who is the life of light, has assumed the weakness of human flesh (sarx), and the darkness of this sin-marred flesh obscures the identity of the Word. John’s testimony, then, is to point out that the man who is present, at this particular time and in this particular cultural setting, is the very Word of God, the light that has come into the world—the one sent by the Father. The irony within the Prologue, as throughout the Gospel, is that it is within and through the darkness of the Word’s sin-tainted humanity that the light of the life-giving Word will be seen and the glory of the only begotten Son will be made manifest. This irony situates what will become the great conflict between Jesus and the Jews within John’s Gospel—the struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death, and faith and disbelief. As at creation, however, the dark nothingness of sin and death will not overcome the light of the life-giving Word. The Presence of the True Light: Unreceived and Received The Prologue returns now to the poetic hymn. John the Baptist was sent by God to bear witness to the light, for “the true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not” (Jn 1:9–11). Contrary to what would be presumed, the world knew not the Word even though the Word was ever present “in the world” as the world’s creator. Moreover, the Word came into his very own home, and even his own people, his very family, did not receive him. Why is there such a lack of recognition? John, looking back again to Genesis, is briefly, but strikingly, providing his theology of the Fall. Because of sin, sin committed shortly after the beginning began, the whole of God’s good creation, a world that he created through his life-giving Word, was now disfigured by evil. In communion with the whole humankind, it bore the aftermath of sin—the Garden of Eden was no longer very good.28 Moreover, John is subsuming into the Prologue the entire sinful history of God’s chosen people. Even though God lovingly made numerous covenants with the 28.  Paul takes up this same notion but from an eschatological perspective. “For creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole of creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only creation, but we ourselves groan inwardly as we wait for the adoption of the sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:19–23).

22

Chapter 1

Israelites, beginning with Abraham and reconfirmed and heightened with Moses, in order to separate them from the encircling environment of sin, and so make them his own holy people, the Hebrew people refused to keep these covenants, for they were unfaithful to the one true and holy God. He nonetheless continued to speak his word to them, the Word through whom he chose them, yet they were disobedient to his commands and spurned the prophets in refusing to repent.29 Thus it is not surprising in the end that, when the Word “was coming into the world” that he had created, it knew him not, and when he even came and lived among his Jewish brothers and sisters, they received him not. Darkness once more covered the earth and its shadow veiled the mind of Israel.30 Although the world and Israel did not recognize “the true light that enlightens every man,” nonetheless, “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). Only those who did welcome the true light, the life-giving Word, and who believed in his name would become God’s children. The Prologue has yet to specify his “name,” but when it is revealed, that name itself will manifest why it is that only those who believe in him who bears it can become children of God. The Prologue here is also noting that the Word is the light of “every man” and that all, not simply the Jews, who received him in faith would become children of God. Being God’s children will not depend on one’s nationality. The life-giving light that created the whole human race is now the life-giving light that will transform, through faith, the whole human race—people of every nation. As at creation, these would be “born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:13). As God alone, of his own free will, created man through his Word, so now God alone would re-create man through his Word and in so doing re-create the whole of creation. Thus, as God created men and women in and through his Word, so as 29.  The Gospel of John is frequently seen as anti-Jewish. Such negativity is particularly perceived within Jesus’ contentious confrontations with the Jews, especially with the Jewish leaders. But I believe, and will discuss this at various points, that John has consciously written his Gospel to elicit faith from his contemporary beloved Jewish brethren. Within the various confrontations, John, through Jesus, is attempting to address all of the reasons that the Jews, present and future, hold as to why they do not believe in Jesus. He is endeavoring to demonstrate that their lack of faith is founded upon faulty arguments, often from their not understanding properly their own scriptures—Moses and the prophets. 30.  The darkness of sin culminates in Judas’ betrayal, which will usher in the hour of darkness. John notes that when Judas left the Last Supper, “it was night” (Jn 13:30). But this will become the hour of light because Jesus, through his death and resurrection, will reveal his glory and so once again, as he did at creation, dispel the darkness, a darkness that cannot overcome the life-giving light.

The Prologue

23

to bear the image of his Word as his children, God now re-creates them in and through the same Word and thereby restores them to the likeness of his Word, so that men and women could once more be his children. The Word is not only the life of light as Creator, but he is also the life of light as Savior. As he performed the act of creating, so he will perform the acts of salvation. To be God’s Word, to be the life of light, is not simply, then, “to speak” but more fundamentally “to act,” for only insofar as the Word acts as Creator did all come to be, and only insofar as the Word acts as Savior will all who believe in him be saved. The Word Became Flesh The ever advancing Prologue now arrives at its culmination: “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Word who was with God before the beginning began, and who is therefore God; the Word through whom God created all that is, and who is therefore the life of light; the Word that is presently coming into the world so as to enlighten all men, “and” now that same “Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14).31 That “and” subsumes all that has gone before into the present declaration, and the present declarative affirmation is the simple, but arresting, revelatory confession of the supreme mystery of the Incarnation. To grasp fully this profession of faith, we must carefully examine it not only in itself but also in the light of what precedes it and follows upon it. The Prologue clearly identified the Word as God’s eternal Word, who was with God and so is himself God. Grammatically, this divine “Word” is the subject of the sentence of whom the action of “becoming” is predicated. The end (grammatically, the object) of the Word’s becoming is that of “flesh.” Before defining the verb “became,” we must first explain the meaning of “flesh.” The term “flesh” (sarx), unlike the neutral physiological term “body” (soma), designates all that pertains to being human in all of its weakness and vulnerability. Thus the term “flesh” is not simply a synonym for “man” but rather denotes a human life, a manner of being man, that is lived within an historical existential milieu exposed to evil, suffering, and death.32 John here 31.  The incarnational event looks back to the Book of Wisdom. “For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone, your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed” (Wis 18:14–15). 32.  This understanding of “flesh” is in keeping with the notion that God created man out of clay, and, being formed out of dust, he will return, having sinned, to dust (see Gn 2:7, 3:19, and 6:3; Jb 11:9 and 34:15; Ps 90:3 and 103:14; Sir 10:9–11; and Is 40:6). Paul develops this understanding by stating that because one man “sinned death spread to all men” (Rom 5:12; see also 1 Cor 15:21).

24

Chapter 1

is again succinctly providing his clear theological assessment, and so his theological commentary, of Luke’s Infancy Narrative. Luke traced Jesus’ ancestry back to sinful Adam, thereby designating that he partakes of Adam’s sinful flesh, and so for John the term “flesh” denotes a humanity that also bears the scars, the birthmark, of Adam’s sin. The Prologue states that this divine Word “became” this type of man—a man of Adam’s flesh.33 Moreover, as with Luke, and to a certain extent with Matthew, the Prologue similarly places within the term “flesh” all that God has revealed to those who partake of Adam’s “flesh,” as well as the whole of humankind’s, and particularly Israel’s, entire sinful history, despite God’s revelation. The Word, then, literally embodies, en-sarxes, the whole human saga. For John, this is absolutely essential and proper. Moreover, as the Word incarnate, his “flesh” (humanity) embraces all of God’s previously revelatory acts and words. Likewise, the Word, as Creator, was the divine progenitor of “the good beginning,” a “beginning” that has now become sinful and subject to death, and, having created all things good at the beginning, the Word has now assumed, en-sarxed, all the evil that subsequently followed upon that beginning so as to make a new good beginning. The Word, who eternally existed prior to the beginning, will ultimately be, as John’s Gospel will declare, “the beginning’s” end, for all who believe in him, in the end, will be made forever new in communion with him. John’s Prologue, in accordance with Luke’s genealogy, just as Adam, the created son of God, was first created by the Word/Son of God, so the Word/Son of God, in assuming Adam’s sinful flesh, will now restore 33.  John’s use of the term sarx could also be seen as an anti-Docetic statement. The Docetists (late first and early second centuries) claimed that, because Jesus was God, he could not have actually taken on material flesh, especially sinful flesh, since such an act would be unbecoming of an all-holy God. This historical analysis may be true, but I believe that John would have used the term sarx regardless of the Docetists. He was concerned with a deeper and broader theological issue—that of the Word assuming sinful flesh in order that sinful flesh might be saved through and in him. Within this profounder context, he may have also rebuffed the Docetists. The same may be said of 1 Jn 4:2 and 2 Jn 7, where John emphasizes that authentic faith consists in acknowledging that Jesus Christ “has come in the flesh (sarx).” Paul states that “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (sarkos) and for flesh, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3; see also Phil 2:7). Also, for Paul, the great mystery of our faith is that “He [God] was manifested in the flesh (sarki), vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (1 Tm 3:16). The Letter to the Hebrews declares that “since therefore the children share in flesh (sarkos) and blood, he himself [Jesus] likewise partook of the same nature” (Heb 2:14). For a more complete study of the importance of Jesus possessing the same sinful nature as Adam, see T. G. Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993).

The Prologue

25

Adam’s humanity and that of his progeny. This restoration is equally an elevation, for the incarnate Word/Son will elevate the fallen son of God (Adam) to the rank of being an adopted son of God. He will do this by incorporating, en-sarxing, Adam’s race into his glorified flesh and in so doing will share with it his divine Sonship. The primacy of the Word/Son lies in his being the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, both as God and as man. What is now of decisive importance is to discern the Johannine understanding of the word “became.” In what manner did the Word, who is God, “become” flesh, a son of Adam? My previous volume argued, within Luke’s Infancy Narrative, that to properly understand who Jesus is, it was crucial to determine the nature of the act by which he was conceived—the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit. The ascertaining of this act became the hermeneutical key for properly perceiving the doctrinal content contained in Luke’s infancy narrative.34 Here within the Prologue, the issue is similar. What is the nature of this incarnational act—the “becoming”—such that we can discern what John means when he declares that “the Word became flesh”? What kind of act is this act of “becoming”? To know what “became” means is the hermeneutical key for doctrinally understanding the proper incarnational causal relationship between “the Word” and “flesh.” As we also saw when previously examining the Infancy Narratives, one is able to discern the nature of a causal act by discerning the nature of its concluding causal effect. The Prologue, after stating that “the Word became flesh,” immediately adds “and dwelt among us”—literally, “and pitched his tent/tabernacle among us” or “and tabernacled among us.” The theological significance of alluding to the tent of meeting, and ultimately to the temple, will be examined shortly. Presently emphasis is directed simply on how “dwelt/pitch his tent/tabernacle” defines the nature of the “becoming.” The causal effect of the “becoming” is the Word dwelling or tabernacling among us, and the manner in which the Word pitched his tent among us is as man—in the flesh. Thus for the Word to “become” flesh means that the Word “came to be” man, for it is as man that he dwells, exists/tabernacles, in our midst. The Johannine notion of “become” expresses, then, the incarnational causal act by which the Word “comes to exist” as man. This “becoming,” this “coming to exist” or “coming to be,” denotes the Word’s new manner of existence in that he existed as God from all eternity, but now, in “coming to be” man, newly “exists” as man. This understanding of the notion of “become” is corroborated in what immediately follows. Because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, 34. See JBJ 1:7–21.

26

Chapter 1

“we have beheld his glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). (The word order of the translation is slightly altered.) What is first beheld is the glory of the Word, who upon taking on flesh now dwells in our midst as man. This “beholding” contains a threefold interrelated incarnational truth that further defines and clarifies the Johannine incarnational “become.” First, what is beheld is none other than the full, unmitigated divine glory of the Word; he who exists fully as God and so the eternal life of light. Second, the manner in which this divine glory is manifested, and so beheld, is in and through the flesh, that is, the genuine fully human flesh of the fully divine Word. Third, if in beholding the flesh we actually behold the glory of the Word, then the terminus of the Word becoming flesh must result in the Word actually existing in that manner, in the flesh as man. Thus the “becoming” must be an ontological incarnational “becoming,” for only if the Word comes to exist as man would we be able, in beholding that flesh, to actually behold the glory of the Word. Again, to declare that “the Word became flesh” means that the Word came to exist as man. The above incarnational conception of “become” as “come to exist” likewise guarantees that in this incarnational “becoming” neither the Word nor what he becomes—man—are altered. In the “becoming,” there is no alteration or change to the Word’s personal divine integrity as the Word because what newly accrues to him does not pertain to his divine manner of existence as God but to his new manner of existence as man. If the Word did change in “becoming” man, it would no longer be the fully divine Word who is man. As God, the Word remains immutably himself. Similarly, since the “becoming” is a “coming to be” man, the humanity of the Word is not altered since that is the manner in which he has newly come to be, fully man. If either or both the Word or his manhood were altered so as to forfeit their integrity in the “becoming,” the causal result would be that it is neither the Word who is man nor man that the Word is. “Become” denotes neither an alteration of the Word nor an alteration of his humanity, but rather denotes the act by which the Word, in the fullness of his divinity, newly comes to exist as an authentic man, possessing all that pertains to being fully human. Of the utmost importance, then, is the recognition that the context in which the word “become” is employed within the Prologue gives to it a conceptual meaning that it never previously possessed nor will ever possess again. Except in this unique instance, “become” always denotes a change within the one undergoing the “becoming.” For example, the woman becomes a wife upon marrying a man and vice versa. Or the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, thus ceasing to be a caterpillar. The incarnational notion of “become”

The Prologue

27

is ontologically singular in that neither the Word nor his flesh is altered and changed. Never before has “become” designated the causal act whereby a being with a specific personal identity, that of the Word, “comes to exist” in a different manner so as simultaneously to be personally identified as newly existing in that manner, as man. The “becoming” is such that it terminates in a twofold manner of existence, that of being God and that of being man. Equally, the “becoming” is such that the personal identity of the one who exists in this twofold manner, he who exists as God and as man, is that of the one and the same Word.35 The Prologue continues by deepening the significance of what has just been proclaimed in the Word becoming flesh. In beholding the glory of the Word manifested in and through his existence as man, we likewise behold “the glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). The Prologue here identifies God’s Word with the Father’s Son, for to behold the glory of the Incarnate Word is to behold the glory of the Father’s only begotten Son. Similar to that of the Word, the beholding of the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father is predicated upon the Son’s existence as man, because only in his so existing could the glory that is beheld be recognized as the glory belonging to the only Son from the Father. If the actual Father’s Son did not truly become man and so exist as an authentic human being, and so dwell in our midst, we would not behold the fleshly 35. The early church struggled to define properly the incarnational notion of “become.” The Docetists denied that because the Logos was truly God he could “become” man, for to “become” man would undermine his true divinity. Arius and his followers argued the opposite. Since the Logos did “become” man, he could not be truly God, for God cannot change, as “become” seemed to demand. Nestorius believed that Jesus was truly God and truly man, but since “become” demands change in both the divinity and the humanity, the Logos simply dwelt in a man, thus preserving the integrity of both the divinity and the humanity. Confronted by these erroneous notions of “become,” the Fathers came to realize that “become” means neither “change into” nor “dwelt within.” Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria were the principal theologians who came to realize that when the Prologue declared that the Word became flesh, it was employing the concept of “become” in a new and singular manner. They realized that “become” meant “come to exist” or “come to be,” thus allowing for the ontological union between the Logos and his humanity as well as preserving the integrity of each. The Creed of the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the incarnational “becoming” in accordance with their understanding. For historical and systematic studies of this issue concerning the incarnational notion of “become,” see my Does God Change? The Word’s Becoming in the Incarnation (Still River, MA: St. Bede’s, 1984), ixx-100; Jesus the Christ (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2003), 49–80 [reprint, Ex Fontibus, 2017]; Does God Suffer? (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 172– 213; and “Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation,” in Jesus: Essays in Christology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2014), 90–145.

28

Chapter 1

manifestation of the glory of the Son. We would therefore be unable to conclude that what we beheld was indeed the glory of the Word, the glory of only begotten Son from the Father. Once again, we perceive the importance of the singular incarnational understanding of the concept of “become”; namely, that of meaning “come to exist” or “come to be.”36 Before examining the phrase “full of grace and truth,” we must return to and so take up the fuller theological meaning of the phrase that the Word has in becoming man, dwelt or tabernacled among us, as in pitching his tent. And Tabernacled among Us Thus far John has placed the Word within the eternal divine life of God, and in so doing he proclaimed that God created all through his Word. In taking on the flesh of Adam’s sinful race, the Word came into the world and even dwelt among his own people, but neither the world nor his people received nor knew him. Significantly, in stating that the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us so that his glory may be seen, the glory of the only begotten Son, John has now explicitly placed the Incarnation within the entire covenantal history of the Jewish people. There are multiple Old Testament allusions here. When Moses went up the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments, a cloud covered the mountain. “The glory (chabod) of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai,” and “the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel” (Ex 24:15–17). Upon making the covenant with Israel, YHWH commanded 36.  This Johannine understanding of “become” is supported in the First Letter of John. The epistle begins: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 1–3). In many ways, this is a condensed rendition of the Prologue. John is proclaiming that he who existed with the Father before the beginning began is the same one whom we have heard, seen, looked upon, and touched. Thus this one is the Father’s Son who became flesh, for only if he came to exist as man could we have literally heard, seen, and touched him—he who is the word of life. This life was made manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, the one anointed with the Father’s Spirit. To hear, see, and touch the man Jesus, then, is to hear, see, and touch the Son of the Father, the Father’s eternal Word. Moreover, John in his proclamation of the Incarnation wishes to elicit faith in his readers, for only then will they have fellowship with the church, a fellowship that is in communion with the Father and with Jesus Christ, his Son. Such faith will make John’s joy and the readers’ joy complete (see 1 Jn 1:4).

The Prologue

29

Moses to have the people “make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst” (Ex 25:8; see also Nm 35:34). This sanctuary consisted of the tent of meeting and the Ark of the Covenant. When Moses had carried out what the Lord commanded, “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud abode upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:34–35). Similarly, when Solomon completed the Temple, God abided there in all his glory (see 1 Kgs 8:10–11 and 27). “When Solomon had ended this prayer [of dedication], fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple” (2 Chr 7:1). YHWH’s abiding presence among his people, a presence manifested in his glory, is predicated upon his having made a covenant with the Israelites. Yet to behold the glory of the all-holy God filled the Israelites not only with wonder and awe, but also with fear and dread, for to abide in the Lord’s presence and to gaze upon his awesome glory occasioned wondrous alarm. The very covenantal immanence of the utterly transcendent God simultaneously precipitated rejoicing as well as unease.37 Nonetheless, God’s glorious presence as manifested in the tent of meeting and in the Ark of the Covenant, and later within the Temple, assured the Israelites of God’s loving faithfulness and beneficence. For John, this notion of the Lord’s glorious abiding covenantal presence within the tent and later in the Temple is now, once again, elevated in an unprecedented manner, not simply in degree but in kind. The tent or Temple in which God now tabernacles is his own flesh (sarx), and to behold the flesh of the Word is to behold the very glory of the only begotten Son.38 God was present within the tent and the Temple, yet the manner in which he was present did not manifest the fullness of who he is as God. Now the Word is ontologically present as he is in himself as God, for the divine Word has come to exist as an authentic man. In becoming man, the Word has actually pitched his tent among us, that is, in, with, and through his 37.  Although “the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face,” when Moses asked the Lord to reveal his glory to him, the Lord replied, “You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33:17–23; see Sir 45:5). Similarly, when Isaiah saw the thrice-holy Lord in all of his glory in the temple, he exclaimed, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Is 6:1–5). 38.  John’s Gospel will shortly confirm this when Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John parenthetically adds, “But he spoke of the temple of his body” (Jn 2:19–21).

30

Chapter 1

own humanity.39 Although the glory of the Word/Son, in becoming man, is now seen and so will engender awe and wonder, it will not provoke fear and dread as it did among the Israelites of old, nor is it shrouded within the darkness of a cloud, for it will shine forth from within and through the lowliness of sarx.40 Moreover, since the tent or the Temple in which God dwells was the result of the Lord’s covenant with his people, veiled within this proclamation of the Incarnation is the notion that this singular presence of God existing in flesh will now issue forth a new covenant—in keeping with this new and unparalleled manner of his presence. The Word, who was with God and is God, will enact through his humanity a covenant whereby the Israelites and all of humankind cannot abide with God and so see his glory in a radically novel and consummate manner.41 Likewise, while the Prologue declares that all was created through the Word and that all human beings were created in his likeness, and while the Word assumed the sinful flesh of Adam, the progenitor of the whole human 39.  This can be seen as John’s theological explanation of what is declared in Matthew’s Gospel. The conception of Mary’s son by the Holy Spirit fulfills what was spoken by the prophet. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel [which means ‘God with us’]” (Mt 1:20–23 quoting Is 7:14). Because the Word became flesh, God, in the fullness of his ontologically divine reality, actually dwells with us ontologically as man. For John, this is the definitive expression of God being with us. 40.  The Letter to the Hebrews expresses this transformation. The author explains to his readers that they are no longer approaching what is fearful—“a blazing fire, and darkness and gloom, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further message be spoken to them.” So terrifying was this that even Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” Rather, because Jesus is “the mediator of a new covenant,” they (the readers) “have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb 12:18–24). Interestingly, when the Israelites broke the covenant by worshipping a gold calf, Moses returned to Mt. Sinai to once more receive the two stone tablets. Upon his return, “Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God and when Aaron and the people saw Moses, behold the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him” (Ex 34:29–30). Having been in the presence of the Lord, Moses assumed the glory of the Lord. For John, since the Word assumed our mortal flesh, no one was afraid to approach him. Nonetheless, for John, the glory of Jesus is also shown through his flesh/skin, but now through the weakness of that flesh/sarx. Moreover, this shining forth of the glory of the only Son of the Father through and in his flesh is, for John, the true transfiguration of Jesus—the weakness of flesh is itself his glory and the acts he performs in the flesh display his glory. 41.  That the Incarnation occasions a new covenant is one of the major themes within the Letter to the Hebrews. Because God has now spoken to us through his Son, who is greater than Moses and so a greater high priest, one after the order of Melchizedek, “this makes Christ the surety of a better covenant” (Heb 7:22; see also 8:6–13, 9:15–22, 12:24, and 13:30).

The Prologue

31

race, John, in declaring that the Word tabernacled among us, is clearly professing that the Word has assumed Jewish flesh. Only God dwelt among the Jews, the nation he first covenanted to himself through their father Abraham. The incarnate Word will save the whole of Adam’s race, and he will make a new covenant with the whole humankind, yet he will do so as a Jew, as a son of Abraham. Within the concept “dwelt/tabernacled/pitched his tent” resides a declaration of the singular preeminence of the Jewish people as YHWH’s own peculiar people that he has taken as his own possession (see Dt 7:6–11; 26:16–19). Thus, in taking on Jewish flesh, the Word’s glory is now seen by his own people. “Arise, shine; for your [Israel’s] light has come, and the glory of the Lord has arisen upon you,” and while darkness covers other nations, “his glory will be seen upon you.” Because of this, “nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Is 60:1–3).42 For John, such an understanding now renders definitive meaning to what Wisdom declared of herself in ancient times. I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I have made the circuit of the vault of heaven and have walked in the depths of the abyss. In the waves of the sea, in the whole earth, and in every people and nation I have gotten a possession. Among all these I sought a resting place; I sought in whose territory I might lodge. Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.” From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist. In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion. In the beloved city likewise he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my dominion. So I took root in an honoured people, in the portion of the Lord, who is their inheritance. (Sir 24:1–12) The Prologue recognizes that God created his Wisdom/Word from before the beginning began, and thus from all eternity, for she came forth from the 42.  Here we perceive an allusion to Matthew’s narrative of the magi. They were guided to Jerusalem by the light of a star in the search of the newborn Jewish king. Because the glory of the Lord will be in the midst of his people, all nations, Isaiah further declares, will come bringing “gold, frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord.” Therefore “I [the Lord] will glorify my glorious house” (Is 60:4–7).

32

Chapter 1

mouth of God not as a personification of his wisdom but as an actual divine person who embodies the fullness of his wisdom. As the one through whom God created all, she surveyed all of creation from the highest mountains to the depths of the sea. Though all nations were Wisdom’s possession, God, as now recognized by John, actually did command his Wisdom/Word to pitch her tent among Israel by ontologically becoming a Jew, and in so doing tabernacled in her very person within human flesh, rooting herself among God’s chosen. Having ministered to God, she will ultimately find rest, and in Jerusalem she will possess an everlasting dominion, for she will inherit every people and nations for all ages. This entire Jewish covenantal emphasis climaxes in the phrase “full of grace and truth.” Full of Grace and Truth The Word who became flesh and so tabernacled among us, thus allowing us to behold his glory, the glory of the only Son from the Father, “full of grace and truth.” “Grace” and “truth” reference back to God’s covenantal attributes. On Mt. Sinai, when the Lord appeared before Moses, giving for the second time the two stone tablets, he declared, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (hesed) [also translated grace, kindness, and mercy] and faithfulness” (Ex 34:5–6; see 20:6). Hesed is that specific covenantal attribute peculiar to God—his kindness, faithfulness, mercy, and grace. Because of the Lord’s steadfast love for David, he will establish his throne forever (see 2 Sm 7:15; 1 Kgs 3:6). Psalm 89 sings of the Lord’s steadfast love through which he established his covenant and made his unfailing promises to David. “I will make him [David] the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his line forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.” Even if David’s children sin, “I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness” (Ps 89:27–29, 89:33). Thus the Prologue declares that the incarnate Son possesses not only the fullness of God’s covenantal truth, being God’s very Word, but also the fullness of YHWH’s steadfast love and kindness. Moreover, that God’s incarnate Word/Son possesses the fullness of such covenantal virtues corroborates the notion that he will establish a new covenant, one that exceeds the covenant made with Moses, wherein these divine virtues will abundantly abound. This new covenant will be the everlasting covenantal kingdom promised to David. The Word who became flesh and who is the Father’s only begotten

The Prologue

33

Son is therefore not only the son of Adam and the son of Abraham but also the son of David, and as such he will be declared King of the Jews (see Jn 19:19).43 The Word, then, en-sarxes, subsumes within his very flesh, the whole of human history and the whole covenantal history of Israel. John, in declaring that the Word/Son incarnate possesses the fullness of grace and truth and so embodies the entire covenantal history of Israel and the promises made to David, is offering, once again, his theological interpretation of Luke’s Infancy Narrative. There the angel Gabriel announced that the son to be born of Mary would inherit “the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32–33). John, unlike the Synoptics, does not accentuate Jesus as the one who establishes the kingdom of God and in so doing becomes the kingdom’s king.44 What he does instead, through the phrase “full of grace and truth,” is emphatically declare that the Word/Son incarnate embodies, in his very person, the fullness of God’s coming kingdom, a kingdom that will commence upon his death and find its everlasting living expression in his own resurrection. For John, the Incarnation is itself the foundational living reality of the kingdom, for to live in God’s kingdom, to live in the Father’s presence, to behold the glory of YHWH, is to abide in the Word incarnate, the Word who dwelt among us as man and continues to do with us as the risen Lord of glory. This is why John will, throughout his Gospel, emphasize the importance of faith in the Incarnate Word, for faith is the act that brings one into living communion with him and so enables us to abide with his Father—this is, for John, the full theological content of what it means to live in God’s kingdom.45 This abiding with the Father necessitates that we next examine the phrase “the only Son from the Father.” The Only Son from the Father The Prologue declares that because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, we are able to behold his glory, that is, the glory of the only begotten Son 43.  Paul professes that he preaches the “gospel of God,” which concerns his Son, “who was descended from David according to the flesh (sarka)” (Rom 1:3). 44.  While John does not emphasize the Kingdom of God, he does highlight, especially within his Passion Narrative, that Jesus is a king (see, e.g., Jn 6:15 and 18:36). 45.  John refers to “the kingdom of God” only twice within his Gospel. Both are in relation to being born again through baptism—through water and the Holy Spirit (see Jn 3:3 and 3:5). To be born again through the Holy Spirit is to be born anew in Christ, he who embodies the kingdom, for he is the source of the Holy Spirit and so the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit (see Jn 1:33–34).

34

Chapter 1

from the Father. Pointedly, the Son is declared to be from the Father and not simply Son of the Father. This asserts a twofold truth. First, “the Son” is uniquely the Son, for he is “the only begotten Son from the Father,” and thus integral to his divine existence and singular identity as Son is his eternal ontological dependence upon the Father, his being “from the Father.” The Word is with God because he is the Son from the Father, and so as Word/ Son is God. Thus he is “Son” as to his manner of existence and not simply after the manner of a privilege or honor bestowed upon him. He is the only Son “of” God (the Father) because he is the “only begotten from the Father.” Second, being “the only begotten Son from the Father” accounts not only for his unique ontological divine identity as Son but also for the Father’s singular ontological identity as “Father.” The Father is Father because from him comes his only begotten Son. To be “the Father” denotes the act by which the Son is “from” him as Son and so the act that constitutes his being the Father. As the Son’s ontological identity is dependent upon his being from the Father, so the Father’s ontological identity is dependent upon his being the active principle of his Son’s existence. The ontological identity of “the Father” and “the Son” is thus predicated upon their ontological relationship, a relationship that is not only ontologically constitutive of the Father being the Father and the Son being the Son but also of their being the one God. What the one God is is the eternal dynamic ontological communion of the Father being the Father of the Son and the Son being the Son from the Father. Such an understanding validates what the Prologue states at its onset concerning the Word. The Word existed before the beginning began because “the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Equally, the Son is God because he is eternally from the Father, and thus to see the glory of the Word manifested in and through his flesh is to see the glory “as of the only Son from the Father.” Moreover, then, to behold the human fleshly manifestation of the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father is to behold simultaneously the fleshly manifestation of the glory of the Father, since the Son is from the Father. This communion of glory again testifies that, while possessing distinct identities, the Father and the Son are ontologically one. The Prologue, in proclaiming the doctrine of the Incarnation, has concurrently proclaimed the doctrine of the Trinity.46 46.  “The glory” manifested by the Word/Son could be interpreted as the Holy Spirit, and thus the glory that the Father and Son share in common as the one God. But this may be reading too much into the text. The presence of the Holy Spirit will be seen shortly in Jesus being the Christ and within John’s narrative of Jesus’ baptism. There is presently a more important issue that can be noted here. Although I have been stressing the ontological nature of the term “from,” hidden within this ontological under-

The Prologue

35

John Bore Witness Having declared that the incarnate Word/Son is full of grace and truth, John once again inserts a reference to John the Baptist. “John bore witness to him, and cried, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me”’” (Jn 1:15). Previously, the Prologue spoke of the “man” John, who, though he was not the light, bore witness to the light so that all might believe (see Jn 1:6–9). Again, the Prologue has John bearing witness. Significantly, the Prologue has John crying out, an allusion to Isaiah 40:3: “A voice cries: In the wilderness prepare a way for the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”47 This intimation intensifies what John says—“He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.” John is preparing for the coming of the Lord God, the divine life-giving light that is coming into the world, and the reason that he who is coming after him ranks before him is precisely because, as the Lord God, he eternally existed before him. The Baptist’s witness is so important that John, at the very onset of his Gospel, has him bearing testimony to the incarnate Word’s divinity and thus that he is the only Son from the Father. As will become evident throughout the whole of John’s Gospel, “testimony” or “witness” will be a contentious issue. The Jews will demand proper testimony so as to believe that Jesus is from the Father, and the testimony that Jesus offers will always be denied.48 However, those who do believe the “testimony,” of which John’s Gospel is itself a witness, will have eternal life (see Jn 20:30–31). standing is also the economic understanding of “from.” One of the principal issues, if not the overriding question, within John’s Gospel is, Where is Jesus from? This question of where is Jesus “from” is in tandem with his being “sent.” The Son has been sent from the Father into the world because he is eternally from the Father as Son. The Jews refuse to believe Jesus is the eternal Son from the Father, in both senses of the term, and so they refuse to believe he is the one whom the Father sent into the world. This is also why the Jews do not know where he is going—back to the Father from whom he came, eternally and within the economy of salvation. This is also in keeping with his coming to his own and his own received him not (see, e.g., Jn 6:46, 7:25–29, and 8:14–19). Here also we perceive John ardently attempting to address his contemporary and future Jewish readers. He wants them to see that while the Father and the Son each possess unique identities, they are the one God. Moreover, he wants them to see that as the Son is eternally from the Father, so also as the “sent” Son, he is from the Father. 47.  In Jn 1:30, John will actually quote this passage. Also in Jn 1:30, John actually says what the Prologue says he will say. 48.  See Jn 3:11–12, 3:32–33, 5:30–40, 8:17–18, 15:26–27, and 21:24. The issue of “testimony” is also linked with the above noted issue of where Jesus is from. There are multiple sources of testimony—Scripture, John the Baptist, Jesus’ works, and ultimately his Father—as to where Jesus is from, yet that testimony is repudiated (see Jn 5:30–40).

36

Chapter 1

Grace and Truth Came through Jesus Christ The Prologue, having declared that the Word/Son incarnate possesses the fullness of “grace and truth,” next exclaims that “from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” The rationale is that although “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:16–17). In beholding the glory of the Word/Son, he who tabernacles among us as man, we perceive him, who literally embodies all grace and truth, and from that divine fullness we have all received. The phrase “grace upon grace” could be interpreted in a least two different ways. Since “grace” is that divine covenantal virtue of steadfast love or kindness, John could be saying that the grace manifested in the first covenant has now found its fullest expression within the Incarnation where God’s Word/Son is fully present and so bears with him and in him the fullness of God’s covenantal steadfast kindness. Or the phrase could mean that, since the Word/Son is incarnate, grace is being poured out in an ever increasing manner—one grace continually following upon a previous grace. Either interpretation bears the notion that because of the Incarnation, there is now a copious abundance of God’s everlasting steadfast love. John provides the reason for this new wealth of grace. “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” In one sense the law itself was a grace, for it was the fruit of God’s covenant with Moses. God had graced the Israelites with those laws and ordinances by which, if they were obedient to them, could live a holy life as God’s covenanted people. The law became their undoing, however, for Israel’s history is a chronicle of disobedience and so a record of sin. The law became their judge and so their condemnation.49 In contrast, with the coming of the Word/Son in the flesh, the fullness of divine truth is now present as well as the empowering grace to live a holy life after the manner of God himself.50 Thus the abundance of grace and fullness of truth testifies to the unique source from which it comes, the divine Word/Son existing as man. What is intriguing, as well as significant, is that it is only at this juncture, at the very end of the Prologue, that we learn to whom all of the above is predicated. Until now we did not know his name. Earlier, we observed that the Prologue declares that to everyone who “believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). Likewise, in the Word 49.  Paul stresses that the Law, while a grace, is also what judges the Jews. But justifying grace comes through Jesus Christ. See Rom 2:17–29, 3:21–26, and Gal 2:15–3:14. 50.  Jesus will tell the Jews that the truth will set them free and that he, as the Son, will make them free indeed (see Jn 8:31–36).

The Prologue

37

becoming flesh and dwelling among us, “we have beheld his glory, glory as the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). John the Baptist speaks of he who ranks ahead of him because “he was before me” (Jn 1:15). Even verse 16 speaks of his fullness, from whom we have received grace upon grace. Yet who this “he” is—who is the Word incarnate and so possesses the glory of the only Son from the Father, and thus embodies the fullness of grace and truth—remained, until now, a mystery. The “naming” of this person, the revelation of his identity, is the cumulative and climatic end of all that was previously predicated of him within the Prologue.51 The Prologue finds its historical locus, its living earthly reality, in the person named Jesus Christ. The eternal divine Word, through whom God created all that exists, the life of light, has now become flesh. We can now behold the in-fleshed glory of the only begotten Son from the Father. It is he who possesses the fullness of grace and truth, and his name is Jesus Christ.52 That this historical man’s name is “Jesus” informs us, as it did within the Synoptic Gospels that he, as the Word of God and the only Son from the Father, is YHWH-Saves, thus emphatically designating and so strikingly reaffirming that, within the context of the entire Prologue, this man is indeed God. Moreover, the Prologue, again as within the Synoptic Gospels, is intimating his divine mission—that of being the Savior.53 Likewise, and again as in the Synoptics, the man Jesus equally bears the name “Christ.”54 In our earlier examination of the relationship between the opening verses of Genesis and those of the Prologue, we noted that when God created by speaking his word, 51.  Interestingly, John employs the same literary and theological strategy in his First Letter. Only after he informs us of what was from the beginning—what we have heard, seen, and touched; he in whom we have eternal life and who the Father revealed; he in whom we have common fellow with the Father—does John inform us of his name, the Father’s Son “Jesus Christ” (see 1 Jn 1–4). Both in the Prologue and at the onset of his First Letter, John progressively intensifies the theological significance of Jesus by first emphasizing his salvific importance, and then only providing the name of him who embodies and enacts all of these marvelous saving truths. 52.  As Moses was a historical person through whom the law was given, so Jesus Christ is a historical person through whom grace and truth are given. Historicity is important for John. When it comes to Jesus, as the Word incarnate and so the Father’s Son, we are not dealing with myth. 53.  In Matthew’s Gospel the angel tells Joseph in a dream that Mary will bear a son conceived by the Holy Spirit, “and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:2–21). 54.  Matthew begins his Gospel, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Mt 1:1). Mark simply states, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” (Mk 1:1). For Luke, Jesus assumed the title Christ precisely because it was by the Holy Spirit that he was conceived and thus from his very conception was the anointed one of God (see Lk 1:35). For a fuller consideration of this understanding, see JBJ 1, chaps. 1–3.

38

Chapter 1

“the Spirit of God” simultaneously hovered over the waters. This suggested, ever so slightly, that God’s word and spirit were intimately related, for God acted through both, thus implying that both acted together. This association in turn intimated that, for John, God’s eternal Word and God’s eternal Spirit shared an eternal relationship. In naming the incarnate Word/Son as Jesus Christ, we now find John explicitly stating that Jesus, as the only Son from the Father, possesses the Holy Spirit in a singular and definitive manner. The name Christ, God’s anointed Messiah, is intrinsically conjoined to Jesus’ historical persona—to his very identity as Jesus. To be Jesus, YHWH-Saves, necessitates that he be the Christ. There is, then, a living ontological communion between Jesus being the incarnate Word, the Son from the Father, and his possessing from within himself the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ divine anointing does not come to him from without but rises up from within his very being as the Father’s Word and Son, and he therefore possesses, by his very nature of being the Son, the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. The fullness of grace and truth, the grace upon grace, of which we have received is predicated upon Jesus being the Spirit-filled Christ, for it is the Spirit himself who is the Spirit of grace and truth.55 Only the Son Reveals the Father John concludes his Prologue by stating, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18).56 Being God, only the Son has seen God the Father, and so only the Son, as God’s Word, knows the Father perfectly for he is, as Son, the perfect image of the Father. Moreover, to be the Father’s Son is to reside within the Father’s bosom, to live within the very heart of the Father. Thus the term “bosom” accentuates the depth of the affectionate loving communion found in the previous term “with.” For the Word to be with God before the beginning began connotes that the Word eternally sprang forth from and abides within God’s very bosom as the Father’s only begotten beloved Son. The end, then, for which the Word became flesh, is to make known the 55.  This will become more clearly expressed when John’s Gospel treats of Jesus’ baptism and his ability to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus will later speak of himself and his Father sending the Spirit of truth (see Jn 14:17, 15:26–27, and 16:12–15). 56.  Based on the earliest manuscripts, a better translation for “the only Son” could be “the only begotten God” (monogenes theos), which designates the Son as “the only begotten” (monogenes) and so distinct from the Father, as well as his being truly God (theos), equal in divinity to the Father. The Revised New American Bible translates it as “No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father side, has revealed him.”

The Prologue

39

Father.57 Only the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, possessing fully the Father’s Spirit, the fullness of grace and truth, is able to make his Father known. The Prologue’s last proclamation is therefore both a final declaration of the Incarnation and an initial declaration of the Trinity. To know rightly who the historical man Jesus is is to know the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son.58 Moreover, for John, Jesus, as YHWH-Saves, empowers those who believe in his name to become children of God, for only he possesses, as the Christ, the Spirit by which the faithful come to abide with him in the bosom of his Father. As John’s Gospel will clearly manifest, to abide with the Father in the Son, Jesus, through the Holy Spirit is the quintessence of salvation, the full sense of living in God’s kingdom, the abundant new life of being born again into eternal life (see Jn 3:1–15). Conclusion By way of conclusion, I want to address a number of topics that summarize both what we have theologically ascertained from our examination of John’s Prologue as well as what the Gospel narrative will theologically develop in the light of the Prologue’s proclamation. The Prologue and the Infancy Narratives First, there is the matter of the Prologue’s relationship with Matthew’s and particularly Luke’s Infancy Narratives. As was noted in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, the Infancy Narratives prophetically speak of what will be revealed in the course of Jesus’ life and found within the body of their respective Gospels—the ever increasing revelation of Jesus as the Father’s Son and so his becoming the Savior of the world and the Lord of God’s heavenly kingdom. In contrast, the Prologue of John speaks in terms of what was always the case—the eternal Word was always with God and so was God, or what was already accomplished through him—the creation of all that is. Moreover, he came into the world and to his own people, yet they neither knew nor received him. To those who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God. Lastly, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, 57.  The Greek word for “know” is exegeomai, from which we acquire the English word “exegete.” The Son, as the Father’s Word, is the preeminent exegete of the Father. He correctly interprets Israel’s Scriptures and fully reveals the Father. 58.  We also saw with our study of the Synoptic Gospels that to know properly the historical man Jesus is to know the Trinity (see, e.g., JBJ 1:30).

40

Chapter 1

and we have seen his glory, the glory of the only Son from the Father. Thus from his fullness we have all received grace upon grace. This grace and truth came through Jesus Christ because only he has ever seen God, and only he has made him known. By speaking of the past, the Prologue is summarily informing us of what has already taken place, yet it is at the same time alerting us to what we will progressively see when we read the entire Gospel—the fuller theological narrative that was doctrinally précised in the Prologue. In this sense, just as the Infancy Narratives anticipate the remainder of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Prologue prophetically anticipates what will follow in the whole Johannine narrative. Only in the light of the Prologue will we find, within the entirety of John’s Gospel, the fullness of revelation, the full theological and doctrinal truth concerning Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, and this discovery will enable us to perceive the glory of the only Son from the Father. As in the Infancy Narratives, the Prologue sets the stage so as to enact the story of Jesus becoming Jesus. The “Jesus” of John and the “Jesus” of Matthew, Mark, and Luke Second, it is often presumed that the Synoptic Gospels emphasize the humanity of Jesus and the Gospel of John accentuates his divinity. Or, to express it differently, the Synoptics underscore the historicity of the earthly man Jesus, while John’s Gospel highlights Jesus as the timeless God who is a heavenly man. Such a distinction, to put it lightly, is utterly false and absolutely erroneous, for it does justice neither to the Synoptic Gospels nor to John’s Gospel. Yes, the Synoptic narrative carries with it a sense of earthly historicity. Yes, the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus embraces and so unfolds a more familiar and ordinary human persona. Yes, Jesus speaks in a manner not unlike everyone else, and so communicates with his contemporaries at their level. As the previous volume demonstrated, however, the Synoptic Gospels clearly proclaim, in many and various ways, that the historical Jesus is truly God, frequently similar to the manner in which John declares the divinity of Jesus.59 There is dissimilarity in that the Prologue does more clearly and succinctly insist, and the remainder of the Gospel will unmistakably manifest that Jesus, as God the Word, is the Father’s Son. And, yes, Jesus’ bearing and speech possess a unique eminence that testifies to his divinity. But John’s Gospel is not devoid of historicity, nor is Jesus’ earthly humanity diminished. Rather, both are enhanced by John’s insistence that he historically assumed the weakness of human flesh (sarx). All four Gospels proclaim the same Gospel. The difference between the 59.  See, e.g., JBJ 1:128–31, 1:179–206.

The Prologue

41

Synoptics and John lies not in a disparity of the fundamental Gospel content, but in its mode or genre of its expression. One must also remember that the Evangelist was an eyewitness to many of the events he narrates. What one must recognize is the hermeneutical principle that governs this present study. John is writing his own theological interpretation of the one common Gospel tradition founded upon eyewitnesses, one that is given a threefold expression within the Synoptic Gospels. John wants his readers to grasp more fully the inherent revealed doctrine contained within this one Gospel tradition, and thus to comprehend the deeper theological truth that lies within Jesus’ historical actions and within his humanly spoken words. In order to do this, John gives to the historical and earthly Jesus a more eminent bearing and a more idiosyncratic manner of speaking, but what must always be understood is that these distinguishing characteristics are mediated not apart from his humanity but through his humanity. Nothing of the human historical man Jesus is lost. Rather, John accentuates the singular manner of Jesus’ demeanor in order to impress upon the reader the true identity of who it is who is speaking and acting, the Father’s Son, as well as to alert the reader to the latent theological content that lies within his human actions and words. In so doing, John mines the potential and expands the narrative of the one common tradition as found in the Synoptic Gospels, opening up new horizons through which the reader is able to see more clearly the fuller revelational content. John’s Gospel may portray Jesus as acting and speaking in a more profound theological manner, yet it is precisely this common Gospel tradition that allows us to recognize that the “Jesus” of John’s Gospel is the same “Jesus” that we find in the Synoptic Gospels. As there would be no Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke without this one common Gospel tradition, so there would there be no Gospel of John without this same common tradition. The Centrality of the Incarnation Third, what principally concerns both the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is not an emphasis of either the divinity or the humanity of Jesus but the Incarnation itself. The total reality of the Incarnation is essential to all of the Gospels, and not one or other of its components. All four Gospels realize that it is of no value to emphasize the humanity of Jesus if the man Jesus is not truly the Son of God. Nor is it of any value to accentuate the divinity of Jesus if the Son of God is not truly man. Only if the divine Son of God actually exists as an authentic man is there something extraordinary to

42

Chapter 1

proclaim and something marvelous about which to write. The wonder of the Incarnation lies at the heart of all of the Gospels, for humankind’s salvation resides in the totality of that truth. In the light of this, what we will behold in the body of John’s Gospel is the “glory as of the only Son from the Father.” The manner in which that glory will be displayed is not apart from his humanity but within and through that very humanity. The glory of the Son lies in and is displayed through the weakness of his flesh (sarx). The sarx is the Word’s glory, and all that the Son humanly says and does within that sarx manifests his glory. The ultimate expression of this is in the dark hour of his historical passion and death. Jesus’ death embodies the full weakness of his sarx, and yet that death simultaneously displays, in the very dying of his flesh, the full glory of the only Son from the Father. We actually do behold the fullness of the Son’s divine glory, and the reason we behold the fullness of that divine glory is because it radiates from within and through his dying sarx. Thus the accusation that John accentuates Jesus’ divinity to the detriment of his humanity is completely false, for such an indictment totally misses the theological truth that John wishes not only to proclaim but also to enhance—the Word did actually become flesh so that, as man, we might behold the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father. With the above in mind, we can move to our next point.60 John and the Transfiguration Fourth, it has often been noted that John’s Gospel does not contain Jesus’ Transfiguration. Within the Synoptic Gospels the Transfiguration is the preeminent pre-resurrection event that fully displays the divine glory of Jesus by luminously transforming not only his garments but also his visage and body. At first sight, this is perplexing given that the Prologue highlights that we have beheld the glory of the only begotten Son, and so the Transfiguration would be an event that one would expect John to place at the heart of his Gospel. Its absence is conspicuous. But the Transfiguration is at the heart of John’s Gospel, for the entire Gospel is one ever increasing transfiguring, and so an ever intensifying manifestation, of Jesus’ glory. Not without significance is the Gospel 60.  Because John’s Gospel is a theological interpretation of the one common Gospel tradition as found within the Synoptic Gospels, the Synoptic Gospels can, and even should, be read in the light of John’s Gospel, for his Gospel illuminates the fuller theological content contained within them.

The Prologue

43

traditionally divided, subsequent to the Prologue, into two parts—the Book of Signs (Jn 1:19–12:50) and the Book of Glory (Jn 13–20).61 The Book of Signs encompasses Jesus’ seven miracles: the changing of the water into wine (Jn 2:1–2), the healing of the royal official son (Jn 4:46–54), the healing of the paralytic (5:1–9), the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:1– 15), Jesus walking on the water (Jn 6:16–21), the healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:1–41), and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11:1–45). John designates these miracles as signs, for they display a deeper theological meaning beyond the evident miraculous event; that is, they signify or manifest the glory of the only Son from the Father and so elicit faith.62 The Book of Glory focuses on the impending “hour” when Jesus’ glory will be displayed within his passion, death, and resurrection. In these events, Jesus glorifies the Father and in so doing manifests his own glory as the Father’s Son. The Father in turn glorifies Jesus by raising him from the dead, and so the Father manifests Jesus’ glory as that of his only begotten Son, the glory the Father bestowed upon him before the foundation of the world. Thus Jesus’ resurrection becomes the eighth sign, the full sign of the Father’s new creation, a new creation wrought through the very same Son through whom he first created all that exists. Significantly, within the Gospel of John, the first day of creation and the day of Jesus’ resurrection—the eschatological eighth day, the first day of the new creation—are conjoined. As God, in the act of creation, dispelled, through the life-giving light of his Word, the darkness and lifelessness of nothingness, so now the Father, through the flesh of his only begotten Son, will dispel the darkness of sin and the malady of death. Thus he through whom all is created is he through whom all will now be re-created—the Word/Son. The Word’s/Son’s re-creation, in his act of becoming flesh, confirms that what was first created through him was truly his own, for it constitutes and so inaugurates what will become, in the course of his subsequent fleshly salvific actions, an even deeper communion with his own. He will, in his subsequent fleshly actions, bestow the fullness of grace and truth— the divine beneficence that resides fully within the Father. We are now able to share, through the shining forth of Jesus’ salvific acts, in the abundant 61.  Many English translations of John’s Gospel actually have this division titled within the text. While the Book of Signs normally is designated as beginning with verse 19 of chapter 1, I think it is more proper to begin at chapter 2. The whole of chapter 1 is an introduction as to who Jesus is, with the signs beginning with the Wedding Feast at Cana. 62.  For example, at the conclusion of Jesus changing water into wine, the Gospel states, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (Jn 2:11).

44

Chapter 1

fullness of the Father—grace upon grace. For John, the whole Gospel, then, is the glorious revelation of Jesus as the Father’s ensarxed Son, through and in whom humankind is not simply restored to its original created goodness, but elevated so as to share in the Son’s very divine glory, that of being glorious begotten sons of his Father. Thus the whole purpose of the Gospel is to invite the reader to behold the glory of Jesus, and in this way to entice him to that faith that will enable him to obtain life in Spirit-filled communion with him. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. (Jn 20:30–31) That the whole of John’s Gospel is itself the ever intensifying transfiguration of Jesus as the Father’s Son also solves another conundrum within the Gospel. Since the goal of the Gospel is to engender faith in Jesus as the Father’s Son, why does John not narrate Peter’s profession of faith as found in the Synoptics—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? It would seem that this singular event would be the nucleus of his Gospel as it is for the Synoptics, for Peter confesses precisely what John’s Gospel wishes to prove. Now, for John, as stated in the Prologue, to behold the glory of Jesus is to behold the glory of the only Son from the Father. By configuring his Gospel as the glorious transfiguring of Jesus, John has simultaneously configured his Gospel into a commentary on Peter’s profession—that Jesus is the Father’s Son. John, here again, is writing his theological interpretation of the one common Gospel as found in a threefold manner within Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Thus the whole of John’s Gospel is a continuous concerted exposition, and so a doctrinally richer revelation, of Peter’s profession of who the man Jesus is, his identity as the Father’s only begotten Son. The question that looms large within John’s Gospel is, Where is Jesus from, and who is his father? This is not unlike Jesus asking both “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” and “But who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:13–16). For John, the answer to such questions, as first professed in the Prologue and narrated within the body of the Gospel, is that Jesus is from the Father and so is the Father’s Son. Such an answer is true because we have beheld such glory that it could only be the glory of the one who is the Father’s Son. Upon completing his Gospel, John wants the reader to acknowledge, by echoing Peter, that Jesus is the Son of God, and so have life in his name.63 63.  John’s Gospel also lacks Jesus’ actual baptism, his temptations in the desert, and the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He does provide, as one would expect, a more

The Prologue

45

Jesus Becoming Jesus Fifth, this theological study of John’s Gospel bears the same title as my first volume on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Jesus Becoming Jesus. Our examination of the Synoptics demonstrated that throughout their Gospel narratives, Jesus, through his words and especially through his acts, enacted his name; that is, he was becoming more and more YHWH-Saves. This enactment of Jesus’ name found its decisive end in Jesus’ death and resurrection, for through his sacrificial death, he obtained forgiveness of sins, and through his resurrection and ascension, he, as the glorious Savior and Lord, poured out his Holy Spirit upon those who believed. These salvific acts anticipated Jesus’ coming again in glory at the end of time, whereupon all of the redeemed would share fully in his resurrection. In this final eschatological event Jesus would fully become Jesus, YHWH-Saves, for in this act all the faithful would be completely transformed into his likeness, through his Holy Spirit, and so, sharing in his Sonship, becoming the Father’s heavenly children. Within John’s Gospel, Jesus becomes Jesus as well, but not surprisingly, John orchestrates this “becoming Jesus, YHWH-Saves,” in a distinctive theological key. He does so by amplifying the signature notes found in the Prologue—“we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” The Book of Signs and the Book of Glory both progressively manifest the glory of Jesus as the Father’s Son who embodies the life-giving light of his Father. The Father sent his Son into the world precisely to be the saving light of the world, and this saving light is displayed ever more intensely as Jesus approaches his hour of glory, his saving death and life-giving resurrection. For John, the more Jesus enacts his glory, the more he becomes Jesus—YHWHSaves. Thus, as in the Synoptics, the theological notion of “act” is of the utmost importance in our examination of John’s Gospel, for only through his saving acts does Jesus, as YHWH-Saves, enact his saving deeds. And the more we behold the glory of Jesus within his saving acts, the more we are led to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and so truly YHWH-Saves. The importance of “acts” is seen particularly in John’s highlighting the primacy of Jesus’ actions over his words. His actions, by which his filial glory is seen, reveal who he is as the Son from the Father and so testify to the truth of his words. Jesus will accentuate that he only does what he sees the Father doing, and so his acts make actual the saving work of his Father (see Jn 5:19). There is perichoretic oneness between the saving acts of the extensive theology of Baptism and the Eucharist as well as of Jesus’ temptations than that found within the Synoptics. He will also provide a more reflective theological account of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

46

Chapter 1

Father and the saving acts of Jesus, his Son (see Jn 10:37–38 and 14:9–11). This is why Jesus consistently urges the Jews that if they do not believe his words, they should believe his works, for they are those saving actions that reveal that he is truly from the Father, and thus that the Father is in him and he is in the Father.64 While I will later treat these passages at greater length, here one significant theological point, as a prolegomenon, needs to be noted and emphasized. Given that the Prologue itself accentuates that Jesus is the eternal Word who became flesh, why would John’s Gospel, through Jesus’ own words, underscore the revelatory importance of Jesus’ actions rather than his words? Being the eternal Word, would not Jesus’ human words be the primary means of revealing who he is as the only Son from the Father? To answer these questions, we must again enter into the metaphysics of the Trinity. The Metaphysics of a Trinity in Act Sixth, we saw that the eternal living dynamism within God resides in God eternally speaking his eternal Word. God is simply the eternal act of speaking his Word. But the act of God “speaking” his eternal Word is not a “verbal” or “oral” act. Rather, the act of God “annunciating” his Word is that act by which the Word is constituted as a subsistent expression or an ontological manifestation of all that God is. The Word’s subjective ontological identity, the manner of his subsistence or existence, is that of being the perfect act that fully actualizes the totality of God—the comprehensive truth of who God is. This subsistent actualization is why the Word is with God (ton theon) and is God (theon). As God is God-of-the-Word fully-in-act in actualizing his Word as the Word-of-God, so the Word is the Word-of-God fully-in-act in fully actualizing God as God-of-the-Word. Thus for God to create all through his Word is not for him to create through a verbal or vocal word, but for him to act through the act that is his Word. Creation, then, is the perichoretic act of both God and his Word, for the Word ontologically comprises the totality of God’s being, the complete truth of who God is. Similarly, God is the Father because he gives himself entirely in begetting his Son. In the eternal act of fathering his Son, the Father becomes Father-ofthe-Son. The “begetting” is constitutive of his being the Father-fully-in-act. The Son is therefore the Father’s Son-fully-in-act, for he himself is the perfect image, the perfect enactment of the Father who begot him. Thus the Father, as the begetter, is fatherhood-fully-in-act, and the Son, as begotten, 64.  See Jn 5:36, 10:25, 10:38, and 15:24.

The Prologue

47

is sonship-fully-in-act and so the perfect enacted image of the Father. Since God-Father and Word-Son are fully in act in relation to one another, they together reveal each other within the economy of salvation primarily through their mutually inhering acts. Within the Incarnation, Jesus, as the Word incarnate, does humanly speak God’s word. To hear the voice of Jesus is to hear the voice of God. Salvation, however, like the act of creation, is achieved not by verbal utterances but by saving actions. Jesus’ words that accompany the saving acts reveal the salvific meaning or effect of those acts. Thus, within John’s Gospel, the miraculous works that Jesus enacts are prophetic salvific signs that reveal or testify that he is the Father’s Son—the one sent by the Father to bring about humankind’s salvation. These sign-acts are therefore enacted words of the Word-in-act, and Jesus, as the Father’s Son, enacts these word-acts because he is the incarnate Word-in-act enacting the saving acts of God his Father. The Word is humanly enacting revelatory words or signs that foretell or prefigure the fullness of his saving work, that is, his sacrificial death and glorious resurrection. In enacting these salvific word-acts as the Word, Jesus evermore fully enacts his name, YHWH-Saves, and so displays evermore clearly his glory as the Father’s only begotten Son. The theological notion of sacramentality may also be helpful in articulating this understanding. Jesus, as the Son/Word of God incarnate, is the primordial sacrament; that is, his humanity and the words he speaks and the deeds he enacts through and in that humanity are the visible means through and in which his divinity is revealed. The human acts of Jesus, the word-acts of the Word-in-act, therefore signify what they effect and effect what they signify, and in so doing manifest or bear witness that he is the Incarnate Son from the Father, for only if Jesus is the Father’s Son could he enact such human salvific acts. For example, Jesus’ calling forth Lazarus from the dead is a human act, a sign humanly enacted by the Word-in-act, that effects Lazarus’ returning to life while simultaneously revealing Jesus’ glory as the only begotten Son from the Father. It likewise prefigures Jesus himself being the resurrection and the life—a revelation that will be enacted when the Father gloriously raises Jesus from death. Within John’s Gospel, Jesus, by accentuating the revelatory significance of his sign-acts, is addressing both an epistemological and an ontological issue. Through his sign-acts, Jesus reveals (epistemologically allows others to come to know) that he is the Word/Son incarnate, and by accentuating their testimonial importance, he is providing an epistemological window, a hermeneutical interpretative tool, into the ontological nature of the Trinity—that

48

Chapter 1

the Father and the Son/Word are fully in act in relation to one another. The hermeneutical circle is now closed. By enacting his signs, Jesus reveals that he is God’s Word and the Father’s Son, and in so doing he reveals that God is God/Word fully in act and Father/Son fully in act. Only because of this divine fully-in-act relationship is Jesus, the incarnate Word/Son, able to enact his prophetic salvific signs and ultimately enact his saving death and resurrection. Jesus’ death and resurrection are the definitive sacramental acts that effect humankind’s salvation, for they are humanly enacted by the Son/Word fully in act. For John, this revelation accounts for why Jesus can become Jesus (YHWH-Saves). Only if he is YHWH-Son fully in act, in communion with his YHWH-Father fully in act, could he humanly enact the saving Paschal Mystery, and in so doing establish the efficacious sacraments in and through which the faithful can come to share in these saving mysteries. Within John’s Gospel, these sacramental saving acts particularly bear upon the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Moreover, at the conclusion of his Prologue, when John reveals the name of him who is the Word made flesh, he does not simply name him “Jesus” but “Jesus Christ”—the Spirit-anointed Word or Son incarnate. In so doing, John is informing the reader at the very onset of his Gospel that Jesus is not only the Word of God and Son of the Father, but that as the Word/Son, he possesses the Spirit in a manner that is in keeping with his being the Word/ Son, that he possesses the fullness of the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. When Jesus, the incarnate Word/Son, enacts the works of his Father, the miraculous sign-works that find their ultimate expression in the Paschal Mystery, he does so not only in union with his Father but also in communion with the Holy Spirit. Thus, if Jesus acts as the incarnate Word/Son fully in act in union with God his Father fully in act, he must therefore perform these salvific acts, as the Christ, in communion with and by the power of the Holy Spirit fully in act, that is, in the infinite empowering love shared between the Father and the Son. Only if Jesus possessed the Spirit fully in act could he perform, as the Son fully in act, his saving acts in unison with his Father fully in act. Here we perceive why Jesus insists, in John’s Gospel, that his works take primacy over his words. His saving sign-acts, his miracles and his death and resurrection, testify to the salvific work of the entire Trinity. They bear witness, as enacted words of the Word, that he, as the Father’s Son possessing the fullness of the Father’s Spirit, is the Christ, the Son of the living God—as Peter professed. Moreover, as YHWH-Saves, Jesus’ human salvific acts testify that the one God is YHWH-Saves—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Prologue

49

n n n

Having summarized the predominant doctrinal themes within the Prologue and anticipated their fulfillment within the body of John’s Gospel, we can now turn to the remainder of the first chapter. There, John continues to introduce Jesus, and he does so by proceeding directly to the initial historical events surrounding Jesus’ public life—the ministry of John the Baptist and the gathering of his first disciples.

2 n

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

H

aving theologically examined the Prologue of John’s Gospel, we can now turn our attention to the remainder of the first chapter. The Prologue established that Jesus is the Father’s Word through whom he created all that is, and that he has now come into the world he created and to his own Jewish people with whom God made a covenant. The Prologue finds its crescendo in the Word becoming flesh and tabernacles in our midst, and in so doing allowing us to see, in that flesh, the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father—he who is full of grace and truth—the one who makes the Father known. With this doctrinal prolegomenon, John now further introduces Jesus to the reader by providing a theological interpretation of his historical baptism and the gathering of his first disciples. John achieves the first by having the Baptist bear witness to the soteriological significance of Jesus’ baptism, the importance of which clearly reveals Jesus’ divine identity as the Father’s Son. John’s testimony subsequently gives rise, within the Gospel narrative, to the gathering of Jesus’ first disciples. These first followers, in turn, further testify to Jesus’ messianic and divine identity. At the close of the gathering, Jesus himself testifies as to who he is and what he will salvifically accomplish, the whole of which confirms and develops what was first declared in the Prologue—that Jesus is the eternal Son/Word incarnate who bestows upon all who believe in his name grace upon grace, that is, communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Ministry of John the Baptist: Making Jesus Known Immediately following the last verse of the Prologue, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him 50

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

51

known,” John recommences with the word “and”—“And this is the testimony of John” (Jn 1:19). That “and” conjoins all that the Prologue professed to what John the Baptist is now going to proclaim—his testimony to the truth contained in the Prologue.1 This testimony began when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” And they answered him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.” They said to him then, “Who are you? Let us know an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (Jn 1:19–23)2 The priests and Levites, both of whom fall under the category of Sadducees, want to know who John is.3 The foreword to John’s denial that he is the Christ is rather peculiar: “He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed.” Normally, one does not confess to a denial but rather one confesses to what is true. It would appear that, as in Luke, some were questioning “in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he might be the Christ” (Lk 3:15). Within the Synoptics, John does not give any explicit denial that he is the Christ but points to the one greater than he. Within the Evangelist’s theological interpretation of the common Gospel tradition, however, John does testify or confess that he is not the Christ. Importantly, John’s emphatic denial accentuates his further implicit affirmative confession that the Christ is nonetheless present. John’s definitive denial, then, anticipates his equally vigorous confession that Jesus is the Christ. 1.  John in his Prologue inserts references to John the Baptist’s testimony, thus fastening his theological preamble to the historical beginning of Jesus’ ministry (see Jn 1:6–8 and 1:15). Unless otherwise noted, all quotations surrounding John the Baptist’s testimony as to Jesus’ messianic mission and his divine identity are taken from Jn 1:19–34. 2.  Within the Gospel of John the term “Jews” designates not all Jews, but those who refuse to believe in Jesus, primarily the Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem. 3.  Within the Gospel, discerning who John is determines who Jesus is. Throughout John’s Gospel, the Jews continually interrogate Jesus as to who he is and where he is from. Jesus responds by referring them back to John’s testimony (see Jn 5:30–36). The question, “Who are you?” within John’s Gospel, both in reference to John the Baptist and to Jesus, echoes Jesus’ own questions within the Synoptic Gospels, “Who do men say that I am?” “But who do you say that I am?” (see Mk 8:27–30 and parallels). The whole of John’s Gospel aims to demonstrate the truth of Peter’s confession—“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

52

Chapter 2

The priests and Levites proceed: “‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’” Because Elijah was taken up to heaven, he was to return, according to the Jewish tradition, immediately prior to the Messiah’s coming (see 2 Kgs 2:1–12 and Mal 4:5, in Heb 3:23). Although within Matthew and Mark, John does not deny that he is Elijah, Jesus does designate that he is Elijah (see Mt 11:14 and 17:9–13; Mk 9:11–13). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus does not designate John the Baptist as Elijah. But after preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth, where his fellow townspeople refused to believe in him because he was merely the son of Joseph, Jesus responds that a prophet is not accepted in his own country. He then proceeds to give Elijah as an example. During the great famine, Elijah was not sent to the many widows in Israel because of Israel’s infidelity, but to a widow in Zarephath in Sidon (see Lk 4:20–26 and 1 Kgs 16:29–17:24). Elijah, in the end, was not a prophet for Israel. This may explain why John refused to take up Elijah’s mantle, and why Jesus never designates him as Elijah within John’s Gospel. The Jews refused to accept John as a prophet, even though he was one of their own. Thus, for the unfaithful and unbelieving Jews, the very Jews who are presently interrogating him, John is not for them Elijah, for they will not accept the one he has come to proclaim as the Messiah—Jesus. Elijah has come, but the unbelieving Jews have refused to acknowledge him.4 The priests and Levites then ask, “‘Are you the prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’” God promised the Israelites that he would raise up a prophet like Moses: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him” (Dt 18:18–19; see also 18:15–17). John confesses, then, that he is not the promised prophet. Again, however, this denial testifies that he who is the prophet is present because he is the one whom John has come to make known.5 In frustration, then, the priests and Levites ask, “‘Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ He said, ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Make straight the way of the Lord,” as the prophet Isaiah said’” (see Is 40:3). Here John’s Gospel conjoins 4.  This understanding could be another instance that demonstrates the relationship between Luke and John. 5.  Significantly, as will become evident in what follows in this Gospel, Jesus, as the divine Word, will obediently speak what he hears from his Father—the very words that God will put into his mouth, for Jesus will speak only what his Father tells him (see Jn 4:34, 12:49–50, and 14:10).

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

53

with the Synoptics. Whereas the Synoptics attribute this passage from Isaiah to John and his ministry (“the voice of one”), however, in John’s Gospel the Baptist speaks this passage in the first person—“I am the voice” (see Mt 3:3 and Lk 3:4). The Evangelist therefore has John accentuate his own importance as the sent precursor of Jesus. He identifies himself as the “voice” that God sent to give testimony to his Son. Thus as John personally confessed that he was not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, so he now personally emphatically identifies who he actually is and in so doing testifies that he is the one who is preparing for the proximate coming of the Messiah and the prophet. His cry in the wilderness is one of making “straight the way of the Lord.” As discussed in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, the term “Lord” in Isaiah references the very coming of God himself.6 When the Lord does come, “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,” and the “voice” is to say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” for he has come to “feed his flock like a shepherd” and “gather the lambs in his arms” (Is 40:5, 40:9, and 40:11). John the Baptist is preparing for the coming of the divine Lord God so that the people will see, in seeing Jesus, the glory of the Father’s only Son, he who, in the fullness of grace and truth, will be the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (see Jn 10:11–14). John is here already intimating that to behold the glory of God in the flesh of Jesus his Son is to behold the glory of the cross.7 Having established who John the Baptist is and is not and thus the identity of him for whom he is preparing, John’s Gospel proceeds to determine more fully who John is and in so doing ascertains more fully who Jesus is. The Gospel proceeds: “Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, ‘Then why are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’” (Jn 1:24–25).8 Why would such a question be 6. See JBJ 1:72–74. 7.  Interestingly, the priests and Levites are demanding that John tell them who he is so that they can tell “those who sent us.” We have, then, three who are sent. John the Baptist: “There was a man sent by God, whose name was John.” He came to bear witness to the light (Jn 1:6). “The Jews sent priests and Levites” to find out who John is. John informs them that he is the voice that is making a way for the coming of the Lord. “For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:17). But the Jews and those they sent are in darkness, for they loved darkness more than light and so refused to accept John’s testimony to the light. Jesus was nonetheless sent to dispel the darkness and to bring those who believe into the light (see Jn 3:19–21). 8.  This first sentence is rather confusing. Since the Pharisees and the Sadducees were not on the best of terms, it is strange that the Pharisees would want to send priests and Levites, and that the Sadducees would accept such a mandate from their rival Pharisees. The Revised New American Bible interprets this as a new group of inquisitors, now the Pharisees, and so translates the passage as “Some Pharisees were also sent.” Such a translation does not help, however.

54

Chapter 2

asked—as if one had to be either the Christ, Elijah or the prophet in order to baptize? The question manifests the inner logic of the interrogators’ questions and how they conceive baptism. They obviously see baptism as something important, so important that only those authorized are permitted to perform such an action, such as the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet. But where lies its importance? The interrogators obviously see baptism as something relating to the Messiah or to the coming of the Messiah, and since baptism involves water, they perceived it either as a purifying preparation for the coming of the Messiah or a purification performed by the Messiah himself. Since John is neither the Messiah, nor the prophet, nor even Elijah who would signal the Messiah’s coming, why is he then baptizing? Such an action would seem to be superfluous given the situation—the none presence of the Messiah or even of his precursor. John, at this point, does not fully address their question. “I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (Jn 1:26–27). John’s Gospel here parallels the Synoptics, but there are a couple of significant differences.9 The Synoptics have John say in one statement that while he baptizes with water, the one coming after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The Baptist, in John’s Gospel, will articulate that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit later—“the next day” (Jn 1:29). Presently, John the Baptist is merely concerned with revealing who he is and what he is doing. Moreover, he wishes to point out to his questioners that there stands among them a man whom they do not know. This comment refers back to the Prologue—“He came to his own home, and his own people received him not” (Jn 1:11). The one who stands among them is the Word become flesh, the only Son from the Father. That this unknown man comes after him accentuates that John is his precursor of someone even greater than himself and for whom he is preparing a way. John’s Gospel is then underscoring the importance of the person of John so as to accentuate the importance of the person of Jesus, and thus the radical difference between John’s baptism with water and Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit. John and his baptism are important, First, then, were the Jews, who sent the first group of priests, and the Levites, who sent the second group of Pharisees. Second, if the second group is sent from the Pharisees, how is it that they proceed to ask the question they did, seemingly as if they were present all along and were merely continuing the previous questioning? Not that it is essential to answer these questions, but it could be that the Jews (the unbelieving leaders composed of Pharisees and Sadducees) sent representatives from both groups simultaneously, and the Gospel is alerting us from the onset that both groups will ultimately be antagonistic toward Jesus as they are to John. 9.  See Mt 3:11–12, Mk 1:7–8, and Lk 3:15–18.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

55

but they pale in comparison to the person of Jesus and his baptism, for John is even unworthy to untie the thong of his sandal. Having informed us that “this took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan where John was baptising,” the Gospel continues, “The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” (Jn 1:28–29). Although John’s Gospel does not narrate John’s baptism of Jesus, it now informs us that the entire interrogation of John by the Jewish leaders took place within the context of his baptismal ministry. Into this baptismal setting Jesus now enters, and thus the Gospel alerts us that it will now provide a theological interpretation of Jesus’ baptism. As in Matthew and Mark, John’s Gospel tells us that John saw Jesus coming toward him and thus accentuates that Jesus, not John, is now taking the initiative (see Mt 3:13 and Mk 1:9). The coming of Jesus to John brings John’s ministry to its climatic end, for John will now complete the work he was sent to do— the revealing of Jesus’ identity. Within the Synoptic narrative, John’s baptizing of Jesus causally precipitated the opening of the heavens, through which the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove with the concurrent voice saying, “This is [Mt]/]You are [Mk and Lk] my beloved Son; with whom/you I am well pleased.”10 When treating the baptism of Jesus in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, we saw that the words of God the Father are taken from Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1. Psalm 2 is an enthronement psalm expressing God’s contempt for those rulers who reject the Lord’s anointed king. The anointed king will announce the decrees of the Lord, for “he said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’” (Ps 2:7– 8). Isaiah 42:1 is the opening verse of what are termed the Suffering Servant Songs:11 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.” In examining these verses in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, we determined that the heavenly speaker is identifying Jesus as his Son and thus simultaneously identifying himself as his Father. That the declaration is the Father’s, and not someone else’s, highlights that Jesus is ontologically the Father’s Son and so is God as he is God—the one whom the Father has 10.  Mt 3:9–17, Mk 1:10–11, and Lk 3:21–22. Luke has the heavens opening and the voice speaking after the baptism when Jesus was praying. 11.  See Is 42:1–4, 49:1–7, 50:4–11, and 52:13–53:12.

56

Chapter 2

begotten.12 Moreover, the Father is well pleased in Jesus his Son because, in stepping forward to be baptized, Jesus, in the outpouring of the Father’s Spirit, has accepted his Father’s Spirit-filled commission to be the obedient Suffering Servant—the Servant-Son who would enact his Father’s salvation for Israel and for the world. Here we can perceive the Johannine theological interpretation of the Synoptic account of Jesus’ baptism.13 The Lamb of God That John “saw” Jesus coming toward him is not merely a statement of someone optically detecting an approaching man by the name of Jesus but rather conveys the sense of “seeing” as to knowing his true identity. Upon seeing Jesus, John immediately declares, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” We are to behold, in faith, what John beholds—to see Jesus with understanding faith is to behold the Lamb of God.14 The title “Lamb of God” is not only unique but also rather peculiar. What does it mean for God to possess a lamb, and that a man is defined as the lamb he possesses? Moreover, in what manner is this man, who is the Lamb of God, the one who will take away the sin of the world? To address these questions, we must grasp that Jesus is the Lamb of God in a threefold manner. The term Lamb of God, first of all, places Jesus within the context of the Jewish Passover. When in the book of Exodus God enacts his final affliction upon the Egyptians, the death of the firstborn of both man and beast, he commands the Israelites to take a year-old male lamb and to slaughter it. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them [the lambs]. . . . It is the Lord’s passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over 12.  Within Luke’s Infancy Narrative, the angel Gabriel prophetically declares to Mary that, because her son is to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, “the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). God the Father is the first person within Luke’s Gospel to call Jesus Son, thus establishing his ontological identity as God. 13.  For the fuller account of Jesus’ baptism within the Synoptics, see JBJ 1:70–101. 14.  John introduces Jesus to his first disciples by declaring to them that he is the Lamb of God (see Jn 1:36).

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

57

you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Ex 12:7 and 12:11–13) God provided the Israelites with a lamb, and so it was his lamb that was given. The lamb’s blood was a sign for the Israelites in that it labeled their houses as Jewish. Equally, the lamb’s blood was also a sign for God in that, upon seeing the blood, he would pass over them. In this manner the Israelites were protected from the scourge of death. Jesus is God’s Lamb, for as he provided the first Passover lamb, so he now provides Jesus as the new Passover Lamb. Likewise, Jesus, through the shedding of his blood, will be a sign for all humankind of its salvation, and he will be a sign to God that those who are marked, through faith, with Jesus’ saving blood belong to him, and so are saved from the universal curse of death. Moreover, as the Passover commenced Israel’s journey toward the land of promise, so Jesus, as the new Lamb of sacrifice, allows those who believe in him to pass over from the slavery of sin into the freedom of God’s promised everlasting kingdom. To dwell within God’s sanctified house, to be his holy people, is to be marked with the protecting and lifegiving blood of Jesus. The yearly Jewish commemoration of Passover is now recognized as the recurrent anticipatory sign of Jesus’ Passover sacrifice, the new once-for-all “sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover” (see Ex 12:21–27). Through his sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus will enact the fulfillment and so reveal the full meaning of the Passover. Second, identifying Jesus as the Lamb of God also designates him as the new covenantal Lamb. Freed from the slavery of Egypt, the Israelites arrived at Mt. Sinai, where God made a covenant with his people. This covenant was ratified when the Israelites sacrificed oxen as a communion or peace offering to God. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Ex 24:6–9) The covenant was sealed in Moses’ act of sprinkling the altar and the people with the sacrificial blood—God and his people were now in communion with one another, for they shared in a common life signified in the sprinkled blood (see Lv 17:11). For Jesus, then, to be the Lamb of God

58

Chapter 2

defines him not only as the new Passover Lamb but also as the Lamb who will inaugurate a new covenant. As the new high priest, Jesus will offer the new covenantal sacrifice of himself. As the pure and unblemished sacrifice offered in love to his Father out of love for us, Jesus’ “sprinkled” blood is the unbreakable bond that conjoins his Father with all those who are in communion with Jesus.15 Thirdly, for Jesus to be the Lamb of God places him within the Suffering Servant Songs. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. . . . But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.16 As the Suffering-Servant-Lamb, Jesus will take upon himself the sin and guilt of the whole of humankind, but again, in so doing, he will offer himself as the pure, innocent, and holy Lamb of sacrifice. In and through this loving sacrifice, Jesus will be God’s Lamb, the Lamb God provided, who will take away the sin of the world.17 Thus, as the Lamb of God, Jesus possesses a threefold identity. Jesus is the Passover Lamb who offers his sacrificial blood, the blood that will free humankind from the bondage of sin and death, and he is simultaneously the covenantal Lamb, who will establish a new life-giving relationship with God. He will accomplish both because he will be the Suffering-Servant-Lamb who assumes our guilt and punishment while concurrently offering himself in love to his Father out of love for all, so as reconcile us to his Father. 15.  Within the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus, at the Last Supper, specifically states that his blood is that of the new covenant. “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28; see also Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20, and 1 Cor 11:25). 16.  Is 53:4–7; see also 53:10. In the Acts of the Apostles, this is the passage that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading when Philip came to him and then interpreted for him (see Acts 8:26–35). John’s Gospel quotes Is 53:1 and so places Jesus within the Suffering Servant Songs (see Jn 12:38). 17.  Peter, in his First Letter, writes, “You know that you were not ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pt 1:18–19).

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

59

This Lamb of God, John continues to profess, “is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel” (Jn 1:30–31). The Prologue informed us previously that John bore witness to Jesus by crying out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before be, for he was before me’” (Jn 1:15). Interestingly, what the Prologue reports concerning John’s witness and what John presently declares are both placed in the past—“This is he of whom I said.” We never actually hear John’s initial statement. The closest we have in the Gospel is John saying that the one who is among the Jews, whom they do not know, is “even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie,” which is also what we find in the Synoptics (Jn 1:26– 27).18 By referencing the past, the Gospel may be intimating that, within the Prologue and now through the words of John himself, his ministry comprises more than what is narrated here, and that, for example, can be found in the common Gospel narrative, of which the Synoptic Gospels each give an account. Likewise, this double Johannine account of what John has declared in the past emphasizes both the importance of John’s extended testimonial ministry and, even more so, the importance of him to whom John is bearing witness. Moreover, within his own present testimony, there is a slight but significant difference from what is narrated in the Prologue. The Prologue’s “He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me” is now rendered, “After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.” The insertion of the term “man” clarifies, and so accentuates, that even though he comes after John, he nonetheless ranks before him, and this higher ranking pertains to his humanity. John is designating the manner in which the “he” exists, and the significance of this emphasis lies in that John is about to identify this “man” as the Son of God. This man who is among them, whom they do not know, the one who is the Lamb of God and so the one whom John was sent to reveal to Israel, is none other the Father’s Son. This is why this man, though he comes after John by way of human birth and ministry, nonetheless ranks before him because, as the Father’s Son, he was begotten as God from before creation began. There is here a twofold higher “ranking.” Not only does the Son outrank John as to his divinity, but he also outranks John as to his humanity, for this man is the Son of God. We now come to an anomaly. John, as quoted above, next states, “I myself did not know him, but for this I came baptizing in water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” The goal of John’s baptismal ministry was to reveal to Israel 18.  See also Mt 3:11 and parallels.

60

Chapter 2

that Jesus is the Lamb of God, yet he did not know him. How can John not have known Jesus, when he was his cousin? Moreover, according to Luke, John as an infant leaped in Elizabeth’s womb upon Mary’s visitation (see Lk 1:40–44). One could supposedly say that John, as an unborn child, would not “remember” what he did before his birth, even though it was under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.19 More to the point, we must take into account what John means when he uses the word “know.” John, as Jesus’ cousin, may have known him in the sense that they were childhood friends. But because Jesus’ family life was so normal that everyone in Nazareth assumed that his father was Joseph, the husband of Mary, John perceived nothing unique about his uncle’s son. Thus what John “did not know” about his younger cousin was Jesus’ true identity as the Lamb of God. John’s ignorance testifies to Jesus’ authentic humanity, and thus the need of the Father to reveal to him who Jesus truly is—the Lamb of God. The Son of God Immediately following John’s profession that Jesus is the Lamb of God within verses 29–31, the Gospel states, “And John bore witness.” I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have borne witness that this is the Son of God. Again, there is an interweaving of the preceding verses with those just quoted. Both sets of verses have to do with John bearing witness as to who Jesus is. In both, John states that he did not know Jesus’ identity, yet he also states in both that the very reason he was sent to baptize was to make him known. In the first set of verses, John identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In the second set, John bears witness that Jesus is the Son of God. He came to this knowledge because the one who sent him told him that the one upon whom the Spirit descends and remains is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. John draws the conclusion that the one he has seen—that is, the one upon whom the Spirit descended and remained, and thus the one who will baptize in the Holy Spirit—is the Son of God. A number of significant theological interrelated points can be drawn from this.20 19.  Though medical studies have shown that humans can have prebirth remembrances. 20.  This “remaining” of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus references back to the messianic prophecy

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

61

First, the Evangelist does not narrate John’s actual baptism of Jesus but rather provides a theological interpretation of it by having John twice state that the goal of his ministry of baptizing with water was to make Jesus known. That John states, in his second reference to his ministry, that he saw the Spirit descend upon and remain with Jesus implies that, in accord with the Synoptic Gospels, John did baptize Jesus, for only within such a baptismal event could John have seen the Spirit descend like a dove upon and remain with Jesus.21 Within John’s Gospel, then, the Baptist sees his ministry not simply as one preparing for the coming of Jesus, preparing others to receive him through his water baptism of repentance. Rather, John understands his baptizing of Jesus as being the preeminent act by which Jesus is made known, for in that baptismal act, Jesus is revealed to be the Spirit-anointed Son of God—the beloved Son in whom his Father is well pleased. Second, theologically for the Evangelist, John’s act of baptizing Jesus is his greatest testimony, his paramount act of bearing witness that Jesus is the Son of God, for John attests that in that act Jesus received the Father’s Spirit in a manner that is uniquely befitting him as God’s Son. The unique manner in which Jesus receives the Spirit identifies him as the Son of the Father. There is an intrinsic causal connection between the Holy Spirit descending and remaining upon Jesus and his being the Son of God. This “remaining” of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus does not simply specify a temporal permanency but also designates an eternal divine state of being. John, similar to what we found in the Synoptic accounts, is professing that Jesus, the earthly man, uniquely possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship, and that singular possession simultaneously reveals that he is the Father’s eternal divine Son. And, precisely because Jesus singularly possesses the Spirit in accordance with his being the Father’s only Son, he, at his baptism, is commissioned by his Father to enact the ministry of baptizing with the Holy Spirit, a mandate that Jesus willingly assumes found in Isaiah. A shoot will come forth from the stump of Jesse, “and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord. And his delight will be in the fear of the Lord” (Is 11:1–3). As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus would then possess all of the Spirit’s salvific attributes and so be capable of baptizing in the Holy Spirit. This “remaining” may also allude to God’s proclamation in Genesis 6:3 that, because of humankind’s sin, “My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Spirit does abide with Jesus because he is God’s incarnate Son, and so he will give the “abiding” Spirit to all who believe in him granting them eternal life. 21.  As in the Synoptic Gospels, the Spirit’s descent in the form of a dove harkens back to creation, where the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. By becoming the Lamb of God who will sacrifice his like, Jesus will now re-create the world. Through the outpouring of the same Holy Spirit who descends in the form of a dove, he will usher in the new creation.

62

Chapter 2

and so undertakes within the same Spirit of Sonship that he has received as the Father’s incarnate Son. All of John’s subsequent testimony that “this is the Son of God” flows from this foundational revelatory baptismal act. Third, by twice referencing his own ministry of water baptism, John is accentuating the difference between his baptismal ministry and Jesus’ future baptismal ministry. John’s baptism of Jesus brings John’s ministry to an end, for in that act—the founding of Jesus’ ministry—the Father’s anointed Son is inaugurated; namely, he will baptize with the Holy Spirit the same Spirit with which he himself was baptized. Fourth, we must now bring together John’s first testimony in verses 28–30, where he proclaims Jesus to be the Lamb of God, and his second testimony in verses 32–34, where he professes that Jesus is the Spirit-anointed Son of God. In designating Jesus as the Lamb of God, John testifies as to the manner in which Jesus will take away the sin of the world. In designating Jesus as the Spirit-filled Father’s Son, John is bearing witness as to why he is the Lamb of God. He is the Lamb of God because, as his Father’s incarnate Son, the Father anointed him as the Christ, that is, as the Spirit-empowered Passover/covenantal Lamb of sacrifice, and thus the Suffering-Servant-Son in whom he is well pleased. By simultaneously testifying that the man Jesus is the Son of God as well as the Lamb of God, John has strikingly encapsulated and so amplified the entire revelation contained within the Synoptic baptismal narratives. By means of his twofold testimony, John bears witness that the Father, through the Holy Spirit, has configured his beloved Son into his very own Lamb of sacrifice. To behold the Father’s Son is to behold the Lamb of God. As the one sent by God to testify “to the light, that all might believe through him” (Jn 1:7), John is, then, the Father’s theological spokesman and interpreter—to hear the voice of John declare “Behold, the Lamb of God” is to hear the voice of the Father proclaim, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Father is well pleased precisely because Jesus, his Son, in the commissioning power of the Holy Spirit, assumed his Father’s mandate, that of being the Suffering-Servant-Son, and so is constituted the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world.22 By subsequently 22.  The Father’s baptismal declaration references two Old Testament passages. In Ps 2:7, which is a coronation psalm, God declares to his established king, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Is 42:1 is the opening of the first Suffering Servant Song. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.” Jesus will be the Father’s kingly Son, for he, as the anointed Messiah, will be his Suffering Servant who will bring forth justice. Or, as condensed in John’s theological declaration, Jesus is the Lamb of God, and so he is the Spirit-anointed Father’s Son. Here again, we see the Evangelist conveying theological depth to the Synoptic baptismal narratives. See note 13 above.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

63

fulfilling his Father’s salvific acts as the Lamb of God, Jesus will be empowered, through his glorious resurrection, to baptize with the Holy Spirit those “who believed in his name” and so “become children of God” (Jn 1:12).23 Lastly, we can now clearly see the manner in which John’s Gospel is a theological or doctrinal interpretation of the Synoptic narratives surrounding John’s baptism of Jesus. We saw in our study of the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus’ baptism manifested the truth of Jesus’ name, YHWH-Saves, for within the act of Jesus’ baptism the Father commissioned him, in the descent of the Holy Spirit, to undertake his salvific mission, and within that same baptismal act, Jesus accepted his Father’s saving commission in the same Spirit in which he was baptized. Moreover, not only did we perceive that Jesus is and would become YHWH-Saves as the Father’s Son, but we also recognized that the Father, in commissioning his Son to be Son/YHWH-Saves, through the Holy Spirit, also manifested himself as Father/YHWH-Saves, for it is the Father’s salvific Spirit-anointed commission that the Son would enact. Likewise, the Father, as Father/YHWH-Saves, in commissioning Jesus, his Son, to be Son/YHWH-Saves though the Holy Spirit, manifested that the Holy Spirit is equally Spirit/YHWH-Saves, for only in communion with the Holy Spirit is the Father’s salvific plan enacted by Jesus, the Father’s Son. Thus the act of Jesus’ baptism reveals the Trinity as distinct persons acting in accordance with who they are, as the one saving God—YHWH-Saves. The Gospel of John now vividly bears witness to this same Trinitarian truth, and it does so simply by having John declare that Jesus, the Father’s anointed Son, is the Lamb of God. First, Jesus is Son/YHWH-Saves because, through the anointing with the Holy Spirit, he accepts his Father’s salvific commission, that of being the Father’s sacrificial Lamb who will enact the world’s salvation. Second, the Father, in sending forth his only begotten Son as his own Lamb, his new saving Passover/covenantal Lamb of sacrifice, manifests the fullness of his own salvific love and so reveals 23.  Significantly, in the Book of Revelation, the author portrays Jesus as the once slain and now gloriously triumphant Lamb of God. The Lamb of God becomes the living and glorious icon of who Jesus truly is. Thus if the Gospel of John emphasizes that Jesus, as the Lamb of God, is the Passover Lamb and the covenantal Lamb of sacrifice and so the SufferingServant-Son, so the Book of Revelation accentuates that he is now the glorious Lamb who reigns supreme over the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus is designated as “the Lamb” twenty-eight times in the Book of Revelation. He is the Lamb who was slain but now reigns in glory and to whom all bow down in worship. He brought salvation to all, and he possesses all power and might. The church is the bride of the Lamb. He and the Father are the new Temple and the light in the new Jerusalem, and from their throne flows the river of life. See Rv 5:6, 5:8, 5:12, 5:13, 6:1, 6:16, 7:9, 7:10, 7:14, 7:17, 12:11, 13:8, 13:11, 14:1, 14:4, 14:10, 15:3, 17:14, 19:7, 19:9, 21:9, 21:14, 21:23, 21:23, 21:27, 22:1, and 22:3.

64

Chapter 2

that he is truly Father/YHWH-Saves. Third, the Holy Spirit in configuring Jesus, the Father’s Son, to be the Father’s Lamb of sacrifice manifested that he is Spirit/YHWH-Saves, for only in, through, and with him will Jesus, the Father’s Son, enact his saving works.24 Thus the Evangelist has, through the Baptist’s combined proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God and the Father’s Lamb, testified that the persons of the Trinity, in accordance with their distinct identities, are the one saving God—YHWH. Accordingly, while the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism portray the historical narrative, John’s Gospel accentuates the revelation, the theology, contained within those narratives. Here John’s Gospel once again becomes the theological interpreter, the hermeneutical lens, through which the one Gospel tradition as various expressed within the Synoptic Gospels is to be read and understood. The Evangelist as the Ultimate Interpreter of God the Father I noted above that to hear the voice of John the Baptist is to hear the voice of God the Father, for he is the Father’s theological interpreter. John provides the full meaning of what the Father is doing and saying within John’s baptism of his Son, Jesus. The reader may have also observed that I have frequently prefaced the Baptist’s words with such phrases as “according to John’s Gospel, John says” or “the Evangelist has the Baptist say.” In the light of this a twofold question arises. First, is what John declares historically accurate? Second, is the Evangelist putting into the mouth of the Baptist words he never actually spoke? These are crucial issues for interpreting the Gospel of John. These same issues will surface again when we address John’s account of the gathering of the first disciples and later concerning the words of Jesus—words that stylistically are markedly different from what he says within the Synoptic Gospels. John in his Gospel is providing a theological interpretation of the one Gospel narrative, a tradition that is expressed in a threefold manner within the 24.  Within Jesus’ baptism we have the sending forth, the exitus, of the Father’s anointed Son as the Lamb of God. Upon the completion of Jesus salvific work, by becoming the salvific Lamb, the risen Jesus is empowered to baptize with the Holy Spirit those who believe. This is the bringing back, the reditus. Those baptized with the Holy Spirit are united to Jesus, the risen Son, and so in the same Spirit live in communion with the Father. In this communion, we also find each of the persons of the Trinity acting as YHWH-Saves—Jesus, the Son, in the act of baptizing; the Spirit, in the act of uniting the baptized to Jesus; and the Father as the acting source of his Son’s and Spirit’s actions by which the faithful come into divine communion with him.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

65

Synoptic Gospels. With regard to John the Baptist, what the Gospel of John has the Baptist testify to is historically true in that it is an accurate theological interpretation of what historically took place and so revealed. In order to elucidate more clearly, and so develop more fully, what is inherent within the historical revelation, the Evangelist, I believe, places in the mouth of the Baptist his own spirit-inspired, and so inerrant, theological interpretation. In the instance of Jesus’ baptism, the Baptist, often by being the Father’s spokesman, imparts to the actual historical narrative its profounder meaning. Is what John the Baptist says actually his verbatim historical words? Probably not in every instance. Do the words that the Baptist speaks in John’s Gospel accurately provide the fuller meaning of what he actually did say or impart the fuller doctrinal meaning of Jesus’ baptism? The answer is a resounding yes. In saying that Jesus, the Spirit-anointed Father’s Son, is the Lamb of God, John has lucidly brought to the fore the entire doctrinal meaning and the whole theological significance of Jesus’ baptism—and thus why the Father is well pleased in his beloved Son. Such an understanding of what John is doing in his Gospel likewise more fully accounts for why John the Baptist speaks in the first person, on his own account. Within the Synoptics the meaning of the baptismal events are narrated or ascribed to John in the third person. Similarly, whereas the Synoptic accounts narrate that the Father proclaims Jesus to be his beloved Son, in John’s Gospel the Baptist proclaims him to be the Son of God.25 The Baptist’s testimony, in John’s Gospel, thus fulfills what was said of him in the Prologue—John was the man sent by God who “came for testimony, to bear witness to the light that all might believe” (Jn 1:6–7). John’s first-person testimony is his bearing witness to the very words and actions of God the Father, thus verifying the historicity of the Father’s baptismal act and proclamation. “I have seen [the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus] and have born witness that this [man] is the Son of God” (Jn 1:34). The Evangelist, in the fourth Gospel, is testifying on behalf of Jesus by bearing theological and interpretive witness to the Father’s own testimony, a testimony that is found in the Synoptic Gospels. This is a unique Johannine genre—the Evangelist places his theological interpretation in the mouth of the Baptist and in so doing gives voice to God the Father. John the Evangelist is, then, the ultimate theological interpreter of Jesus’ baptism, for he, through the Baptist, articulates what the Father has doctrinally revealed within the event of his Son’s 25.  Moreover, while God the Father, in Luke’s Gospel, is the first to call Jesus his Son and in so doing fulfills the angelic prophecy made to Mary, in John’s Gospel the Baptist is the first to bear witness that Jesus “is the Son of God” (see Lk 1:35 and 3:21–22). As the one sent by God to testify to the truth, the Baptist is bearing witness to the truth of the Father’s testimony.

66

Chapter 2

baptism. A comparable form of this genre will become evident within Jesus’ subsequent public ministry and teaching. The Gathering of the Disciples John’s Gospel, having narrated John the Baptist’s testimony as to who he is not (day one) as well as witnessing as to who Jesus is (day two), now recounts the gathering (this term is used intentionally) of Jesus’ first disciples. “The next day [day three] again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.”26 John’s “looking” and his directive “Behold” initiate a sequence on the part of those who, in the remainder of the chapter, are “beholding,” “looking,” “seeing,” “seeking,” and “finding.” The result of all of this looking, seeking, and finding is the “following” of Jesus. This “following” of Jesus continues to introduce Jesus, for in following him the disciples come to know him and in turn proclaim him whom they have found. This gathering of the first disciples, for the Evangelist, exemplifies the gathering of the church around Jesus as well as the church’s proclamation of who Jesus is—the one whom the church has found.27 Before examining the actual text, the issue that needs immediate attention is the discrepancy between John’s account of the gathering of the first disciples and that of the Synoptics. Matthew and Mark have Jesus, as he walks along the Sea of Galilee, calling Peter and Andrew, James, and John, all fishermen, to follow him so as to make them fishers of men (see Mt 4:18–22 and Mk 1:16–20). Luke, in a more fully developed and probably a more historically accurate account, places the calling of Simon (and presumably his brother, Andrew), James, and John within the context of the miraculous catch of fish (see Lk 5:1–11).28 With regard to John’s rendering, John the Baptist, as quoted above, initiates the gathering of Jesus’ disciples. They follow Jesus in response to John’s directive to “Behold, the Lamb of God.” This response is in fulfillment of what was declared in the Prologue that John “was sent by God” precisely “to bear witness . . . that all might believe through him” (Jn 1:6–7).29 26.  Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 1:35–51. 27.  When examining the calling of the disciples within the Synoptics, we also perceived it as the gathering of the church that will be the official and authoritative witness to who Jesus is and to his saving ministry. See JBJ 1:113–15. 28. See JBJ 1:115n3. 29.  Subsequent passages also record John’s importance (see Jn 3:22–31, 4:1). Later, in confronting Jewish criticism, Jesus says that he does not bear witness to himself alone. “There is another who bears witness to me, and I know that his testimony which he bears to me is true. You sent to

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

67

Moreover, the Evangelist is providing the historical prolegomenon to Jesus’ actual “calling” of his first disciples. Only after they follow Jesus, as John’s former disciples, does Jesus “call” them to be his disciples. This explains the seeming discrepancy between the Synoptic accounts and the Johannine account—in John we find the “historical gathering,” and in the Synoptics we find the subsequent “calling.” Such an understanding provides a rationale for what appears as the somewhat impulsive and thoughtless response to Jesus’ “call” within Matthew and Mark—the immediacy with which Peter and Andrew, James and John leave everything, even a father, and follow Jesus. The “calling” of these disciples was not their first encounter with Jesus, as the Matthean and Marken texts may lead the reader to suppose. All of these disciples, as former disciples of John, were followers of Jesus because of John, but only, consequently, did Jesus actually call them to be his called disciples, to which call they immediately responded.30 At this juncture we can undertake a theological examination of the Evangelist’s account of the gathering of Jesus’ first disciples. The clue to this investigation is found, I believe, in the opening three words—“the next day.” As observed above, John indicates a three-day sequence. The marking of the days is theologically significant. The first day reveals who should not be followed, John; and the second day discloses who should be followed, Jesus. The third day results in the “leaving” of John and the “following” of Jesus. John himself is responsible for this movement away from himself and toward Jesus. On this third day, John is once more “standing” looking at Jesus with John, and he has born witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me” (Jn 5:30–36). Jesus knows that John’s testimony concerning him is true not because it is human testimony but because God, who sent him, revealed the truth to him so that all may believe “through him” (Jn 1:7). Jesus desires that they now believe John so that they “may be saved.” Jesus’ Father-granted works are an even greater testimony to who he is, and such testimony confirms John’s testimony—that Jesus, by being the saving sacrificial Lamb of God, manifests that he is the Son of God. Moreover, having alluded to an attempt to arrest him, Jesus “went away across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained. And many came to him; and they said, ‘John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.’ And many believed in him there” (Jn 10:40–42). At the very place where John baptized, the people recalled his words, that Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the Father’s Son, and that remembrance confirmed their faith—they came to believe “through him” (Jn 1:7). Again, John gives baptismal voice to God the Father—“This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” 30. The above interpretation is in keeping with one of my principles, that is, that the Synoptics, and the one Gospel tradition that they severally express, are to be read through the theological, and sometimes the historical, lens of John’s Gospel.

68

Chapter 2

knowing faith. Jesus is “walking,” and in seeing the walking Jesus, the standing John says, “Behold the Lamb of God!” John is idly standing because there is nothing more for him to do—his ministry of testifying to Jesus has ended. Jesus, however, is now on the move, undertaking his baptismal ministry as the Father’s Spirit-filled Son. John realizes this and so declares to his standing disciples, “Behold,” that is, look with faith, “the Lamb of God!” Although they would not have fully comprehended in faith what John had just declared, the hearing disciples’ curiosity was duly aroused so as to set them in motion, and so they left the standing John and followed the walking Jesus.31 That this took place on the third day seems to imply that Jesus as the Lamb of God would lead his following disciples through his passion and death to the third day of his resurrection—the day on which he, as the risen Son of God, will fulfill his baptismal commissioned ministry—the baptizing of his disciples with the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ Easter evening appearance to his disciples on “the first day of the week” appears to validate this interpretation. “Now on the first day of the week”—that is, simultaneously the third day in the tomb and the first day of the new creation—the risen Jesus appeared to his gathered disciples and said to them, “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:19, 20:21–23). As John “was sent by God” (see Jn 1:6) and Jesus was sent by God (see Jn 3:16 and 17:18), so Jesus now sends his first faithful followers. Moreover, as John testified that Jesus would baptize in the Spirit, and as Jesus was baptized in the Spirit so as to accomplish his saving baptismal ministry, so now, as the risen Savior and Lord, Jesus does baptize his disciples, those that followed him, so that they too could be sent forth to continue his saving ministry—the forgiveness of sins and the baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Thus, while John’s water baptism symbolized the purification from sin but did not actually achieve it, Jesus’ breathing forth his Holy Spirit upon his disciples truly actualizes this purification and reconciliation with his Father, a reconciliation that brings peace. What we perceive, then, in Jesus’ resurrection appearance to his disciples is the fulfilled replication, and so the fulfilled mandate, of his own baptism—the breathing forth of his Father’s Spirit of Sonship upon his disciples. 31.  Later, when some of his remaining disciples were concerned that “all were going to” Jesus, John responded by reminding them that they bear him witness that he said that he was not the Christ but “sent before him.” Rather, the friend of the bridegroom rejoices upon hearing the bridegroom’s voice. “Therefore this joy of mine [John’s] is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:22–30). John’s final witness is that Jesus, the Christ, has arrived, thus causing him fullness of joy. In this joy, John, but not his witness, fades away.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

69

When John’s disciples then set off to follow the Lamb of God, little did they know (but the Evangelist knew) that on that third day they were undertaking a journey that would convey them to the cross, and on the third/first day of the resurrection, whereupon they would assume, in the Holy Spirit, their own cruciform ministry of proclaiming the Gospel, a salvific journey to their own risen glory. For John, to follow Jesus, to be in communion with him who is the Lamb of God, is to take up one’s cross, for only in the cross does one obtain the new life of the resurrection.32 Thus John’s present narrative of the gathering of Jesus’ disciples is, again, providing the deeper theological interpretation of what is found in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus calling his disciples. What immediately follows intensifies the importance of beholding Jesus as the Lamb of God, and so coming to see him truly as God’s Son, for John the Baptist bore witness to both of these dimensions of Jesus ministry. Interestingly, the Gospel, having said that John’s two disciples followed Jesus, next states, “Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, ‘What do you seek?’” The disciples beheld the Lamb of God and so turned from John to follow Jesus, and now Jesus turns and beholds them. One would suspect that Jesus would have asked “whom” do you seek, since they are following a person, the Lamb of God, and so would have wanted to know further his identity. But Jesus instead inquires, “What do you seek?” Jesus asks, as is always the case in John’s Gospel, the profounder and more significant question rather than providing an answer to a less relevant question. But the answer given by the disciples is ironically apropos. “Rabbi [which means teacher], where are you staying?”33 Literally, the disciples want to know the geographical location of his domicile, which is rather odd, since where Jesus, the Lamb of God, stays is presently of no germane importance. But by asking where Jesus is staying, they are actually answering Jesus’ question as to what 32.  John’s Gospel does not have Peter’s profession of faith, nor does it have Jesus’ informing his disciples that “if any man would come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me” (Mt 16:24; see also Lk 14:27 and Mk 8:34–35). John does have, in keeping with the Synoptics, the admonition that one must lose one’s life in order to save it, followed by: “If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him” (Jn 12:25–26). To follow Jesus, one must lose one’s life by taking of up one’s cross, and in so doing, one will be honored by his Father as Jesus honored by his Father. 33.  Although it is often assumed that John wrote his Gospel for Gentile Christians, and thus his translation of Hebrew terms such as Rabbi and Messiah, his very use of the Hebrew terms may suggest that his primary audience was actually Jewish Christians or, more significantly, unbelieving Jews, and only secondarily Gentiles, for whom he makes allowance by translating the terms for them.

70

Chapter 2

they are seeking. They are truly seeking, without realizing it, salvation, and for this reason they are following the Lamb of God. As they will discover, to abide with Jesus, to find where he truly lives, is to find just that—salvation. So when Jesus answers, “Come and see,” he is not simply going to show them the structure wherein he hangs his cloak. He is going to lead them to where they can truly observe where he abides, that is, with his heavenly Father as the Father’s Son. He will show them that to abide with him is to abide with his Father in the communion of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, Jesus will reveal to them that he, as YHWH-Saves, is the Messiah—the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son. This is exactly what ensues. The disciples “came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.” While they remained with Jesus the rest of that day (and presumably overnight since it was the tenth hour), their time with him was not taken up with perusing Jesus’ house and touring the adjoining neighborhood. For the next day (day four), “one of the two disciples who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.34 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, ‘we have found the Messiah’ [which means Christ]. He brought him to Jesus.” By coming to see where Jesus stayed, Andrew came to believe, presumably not merely because of John’s declaration that Jesus was the Lamb of God but also in the course of conversing with him, that Jesus was the Messiah, that is, the long-awaited anointed one whom God would send to save Israel. To be the Lamb of God is, then, for Jesus, YHWH-Saves, to be the Messiah, the Christ. What Jesus said or did to convince Andrew that such was the case is unknown. Nonetheless, having found where Jesus stayed, the first thing Andrew did was to “find” his brother Simon and told him that “We have found the Messiah,” and in finding Peter, “he brought him to Jesus.” Simon too must come and see. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus called his disciples to be fishers of men, and now here in John’s Gospel the first fish Andrew catches is his own brother, Simon. Once again, we see John providing a theological interpretation of the Synoptic accounts of the one Gospel tradition—to be a disciple is to find, to fish for, other disciples and to bring them to Jesus so that they too can truly see that he abides with his Father as the Father’s Son. Interestingly, the Gospel identifies Andrew, as quoted above, as “Simon Peter’s brother.” Thus the Evangelist is signaling the theological importance 34.  The name of the other disciple is not disclosed. Tradition holds that this second disciple was the Evangelist, John himself. That the Gospel previously designated the time at about the tenth hour could indicate that, John being the author, it was his personal historical recollection.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

71

of who Andrew’s brother Simon is even before he meets Jesus. Who is now important is not Andrew but his brother Simon, for he is Peter. Such signaling is in keeping with the Gospel’s predominate theological theme, that of establishing and confirming Peter’s profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The importance of Peter within John’s Gospel is immediately confirmed. “Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”35 Jesus “looked” at Simon the son of John, but what he truly saw was the rock upon which the faith of the church would be build. Thus to look rightly at Jesus is to see the Lamb of God, the Christ, just as to look rightly at Simon is to see the Rock of faith. Here again there is a discrepancy between John and the Synoptics, though the latter are not of one mind themselves. Matthew’s Gospel sees the renaming of Simon to Peter as a response to his profession of faith, making clear that Peter would be the rock upon which Jesus would build his church (see Mt 16:17–18). Mark and Luke merely note, when recounting Jesus’ selection of his twelve Apostles, that the first to be named is “Simon, whom he [Jesus] surnamed Peter” (Mk 3:16 and Lk 6:14). All four Gospels therefore recognize that the naming of Peter is significant because he, as the leader of the Apostles, is and will be the rock of faith upon which the future church will be built. Does John’s account nonetheless provide any new or deeper theological understanding of the significance of Peter and of his role among the Apostles? In John’s narration of the gathering of the first disciples, the vignette concerning Peter is surprisingly the shortest (one verse), and Peter is the only named person who does not have a speaking part (the unnamed one being John the present narrator). Within John’s account, five disciples gather around Jesus—Andrew and the unnamed one, then Peter, followed by Philip and Nathanael. Peter stands alone at the epicenter of the entire gathering. That he is silent, which is quite unusual for Peter in all four Gospels, accentuates his person, the centrality of what he embodies and represents—who he simply is 35.  Here I have used the New American Bible, revised edition translation, rather than the Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition. The RSV translates the passage as “Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the Son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).” Not only does the RSV divide what Jesus says into two sentences, but also the first sentence is translated as a question. There seems to be no reason why Jesus would ask such a question, unless he has already heard about him from his brother Andrew and wanted to make sure that Andrew was actually bringing his brother Simon. But then it should be translated as “So are you.” If Andrew previously spoke glowingly of his brother, which is highly likely, then the translation could end with an exclamation point and not a question mark. Jesus’ enthusiastic response upon meeting the celebrated -Simon would then be, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, “So, you are Simon the Son of John!”

72

Chapter 2

as the Rock. He will keep the gathered faithful together—the future church. The narrative, having gathered Simon into Jesus’ circle of disciples and noted his distinction as Peter (Rock), swiftly moves on to “the next day” (day five), when Jesus “decided to go to Galilee.” Upon arriving, Jesus “found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me.’ Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” Philip is the only person Jesus “found” and the only person Jesus actually “calls” to follow him. All of the others found Jesus with the help of someone else. Why did Jesus specifically, on his own, seek out Philip, presumably traveling to Galilee for that precise purpose? Philip is a Greek name. Philip could then be either a Jew whose parents were influenced by the contemporary Greek culture or a Gentile who converted to Judaism (see Acts 6:9). A rather strong case can be made for the latter since, later in the Gospel, Greeks approached Philip requesting his help in seeing Jesus (Jn 12:20–21). If so, then it is noteworthy that while the others, being Jewish, seek other Jews to bring them to Jesus, it is Jesus himself who seeks out Philip, who would be not only the first Gentile believer but the only Gentile Apostle. The Evangelist, it thus appears, is here evidencing, at the very onset of the first gathering of the church, the theological truth that Jesus is the Savior of Jew and Gentile alike. The apostolic church itself is composed of Jews and Greeks—it is foundationally catholic or universal.36 36.  Philip, unlike in the Synoptics, plays a somewhat prominent role in John’s Gospel. Later, at the Sea of Galilee, upon seeing the multitudes that followed him because of the signs he worked, Jesus asked Philip, “‘How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?’ This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered, ‘Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little’” (Jn 6:1–7). Despite the signs Jesus had worked, Philip, like the Jewish disciples, did not believe that Jesus could miraculously solve the difficulty. Interestingly, John’s Gospel has Jesus again directly addressing Philip about the problem rather than the Apostles raising the concern to Jesus as for the need of food (see Mt 14:13–17, 6:35–37; Lk 9:12–13). Such detail, again, may demonstrate that John is writing as an eyewitness of the event, while the Synoptic authors were not. More significantly, the Greeks who followed Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover “came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, ‘Sir, we wish to see Jesus.’ Philip went and told Andrew; and Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, ‘The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit’” (Jn 12:20–24). That the Greeks approached Philip appears to indicate that they felt more comfortable making their request known to him, thinking he could help them attain entry to Jesus. Philip, however, elicits the aid of Andrew in approaching Jesus with the Greeks’ request. This Gentile and Jewish twosome may indicate that both Jews and Greeks are responsible for the conversion of the Gentiles. Jesus’ answer, however, is most enigmatic, for it does not appear to address the question at hand. Again, Jesus is addressing a profounder issue than that of the Greeks being able to see him. Jesus speaks of his hour when, as a grain of wheat, he will die and in so doing bear the fruit of saving both Jew and Greek alike. As Jesus attempted

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

73

That Philip did follow Jesus is confirmed immediately. “Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also in the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’”37 As Andrew found Simon Peter and told him that they had found the Messiah, so now Philip, having been found by Jesus, finds Nathanael and provides an even longer description of whom they have found. They have found him of whom the whole of the Old Testament speaks, thus enhancing the meaning of the term Messiah. This enhancement includes not only the prophet whom God promised Moses would come after him (see Dt 18:15–18) but also, since Jesus is the Lamb of God, the Suffering Servant prophecies within Isaiah. Here the Evangelist places at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry something that only becomes evident within the Matthean and Lukan Passion Narratives. In Matthew, Jesus commands Peter to put away his sword and says, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” At that hour, Jesus spoke to the crowd about their coming to him now with clubs and swords when he had been daily teaching in the temple.38 “But all of this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Mt 26:52–56). In Luke, Jesus, in his post-resurrection appearances, tells the men on the road to Emmaus, “O foolish men, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not to teach Philip that he is able to multiply enough bread to feed the multitude, so now Jesus is attempting to teach Philip (and Andrew) that his death, the single grain, can produce enough fruit/bread to satisfy all of humankind. After informing Thomas that he is the way, the truth, and the life, Jesus emphasizes that to know him is to know the Father. Philip then asks, “‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say “show us the Father?” Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me . . .?’” (Jn 14:8–11). In this last scene in which Philip appears, we see why Jesus found Philip and why everyone else was seeking and finding Jesus. To find Jesus, the Father’s Son, is to find the Son’s Father, for they co-inhere in one another. For John, all of the seeking and finding, the looking and the beholding culminate in coming into communion with Jesus the Father’s Son so as to find and behold the Son’s Father. This is why Jesus sought out and found Philip, and why Philip should now be satisfied. 37.  Nathanael does not appear in the Synoptics’ list of the Apostles (see Mt 10:2–4, Mk 3:16–19, Lk 6:14–16, and Acts 1:12–14). Tradition holds that John’s Nathanael is the Synoptics’ Bartholomew. 38.  Matthew’s designating the time of Jesus’ arrest as “that hour” resonates with the Johannine emphasis of “the hour” or “my hour,” whereupon Jesus will be glorified through his death and resurrection.

74

Chapter 2

necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all of the prophets, he interpreted to them all of the scriptures the things concerning himself ” (Lk 24:25–27).39 John is again signposting that what Philip professes at the commencement of Jesus’ ministry will be more fully revealed in the course of his narrative. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the anticipated messianic prophet who will offer his life for the salvation of the world, as Moses and the prophets foretold. Nathanael, however, finds Philip’s proclamation scandalous if not absurd. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” How is it possible that he of whom the entire Hebrew Scripture speaks could be Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph? Nathanael, within John’s Gospel, articulates what those who are later designated “the Jews” continually protest. The Jews murmured upon hearing Jesus’ declaration that he is the bread of life and whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood will have eternal life. “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’” (Jn 6:41–42)? Later, a debate arose concerning who Jesus is, and some said, “Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from” (Jn 7:26–27). When Jesus spoke of his being the source of living water, some responded, “‘This is really the prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’ But some said, ‘Is Christ from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’” (Jn 7:40–42). Upon hearing of the debate and that some thought Jesus to be the prophet and the Christ, the chief priests and Pharisees, in response to Nicodemus’ defense of such thoughts, responded, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (Jn 7:45–53).40 Though he would have initially agreed with the above negative assessment, Nathanael possessed a virtue that was absent from the majority of the chief priests and Pharisees—the unbelieving Jews. Having accepted Philip’s invitation to “Come and see,” the Evangelist states, “Jesus saw Nathanael 39.  See also Lk 24:44–47, where Jesus expresses the same thoughts. 40.  These are instances of Johannine irony. People think they know where Jesus is from— Nazareth, and so proving that he cannot be the Messiah. When the Messiah does come, some hold that no one will know where he is from, while others note that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem and so be of the linage of David. The irony is that while Jesus is from Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem of David’s stock, and in fact “no one” does know where he is from for they refuse to believe that he is from the Father. Unsurprisingly, John’s awareness that Jesus is from Bethlehem shows that he is familiar with the one Gospel narrative as portrayed in infancy accounts in Matthew and Luke.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

75

coming to him, and said of him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!’” As Nathanael was coming to see Jesus, Jesus saw him, and what he exclaims to those with him is “Behold,” for what he sees is an authentic Israelite and thus one without guile.41 Nathanael is without guile precisely because he spoke the truth about a backwater village from which no one of any importance has ever emerged—can anything good come out of Nazareth?42 Yet Nathanael is also without guile precisely because he is open to the truth—in this case, the truth that there could indeed come from Nazareth someone of importance, the likes of whom neither Israel, nor the world, nor even Nazareth itself ever anticipated. This openness is what separates him from the guileful and unbelieving Jews. Nathanael responds to Jesus’ declaration by asking, “How do you know me?” To which Jesus states, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Even before Philip called him, Jesus saw Nathanael under the fig tree, and what he saw was not simply a man by that name, but more importantly a man without guile. Jesus’ referencing the fig tree has messianic connotations. Peace will reign; spears will be turned into pruning hooks and nations will no longer lift up swords against one another, “but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid” (Mi 4:3–4). Moreover, when the Messiah comes, sin’s guilt will be removed 41.  There may be a little irony here. Having wrestled with Jacob and lost, God inquires as to who he is. Jacob tells him. In response, God says, “Your name shall no more be called Jacob but Israel, for you have striven with God and men, and have prevailed.” Jacob, in turn, requests the name of the man he was fighting. God did not tell Jacob his name but did bless him (Gn 32:27–29). The history of Israel was a history of Israel struggling with God—a narrative of sin, repentance, forgiveness, and promise. Often the Israelites were cunning and deceitful toward God. Moreover, Jacob was not the most honest of men, even if duplicity was in accordance with God’s will (see Mal 1:2–3 and Rom 9:10–13). He deceived his father, Isaac, so as to obtain his paternal blessing. When Isaac told Esau that he could not receive his blessing because “your brother came with guile, and he has taken away your blessing,” Esau responded, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? [which popularly means ‘he will trip with his heel’). For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright; and behold, now he has taken away my blessing” (Gn 27:34–36). So, Nathanael is a true Israelite since, unlike Jacob, he is without guile. 42.  Even Nazareth itself would have agreed with Nathanael. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus initiates his ministry by going to his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. There he read from the prophet Isaiah (Is 61:1–2) and concluded by saying to those in attendance that this passage has been fulfilled in their hearing. Their response was “Is not this Joseph’s son?” and in the end attempted to throw him off a cliff (Lk 4:16–30). Similarly, in Matthew, Jesus went to his “own country” and “taught in their synagogue,” and the people were astonished as his words and mighty deeds. They said, “‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us? Where did this man get all of this?’ And they took offense at him” (Mt 13:53–58). Nathanael was merely expressing the judgment of Jesus’ own townsfolk.

76

Chapter 2

because “in that day, says the Lord of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor under his vine and under his fig tree” (Zec 3:9–10). Nathanael, the true Israelite without guile, personifies the Jew within the messianic age, for he is a man of faith—he recognizes Jesus to be the Messiah. “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” For Nathanael, Jesus is the supreme teacher for he is God’s Son, and being the Messianic Son of God, he is the King of Israel, the king who will usher in a salvific kingdom of peace. Prior to examining Jesus’ climactic response to Nathanael, we first need to gather together the sequence of events thus far. What embraces the entire gathering of the disciples is the exhortation “Come and see.” When Jesus first turned to Andrew and the unnamed disciple, he asked what they sought. They replied that they wanted to see where he dwelt, to which Jesus replied, “Come and see.” In response to Nathanael’s disparaging remark concerning Nazareth’s worth, Philip echoed Jesus’ own words—“Come and see.” Thus the gathering of Jesus’ disciples within John’s Gospel, from beginning to end, is accomplished in their coming to Jesus and so seeing who he is. Through their testimony, beginning with John the Baptist, the disciples also introduce the reader to Jesus. The reader comes to see as well. What the reader finds is the Baptist’s “Lamb of God,” Andrew’s “the Messiah,” Philip’s “the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke,” and lastly Nathanael’s “Son of God” and “King of Israel.” By abiding with Jesus, the disciples, and in the light of their testimony the reader, also perceive ever more deeply who Jesus is—the Father’s Messianic Son, who, through his being the sacrificial Lamb of the new covenant, will become Israel’s everlasting king.43 Moreover, the Evangelist, by enclosing his gathering account within the “Come and see,” has simultaneously made it prophetic. The gathered disciples are prophetic icons of what will be later narrated within the Gospel— what the first disciples saw and prophetically declared concerning Jesus actually comes to its fulfillment and so is confirmed. The gathered disciples are also prophetic icons of those who are presently reading the Gospel—if they continue to read, if they come and see where he abides, they too will discover who Jesus truly is and so profess the same faith.44 43.  Nathanael’s declaration that Jesus is the King of Israel finds its prophetic fulfillment in the inscription that Pilate had placed on the cross above Jesus’ head—“Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (Jn 19:19). 44.  John here is, in a sense, following the lead of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. As we saw in volume 1, they are prophetic in nature, for all that the angel proclaims to Mary concerning her son will come to pass in the course of the Gospel narrative. The same is true within John’s Gospel—all that the Baptist and the first disciples declare concerning Jesus will be fulfilled and so confirmed as the narrative progresses and culminates in the Passion Narrative.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

77

The prophetic nature of John’s gathering account finds decisive affirmation in Jesus’ response to Nathanael’s declaration: “‘Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.’ And he said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened, and the angles of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’” Jesus’ final declaration is a prophecy of what ultimately will be seen by Nathanael, the other disciples, and even the reader. Nathanael, as the true Israelite without guile, will see the fulfillment of what his namesake Jacob/ Israel prophetically saw. In a dream, Jacob saw “a ladder set up on the earth, and the top reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it,” whereupon God reaffirmed the promises he had made to Abraham and Isaac concerning the Promised Land and the fecundity and prosperity of their descendants. Upon waking, Jacob declared, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gn 28:12–17). The greater thing that Nathanael will see is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In place of a ladder, Nathanael and all believers will see a cross planted upon the earth, and upon it will hang the Son of man who, through his sacrificial death, will pierce the heavens so as to allow heaven and earth to be conjoined (symbolized in the ascending and descending angels). For the Evangelist, such a completion will fulfill what was prefigured in Jesus’ baptism. There the heavens were opened and the Father poured out the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, his Son, commissioning him to take up his saving ministry. As the Lamb of God, Jesus would on the cross obtain the forgiveness of the world’s sin. As the Father’s Spirit-filled risen Son, he would from the open heavens baptize those on earth with the Holy Spirit who believe in his name. The baptized faithful are lifted up so as to abide with the heavenly Jesus and in this way abide also with his heavenly Father. Jesus is the house of God, the living temple, for to abide in him, the Father’s Son, is to abide with the Son’s Father. As the incarnate glorious Son, Jesus is also the gate of heaven because in, with, and through him, in communion with the Holy Spirit, the faithful have access to his Father.45 Thus Jesus ends the gathering narrative where it Again, we may see the Evangelist, through Nathanael, speaking to his unbelieving brethren. They, like Nathanael, should be without guile and so believe to be the Father’s Son and the King of Israel, both of which will be revealed within throughout the Gospel, culminating in Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection. 45.  Jesus will shortly refer to himself as the temple of God, which, if destroyed, he will raise it up in three days (see Jn 2:19). Also, Jesus will later state, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door/ gate of the sheep.” Jesus is the entrance to the abundant life of salvation (Jn 10:7–10). Such an understanding finds complete expression in Jesus declaring, “I am the way and the truth and the

78

Chapter 2

began—showing his disciples (and the reader), as they had requested, where he abides, and in so doing where they too are to abide. Before concluding this chapter, we must again address the issue of historicity. I argued above that the Evangelist placed in the mouth of the Baptist the deeper theological truths that reside within Jesus’ historical baptism. Similarly, while historical in nature, John molds the first gathering of Jesus’ disciples into a prophetic theological introduction to Jesus’ messianic divine identity and his future salvific ministry. Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and presumably John himself as unnamed did find, in following Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Messiah of whom Moses and the prophets spoke, and so concluded that he is the Son of God and the King of Israel. But they would not have comprehended the fullness of what John has them so clearly profess. John himself, as a believing apostolic member of the nascent church and author of the present account, would have fully grasped the significance of what had taken place and has written his account so as to disclose its full theological significance. Again, John fashions his narrative to accentuate the historical truth contained therein, even though his narrative may not entirely render every historical detail accurately. John’s primary concern is to manifest clearly the inherent historical divine revelation, a revelation that becomes ever more evident as the reader progresses in a fuller understanding of the Gospel narrative. Conclusion We have concluded our theological examination of the first chapter of John’s Gospel. Our guiding hermeneutical principle, in both this and the previous chapter, has been that John is introducing Jesus—first through the Prologue, followed by the Baptist’s testimony, and lastly within the gathering of the first disciples. The Gospel’s introduction focuses on Jesus’ identity and, founded upon his identity, his future salvific ministry. For John, who Jesus is determines what he will accomplish. From this study, I want to draw two theological conclusions as well as comment on how the Gospel’s opening chapter anticipates, by way of introduction, the subsequent Gospel narrative. First, the Gospel’s opening chapter is accentuating the mystery of the Incarnation, that is, that the historical man Jesus is the Word/Son of God. Jesus is the subject of all of the divine and messianic titles as well as all of the Old Testament’s allusions and references. This is true not only within the Prologue but also in relationship to John’s testimony and the proclamations life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). To abide in Jesus, the incarnate Son, is to abide in God’s temple and so enter into the very presence of his heavenly Father.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

79

of the first disciples. All who came and saw the man, Jesus of Nazareth, all who beheld and abided with the man Jesus, the son of Joseph, found him to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the Spirit-anointed Messiah spoken of by Moses and the prophets, and the Son of God and the King of Israel. Because Jesus is the Father’s incarnate Son/Word, all of these various biblical titles accrue to him in a new and unanticipated manner. As we noted in chapter 1, on the Prologue, John’s Gospel does not accentuate the divinity of Jesus to the detriment of his humanity. Rather, it is the historical man, Jesus, to whom all of these divine biblical titles and honors are bestowed. From the very onset of his Gospel, John wishes the reader to perceive the glory of the Father’s Son shining forth from within his very own humanity. This Johannine emphasis will continue throughout the Gospel. Again, the Gospel’s rationale must never be lost—that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31). Second, some consider John’s Gospel to be anti-Jewish owing to the confrontations that take place between Jesus and “the Jews.” But the Gospel’s first chapter, which introduces Jesus, is theologically thoroughly Jewish in conception and expression, so much so that it often goes unnoticed. All that is predicated of the man Jesus finds its origin within Jewish revelation. The concepts and language employed within the Prologue are biblical in nature—beginning with Genesis, following through to the covenant with its covenantal language, and climaxing in God’s very Word becoming flesh. The Incarnation, in turn, theologically enhances all the previous revelation, manifesting its anticipated deeper meaning. In Jesus, the Father’s Son, is found the fullness of covenantal grace and truth, a plenitude that inheres within his making known the Father. Similarly, John the Baptist carries within his very person the whole of the Jewish tradition, and he was sent by God himself to bear witness that Jesus is the Father’s promised Messiah. He confirms that Jesus is the Father’s Son, for upon him the Father bestowed his Spirit of Sonship, thus empowering him to baptize in the Holy Spirit. John testifies that Jesus is the Lamb of God and thus he will establish, through his sacrificial death, the new and living covenant. Moreover, through John’s testimony the first disciples gather around Jesus and in doing so confirm, in their own words, what John had proclaimed. The Evangelist, John the Baptist, the one sent by God, ensures not only the veracity of what is professed in the Gospel’s opening chapter but also the Jewish continuity, and thus the Father’s faithfulness to his people, Israel. Although John was sent by God to bear witness to Jesus “that all might

80

Chapter 2

believe through him” (Jn 1:7), he states more specifically, “For this I came baptizing with water, that he [Jesus] might be revealed to Israel” (Jn 1:31). Significantly, the last person to come to Jesus is the ridiculing Nathanael, who nonetheless is the true Israelite without guile, and it is Nathanael who most clearly professes, in accordance with the Baptist, Jesus’ divine identity as the Father’s Son as well as his ultimate Jewish significance as the King of Israel. Nathanael is, then, the exemplar of the nonbelieving Jew becoming the believing Jew—a transformation that the Evangelist would hope to engender in those Jews who would read his Gospel. While John’s Gospel is for the benefit of the entire church, as are all of the Gospels, it would appear that his Gospel has a particular concern for the Jewish people—that they would come to believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son and so come into full filial communion with him who chose them as his own people. We saw in the first volume of Jesus Becoming Jesus that the Father, through John’s baptism, commissioned the now Spirit-anointed Jesus to inaugurate his salvific ministry. In so doing, Jesus would undertake those saving acts by which he would enact his name—YHWH-Saves. We will now find the same in the Gospel of John. The Book of Signs (chaps. 2–13) narrates those miraculous signs and the teaching that accompanies those signs in which the glory of the only Son from the Father will be beheld. Likewise, they will manifest that Jesus, the incarnate Son, possesses the fullness of grace and truth—the grace upon grace that all who believe in him will receive. Ultimately, Jesus, in becoming Jesus, will make known his Father in whose bosom he resides. Jesus’ work of salvation, as the Lamb of God, is that of uniting himself to all who believe in his name—Jesus. This unity, as will become evident, is achieved through baptism wherein the faithful are born again in the Holy Spirit, and through the Eucharist wherein the faithful partake of Jesus’ own risen body and blood. This sacramental union with Jesus in the Holy Spirit is offered to the faithful to enable them to obtain communion with the Father as his children. The Book of Glory (chaps. 13–20) first contains Jesus’ own extended prophetic commentary on his final and most glorious of signs, that of his passion, death, and resurrection, which is most ardently expressed within Jesus’ high priestly prayer. Within the actual Paschal Mystery, Jesus definitively enacts his name, fully becomes the Lamb of God, and so displays the fullness of his glory as the Father’s Son. In raising Jesus gloriously from the dead, the Father empowers Jesus to fulfill his salvific ministry, the ministry he assumed when John baptized him and the ministry that John prophetically foretold, that of baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Again, this baptism with the Holy Spirit is a baptism of communion, for the Spirit rebirths the baptized

The Baptism of Jesus and the Gathering of the Apostles

81

into the likeness of Jesus, the Son, and thus simultaneously reposes them, with Jesus, in the Father’s bosom. Having been introduced to Jesus, we can now proceed to the Book of Signs, for through these signs and with his accompanying teaching, we will come to know Jesus more fully. With this fuller knowledge we will then more assuredly profess, with his disciples, our faith in his name—Jesus.

Part II

The Book of Signs John’s Gospel, having introduced Jesus in chapter 1, now proceeds to what has often been traditionally called the Book of Signs (chaps. 2–12).1 Such a designation accentuates that, within the Gospel of John, Jesus’ miracles are consistently called signs. Seven such miracle signs are explicitly narrated in these chapters: the changing of water into wine at Cana (Jn 2:1–11), the healing of the royal official’s son (Jn 4:46–54), the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida (Jn 5:2–14), the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:1– 14), Jesus walking on water (Jn 6:16–21), the healing of the blind man (Jn 9:1–41), and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11:1–44).2 This second 1.  Some English translations of the Gospel of John (see the New American Bible) designate Jn 1:19 as the beginning of the Book of Signs. I think it is more appropriate to begin with chapter 2, however, because the whole of chapter 1 is an introduction to the identity and ministry of Jesus. 2.  The miracle signs within John’s Gospel are frequently unique to him and so are not found within the Synoptic Gospels. Changing water into wine at Cana is the first such instance. The second of Jesus’ signs, the healing of the son of the official, finds its parallels in Mt 8:5–10 and Lk 7:2–10, though in Matthew and Luke, Jesus heals the official’s slave or servant and not his son. (That John designates the gravely ill person as the officials “son” may be John’s way of showing that, because of the official’s great love for his slave/servant, the slave/servant was truly a son to him, thus teaching his readers that all persons, even slaves/servants should be respected and treated as sons.) While the Synoptics tell of Jesus healing of a paralytic (see Mk 2:1–12, Mt 9:1–8, and Lk 5:17–26), Jesus’ healing of a paralytic in Jn 5:2–9, the third sign, is placed in an entirely different setting with a different theological meaning and so is a different miracle account from that of the Synoptics. The only similarity with the Synoptics is that Jesus instructs the man to pick up his pallet and walk. John’s fourth sign (Jn 6:1–14) is Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves, which closely parallels the accounts in the Synoptics (see Mt 14:13–21, Mk 6:32–44, and Lk 9:10–17), though Jesus employs this sign as the motivation or rationale for giving his Eucharistic discourse. The fifth sign is Jesus walking on the water (Jn 6:16–21). Though not providing the same detail, it has parallels in Mt 14:22–27 and Mk 6:45–51. Neither the sixth nor seventh sign has parallels within the Synoptics—the healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:1–7) and the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11:1–44). The question arises as to why John’s Gospel contains miracles not found in the Synoptics or, perhaps more intriguing, as to why the Synoptics do not contain the miracles found in

83

84

Part II

part of our study of John will not only examine, in succeeding chapters, the theological content of the miracle signs, but will also discuss Jesus’ teaching and John’s commentary on these signs. By way of introducing the Book of Signs, I will place the miracle signs in their all-inclusive theological context. This will afford us a comprehensive theological framework within which we can then examine the various individual components that comprise the Book of Signs. The Principal Theological Theme: The Work of Re-Creation The all-prevailing theological theme within the Book of Signs is, I propose, the Father’s work of re-creating sinful humankind through his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. By emphasizing seven miracles out of the many Jesus performed, John is calling attention to the first creation story in Genesis 1, where God created everything in seven days.3 Such an understanding is in keeping with John since they are so theologically significant, particularly the healing of the man born blind and the raising of Lazarus. There appears to be no conclusive answer to this conundrum. I suggest that a partial answer is that John, meditating upon the one Gospel tradition as found within the Synoptics and wishing to write his theological interpretation of that one tradition, came to understand more fully the revelational significance of certain miracles, for example, the multiplication of the loaves, the healing of paralytics and the blind, as well as the raising people from the dead. To accentuate these miracle signs, John employed material not contained within the Synoptic Gospels, and by engaging such “new” material, he was providing a theological hermeneutical key as to how these similar miracles within the Synoptics should be more deeply understood. This accentuation is clearly seen with regards to the multiplication of the loaves. While all four Gospels narrate this miracle, the deeper theological significance is found in Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse in John. Similarly, the deeper theological significance of the healing of the sick and the blind, and the raising of the dead, is uniquely found in John, with Jesus curing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida, the restoring of sight to the blind man at the pool of Siloam, and in the raising of Lazarus. Thus Jesus manifests that he is the light of the world and the raising of Lazarus. Again, to obtain the full meaning and significance of the Synoptic Gospels, one needs to read them in the light of John’s Gospel—with the eyes of John. Although John’s Gospel narrates only seven miracle signs, it references many other signs that Jesus worked. See Jn 2:23, 4:45, 6:26, 20:30, and 21:25. 3.  Biblically, the number seven is symbolically significant. Its import is originally perceived in the first creation story where God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh. “So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all of his work which he had done in creation” (Gn 2:3). God’s seventh-day rest then becomes the theological basis for his commandment that human beings should work for six days and rest on the seventh, a day dedicated to the Lord—the Sabbath (see Ex 20:8–11 and Dt 5:12–15). The number seven, then, becomes the symbolic number for completion. For example, God commanded Joshua to have his soldiers march around the city of Jericho for six days, and on the seventh day they should march around it seven times with seven priests carrying horns. Upon the blast of the horns and with the people shouting aloud, the walls

The Book of Signs

85

the Prologue’s opening verses, which state that in the beginning was the Word and that through the Word God created all that was created (see Jn 1:1–3). Thus part of what the seven miracles signify is Jesus re-­creating all that has fallen into the darkness of sin and death. As the Word was the life of light at the dawn of creation, so now Jesus, the incarnate Word, is the life of light that dispels once again the darkness, a darkness that cannot overcome the divine light (see Jn 1:3–5). Likewise, within this theological interpretation, these seven miracle signs prophetically anticipate the doctrinal importance of Jesus’ resurrection. In raising Jesus gloriously from the dead, the eighth miraculous sign on the new and everlasting eighth day verifies that, through his incarnate Word/Son, the Father has vanquished the darkness of sin and death and that in, through, and with Jesus he has inaugurated the new creation—the everlasting abundance of eternal life. At the end of the Book of Signs, Jesus assures his hearers, “For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me” (Jn 12:49–50). The Father, in sending his Son, has commanded that Jesus, through his words and actions, reveal that he is truly the Father’s Son, and within his saving words and deeds one finds eternal life. Through communion with Jesus the believer is given a share in his own resurrection. Doing the Father’s Will and Enacting the Father’s Work Within these chapters, such an understanding places in their proper perspective Jesus’ emphasis on his obedience to his Father’s will and his doing what his Father does. “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (Jn 4:34). Because Jesus is the Father’s Word, his life sustenance, his food, is the Father’s word, for he himself embodies that word as the Word. Since his very life consists in being the Father’s Word, the works that Jesus performs, by their very nature, are the Father’s works, for they directly spring from of Jericho would collapse—the defeat of Jericho would be complete (see Jos 6:15). Likewise, Elisha commanded the Syrian, Naaman, to wash in the Jordan River seven times so as to cure his leprosy (see 2 Kgs 5:10). In accord with John’s Gospel, the Book of Revelation also emphasizes the significance of seven. There the number seven is mentioned more than fifty times. For example, there are seven letters to the seven churches, seven golden lampstands, seven spirits, seven angels with trumpets, seven seals, etc. (see Rv 1:4, 1:12, 1:16, 5:1, and 8:2), all of which in some sense symbolize the completeness of God’s work done in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Throughout the entire Bible the number seven is employed more than seven hundred times.

86

Part II

his being the Father’s Word.4 Jesus possesses no other ontological sustaining being, and so no other subjective identity, other than that of being the Father’s Word. Jesus therefore can do nothing of his own authority “because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (Jn 5:30; see also 8:38). Jesus’ obedience to the Father is then not only manifested in what he says but, as I noted at the conclusion of chapter 1, primarily and more so in what he does. “The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear witness that the Father sent me” (Jn 5:36; see also 10:25). As the Word incarnate, Jesus’ human actions testify to who he is as the Father’s Son because they manifest the work of his Father, which is the work of rebirth. As we will see when examining the individual miracle signs, Jesus’ works signify, bear witness, that he is re-creating the fallen world of sin and death, and so prophetically anticipate the culminating, fulfilling sign of the resurrection. Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works these [the miracles signs] will he show him, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whom he wills.5 As the Father’s Son, Jesus does the work of the Father, and the greatest work of the Father is to raise the dead to eternal life, of whom Jesus will be the first. All who subsequently believe in the risen Jesus will be raised by him, for they will abide in him. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day”

4.  In the first temptation, as narrated in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Satan tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread. Jesus replies by quoting Dt 8:3: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt 4:4; see Lk 4:4). The Word eternally proceeds from God’s mouth and so lives eternally as God’s Word. Thus God’s word always feeds Jesus, for he is himself the Word incarnate. Jesus, being the divine Word who hears God’s word, is therefore continually nourished and empowered to do God’s work. 5.  Jn 5:19–21; see also 3:35–36 and 13:3. That the Father shows everything to the Son is similar to what Jesus professes in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27; see also Lk 10:27). For a theological examination of these Synoptic passages, see JBJ 1:192–98.

The Book of Signs

87

(Jn 6:38–39).6 Here we also perceive why Jesus works his miracle signs on the Sabbath to the condemnation of the Jews. He does so precisely to accentuate that the Father is no longer taking his Sabbath rest but has taken up anew his work of re-creation, and he is doing so, as he did at creation’s origin, through his Word. “And this is why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this [healed a man] on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working still, and I am working.’ This is why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God” (Jn 5:16–18). Being Sent by the Father Jesus’ miracle signs bear witness to not only the Father’s work of re-creation through his Word/Son but also, congruently, his own divine identity as the Father’s Word/Son. This revelation becomes more clearly evident within Jesus’ emphasis that the works he does testify that he was “sent” by his Father to do the works of his Father.7 This being “sent” in relation to Jesus’ doing his Father’s works does not simply acknowledge that the Father appointed Jesus to do his works. Rather, to be “sent” by the Father professes that the eternal Word is “the only Son from the Father” and so eternally abides “in the bosom of the Father.” The Word/Son is therefore ontologically one with the Father. In being sent from his Father to do his Father’s work, Jesus “has made him known” (Jn 1:18). From within this eternal heavenly bosomabiding-­from-ness, the Father sends forth his Word/Son into the world. This “sending” is, then, an incarnational “sending”—the divine Word/Son taking on flesh and so now abiding as the man Jesus within the world. This incarnational “sending” of the Word/Son is the foundational salvific act or work by which the Father initiates the world’s re-creation, and this being “sent” by the Father, this taking on flesh, is the foundational salvific act or work by which the Son initiates his Father’s work of re-creation. Jesus’ constant emphasis that he has been “sent” by the Father is the foundation for the traditional theological principle that “missions follow upon processions” or that “processions govern missions.” Epistemologically, 6.  Jesus’ final words in John’s Gospel are “It is finished,” where upon “he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (Jn 19:30). More will be said later, but here it should simply be noted that Jesus’ death on the cross is his final work done in conjunction with his breathing forth his spirit. Having reconciled humankind to his Father through his sacrificial death, Jesus can breathe forth his Father’s Spirit upon the world, that is, baptize believers with the Holy Spirit as John the Baptist first prophesied. 7.  See, e.g., Jn 4:34, 5:23–24, 5:36–37, 6:57, 8:16, 8:18, 9:4, 11:42.

88

Part II

that is, on the level of revelation, the Father’s sending forth of his Word/Son into the world reveals that, within the Trinity itself, on the level of ontology, the Father eternally speaks his Word or begets his Son. Thus the manner in which the Word/Son proceeds from the Father within the Trinity ontologically determines the mission of the Word/Son, his being “sent” forth within the economy of salvation to reveal the Father as the Father’s Son. Precisely because the Father’s Word/Son became flesh, Jesus, as the Word/Son, could speak and work on the Father’s behalf and so, as Son, not only fully reveal himself as Son but also fully reveal his Father.8 Within the Incarnation, Jesus’ human salvific acts therefore bear witness both to his divine identity as man and to his divine oneness with his Father. In response to the Jews’ attempt to stone him, Jesus asks for which good work of the Father do they wish to do so. The Jews retort that they do not wish to stone him for a good work but “for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus points out that the Scripture says that men will be gods (see Ps 82:6), and if such is the case, how much more is this true of the one “the Father consecrated and sent into the world.” Thus if the Jews accuse him of blasphemy “because I said, ‘I am the Son of God,’” they should know that he does the works of God, and so “even though you [the Jews] do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (Jn 10:31–38).9 Later, within the Book of Glory, 8.  The same pattern of thought is apropos for the Holy Spirit. The Father’s sending forth of his Holy Spirit within the world reveals that he is a Spirit of holiness and love. This revelation in turn reveals that the Holy Spirit, within the Trinity, proceeds as the holy love of the Father for the Son and the holy love of the Son for the Father. This understanding will be examined further at the appropriate place. For a further discussion, see my The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995). 9.  Although Jesus says that he stated “I am the Son of God,” at no time does John’s Gospel narrate Jesus actually saying these exact words. Jesus consistently reveals that he is the Father’s Son by speaking of “his” or “my” Father and not by referring to himself as the Son of God. One wonders, then, if in saying that “I am the Son of God” Jesus is not referring to something he actually said but rather is referencing an accusation made against him because of his speaking of God as his Father, for example, in the above, where the Jews accuse him of making himself equal to God. Also, the ultimate testimony to his being the Father’s Son is not in what he says but in the works he performs—the works of his Father. This discussion has some theological importance, for within the Trinity the Father is Father precisely because he eternally speaks his Word or begets his Son. This “speaking” and “begetting” ontologically constitutes him as “Father.” He knows himself as Father, then, only in relation to his Word/Son. He does not speak his own name “Father,” but he speaks only his Word whom he begets as Son—the perfect expression of his truth and image. Similarly, the Son is Son only in relation to his Father and so knows himself only within that relationship. Thus, in being the Father’s Word, his ontological identity as Son is ontologically constituted

The Book of Signs

89

Jesus is even more emphatic. When Philip asks him to show them the Father, Jesus responds: Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his work. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn 14:8–11) To see Jesus, the Father’s Son incarnate, is to see the Father himself, for the Father dwells in him who is the Father’s Son. As the Son eternally dwells in the bosom of his Father, so now within the Incarnation the Father dwells within Jesus, the Father’s Son. Moreover, the Father has anointed, “consecrated,” him as the Christ with his eternal Spirit of Sonship. To hear the voice of Jesus, then, is to hear the voice of the Father’s Spirit-filled Son and so equally to hear the voice of the Son’s Spirit-filled Father.10 Above all, to see the anointed works of Jesus, the Father’s Son, is to see the anointed works of the Son’s Father, for they abide, in the Holy Spirit, in one another, and what is said and done is said and done by both as one in the communion of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, in saying “Father” and not in saying “Son.” Within the Incarnation this understanding would likewise be true. The Father reveals himself as Father in revealing his Son, and the Son reveals himself as Son in revealing his Father. Never does the Father reveal himself except in relation to his Son, and the Son never reveals himself except in relation to his Father. Within the economy of salvation the Father therefore never says “Father” but “my Son,” and Jesus, the Son, never says “Son” but “my Father.” For a further discussion of this issue within the Synoptics, see JBJ 1:179–206. 10.  In speaking of the “Son’s Spirit-filled Father,” I am not implying that the Father was given the Holy Spirit, a Spirit that he did not possess innately as Father. Rather, I am attempting to accentuate that the Father, as the one from whom the Spirit eternally proceeds, is “filled,” “fully imbued,” or “completely satiated” with the Holy Spirit. The name “Father,” by definition, contains within itself the fullness of the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, The Father would be incapable of “breathing forth” the Spirit. The Father’s “breathing forth” of the Spirit is the act that manifests his fullness of the Spirit. Such an understanding is in keeping with the perichoretic nature of the Trinity. As subsistent relations, the distinct identity of each person resides in the other two. The Son and Holy Spirit abide in the Father as Father, for he is the font from which the Son and Spirit proceed. The Father and Holy Spirit abide in the Son as Son, for as the Son, begotten in the love of the Holy Spirit, is the perfect image of the Father. The Father and the Son abide in the Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is the perfect love in which together the Father and Son abide as one. This threefold perichoretic abiding is the validation of their being the one God.

90

Part II

Jesus, in professing that he is the good shepherd, states that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. Because they follow him, Jesus declares, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:27–30). No one who is given to Jesus by his Father can be seized from his hand, for they are simultaneously securely grasped by the Father’s hand. This simultaneity of two distinct grasping hands manifests that Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is one with the Father. To be enfolded within the hands of the Father and the Son, to live in communion with the Father in union with Jesus the Son, is to possess eternal life. All of the above, and in particular the last quotation, shows that the ultimate goal to which the miracle signs point is the eternal life of the resurrection. This refers back to the Prologue where God’s Word is designated as the source of life (Jn 1:4–5; see also 8:12). Later, Jesus will proclaim, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). That Jesus is the spring of life that flows from his Father will become even more apparent when we later examine the seven miracle signs themselves, especially those concerning baptism, the Eucharist, and the raising from the dead.11 What needs to be underscored here, for it bears upon the entire Book of Signs as well as within the Book of Glory, is the centrality of faith in response to the miracle signs—the Father’s life-giving works that Jesus performs. The Necessity of Faith Early in the Gospel, Jesus declares that whoever believes in the Son of man has “eternal life.” He (or John) immediately states, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” He who does not believe is “condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn 3:15–18). The summation is: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Jn 3:36). Jesus emphatically reiterates the same teaching later. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life” (Jn 5:24). That faith in Jesus is essential for eternal life will be more fully addressed later. The present 11.  See, e.g., Jn 5:26, 5:29, 6:33, 6:63, 11:24, and 14:6.

The Book of Signs

91

concern is the relationship between faith in Jesus and the procuring of an abundance of eternal life. Taking into account all that we have previously discussed, we perceive two intertwining reasons for this intrinsic relationship. The first is that Jesus, as the Father’s Word/Son, possesses within himself the abundance of the Father’s divine life, the life of him who is the source of all life—even that of the Son’s. Second, the Father sent his Son into the world to vanquish that which would destroy life—sin and death. As the Son of God incarnate, Jesus then performs the Father’s re-creating acts as signified in his miracles, acts that testify to his ability to overcome evil and bring forth life. These miracle signs culminate in the Paschal Mystery whereby Jesus through his death destroys sin and death, and in his resurrection literally embodies the abundance of eternal life. The human act of believing that the man Jesus is the Son of God who enacts the Father’s works is the act by which one is united to the man Jesus and so comes into communion with him who is the Father’s Son. To be in union with Jesus the Father’s Son is, then, to be in communion with his Father and so to share, as Jesus the Son does, the abundant eternal life of the Father. In this understanding the fundamental importance of the Incarnation is accentuated. All are called to believe that the man Jesus is the incarnate Son, and only by responding to that call and making that act of belief do human beings join themselves to the humanity of the incarnate Son and so to the Son himself. To be united to the incarnate Son is the sole means to be in communion with the Father. Jesus assures his disciples, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (Jn 13:20). There is, then, within the Gospel of John, an incarnational or Christological mysticism. Faith in the man Jesus as the Son incarnate provides entrée into communion with the Father and so entrance into the fullness of divine life. Sharing in the Father’s divine life through, with, and in Jesus the Son enables those of faith simultaneously to know the Father as the Father’s children. No one has ever seen the Father. Possessing the fullness of grace and truth, however, Jesus, the Word/Son made flesh—he who is from the Father and abides in the bosom of the Father—has made him known (see Jn 1:14–18). To believe in Jesus the Son is to know the Father. “He who believes in me, believes not in me, but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me” (Jn 12:44–45).12 12.  In his First Epistle, John makes the same point: “No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised, eternal life” (1 Jn 2:23–24). To believe in Jesus is to abide in the Son and to abide in the Son is to abide in the Son’s Father, and this twofold abiding is eternal life. Here I have focused exclusively on how faith unites

92

Part II

The Jewish Liturgical Feasts and the “I Am” Sayings Within the miracle signs John also weaves two other important ancillary aspects about who Jesus is as the Son of God incarnate, his re-creating lifegiving ministry, and the act of faith that allows the believer to assume this abundant life in him. These aspects not only pertain to the Book of Signs but also carry over into the Book of Glory. Although these facets add exegetical complexity to John’s Gospel, the manner in which John beautifully knits them together within his narrative adds theological depth to his treatment of the identity and salvific work of Jesus. One is Jesus’ fulfillment of the Jewish liturgical feasts. Jesus journeys five times to Jerusalem to celebrate various liturgical feasts that commemorate Israel’s sacred history—twice for the Feast of the Passover, at the beginning and at the conclusion of his public ministry,13 once for an unnamed feast (see Jn 5), once for the Feast of Tabernacles (see Jn 7–8), and once for the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (see 10:22–11:54). Placed in the context of the Father’s work of re-creation through Jesus, his incarnate Son, Jesus’ presence at these liturgical celebrations heightens this overarching theme, for he is seen as the one in whom these feasts, and the revered events they commemorate, will find their fulfillment. By enacting his Father’s work, prefigured in the miracle signs, Jesus will become the new, holy, and living temple by passing over from sin and death to the glorious life of the resurrection. Likewise, those who believe in him and so are united to him will, having been born anew, tabernacle with the Father and worship him in Spirit and truth (see Jn 4:24). The second interwoven component is the “I am” sayings. Significantly, there are seven “I am” sayings that parallel the seven miracle signs. These sayings specify personal attributes of Jesus that enable him, as the Father’s incarnate Word/Son, to accomplish his Father’s work; namely, to offer full abundant life to believers that will remake the fit to enter into worshipful communion with his Father. The seven “I am” sayings are as follows. (1) “I am the bread of life” (Jn 6:35). To partake of Jesus, the bread of life, is to possess eternal life (Jn 6:48–50). (2) “I am the light of the world.” He who follows Jesus “will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). (3) “I am the the believer to Jesus as the Father’s Son and so the believer’s communion with the Father. Obviously, the Holy Spirit is essential to this divine relationship. The Spirit’s salvific importance will be discussed when treating baptism. 13.  See Jn 12:12 and 2:13–25 as well as 13:1. This second journey to Jerusalem for the Passover culminates in Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Jn 18–20). The time of Passover is also noted at the beginning of chapter 6, prior to the multiplication of the loaves and fish as well as his bread of life discourse (see Jn 6:4).

The Book of Signs

93

door.” Whoever “enters by me, he will be saved” (Jn 10:9). (4) “I am the good shepherd” (Jn 10:11). As the good shepherd, Jesus lays down his life for his sheep so that his sheep might have life in him (see Jn 10:11–15). (5) “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn 11:26). Because Jesus is the resurrection and the life, “he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die” (Jn 11:25–26). (6) “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and therefore “no one comes to the Father but by me” (Jn 14:6). (7) “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1). Only abiding in Jesus as branches will believers bear much fruit and so abide in the Father’s love as Jesus abides in his Father’s love (see Jn 15:2–11). Although we will examine these “I am” sayings more fully in due course, here, as seen in the manner in which I have identified them, they manifest two components. First, Jesus identifies who he is, and second, he states the causal effect upon those who believe that he is such, that is, the attaining of life and salvation. Once again, we perceive that Jesus, as the Son of God incarnate, embodies the fullness of life, and those who believe in him come to share in that abundant life. Moreover, the “I am” sayings that express Jesus’ life-giving ability manifest why his miracle signs are acts of re-creation that prophetically prefigure his resurrection and the eternal life of those who come into communion with his Father through faith in him. Ultimately, these “I am” sayings, these identifying divine attributes that accrue to Jesus, are rooted in his simply being “I Am” (ego eimi)—the foundational eighth divine “I Am” (see Jn 8:24, 8:28, and 8:58).14 As the Father’s eternal Word/Son, Jesus is one with his Father—He Who Is (see Ex 3:14)— and so equally possesses the fullness of his one divine being with all of his divine attributes. Within the Old Testament, God is the source of all life.15 He is the light of his people.16 He is the shepherd of his people.17 By giving his people manna in the desert, God sustains them in their need (see Ex 16). God supports his people.18 Israel is God’s vineyard, yet it did not produce good fruit (see, e.g., Is 5:1–7). All that God is and all that he did for his people in the Old Testament, as witnessed in the “I am” sayings, is now embodied in and fulfilled by Jesus himself for those who believe in him, for he is simply “I Am.” His 14.  Jesus, within John’s Gospel, identifies himself simply as “I Am” (ego eimi) on a number of other occasions. See 4:26, 6:20, 8:18, 13:19, 18:5–8. For discussions of Jesus identifying himself as “I Am” within the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1:128–31 and 1:432–35. 15.  See, e.g., Gn 1 and 2, Jb 33:4–6, Ps 33:6–7, and Is 42:5. 16.  See, e.g., Ex 10:23, Ps 27:1 and 56:13, and Is 9:2. 17.  See, e.g., Ps 23:1, 80:1, and 95:1; Is 40:11; and Ezek 34:11–16. 18.  See, e.g., Nm 23:19, 2 Chr 15:3, Ps 31:5, and Is 65:16.

94

Part II

being the great “I Am” is fully manifested in the eighth miracle sign of his resurrection. It is then that Jesus, the Messiah, will be shown to embody, literally, all of the “I am” sayings. He will be seen clearly to be the source of “grace upon grace,” the fullness of grace and truth, so that all who look upon him with faith will behold the glory of the only Son from the Father. In observing the glory of him who eternally resides in the bosom of the Father, the faithful will come to see the splendor of his Father, He Who Is (see Jn 1:15–18). Conclusion John’s Gospel is a tapestry. The Book of Signs accentuates the actions, the miracle signs, within the tapestry. I have attempted in this introductory section to provide the overall theological interweaving of these miracle signs as they are knitted together with other additional threads. The miracle signs reveal that Jesus as the Word/Son incarnate was sent by the Father to enact the re-creating saving works of the Father of which the signs themselves bear witness. These very works, in turn, manifest that the man Jesus is indeed the Father’s Son, and thus that together they are the one God. Moreover, these miracle signs, the Father’s works that Jesus the Son enacts, manifest that in Jesus resides the abundance of eternal life and that by believing in Jesus as the Father’s Son one receives this abundant life, for one is in communion with Jesus and so in communion with his Father—the fount of all life. These seven miracles signs anticipate the final eighth sign, which is the Paschal Mystery—Jesus’ death and resurrection. This final sign brings into existence what the previous signs prefigured, that is, fullness of eternal life in communion with Jesus and his Father. This summary is the overarching pattern contained within the tapestry that is the Book of Signs. Interwoven within the prevailing pattern is Jesus’ fulfilling of the great events of the Old Testament. Jesus’ participation in the Jewish liturgical commemorative feasts testifies to who he is and his saving ministry, for he will fulfill what is celebrated in these liturgical commemorations. This fulfillment also pertains to a newness of life, the Father’s work of re-creation. Jesus will enact the new Passover and in so doing will become the new temple in whom one is able to worship rightly his Father, thus sharing in his Father’s divine life. The “I am” sayings intensify and accentuate who Jesus is as the Father’s Word/Son as well as underscore why he is able to enact his Father’s re-creating work. Because with the Father he is “I Am,” he can, in communion with his Father, enact the Father’s life-giving salvific works. To be united to him who is the life of light

The Book of Signs

95

and the living bread, and to follow him who is the good shepherd who is the door to the Father, is to obtain the abundant life of the resurrection. Before examining the various scenes within the Book of Signs, one final point must be stressed, an aspect that has been evident throughout all of the above. The primordial act of Jesus becoming Jesus is the Incarnation itself. By enacting the miracle signs, Jesus enacts who he is as the incarnate Word/ Son. He enacts who he is as YHWH-Saves. By enacting who he is, Jesus also enacts all of the “I am” sayings and so reveals that he truly is “I Am-Saves.” Similarly, by participating in the Jewish liturgical feasts, he is prophetically enacting what he will fulfill through his enactment of the Paschal Mystery— the achieving of salvation and the abundance of life. The Book of Signs, in all of its various scenes, is, then, the prophetic revealing of Jesus becoming Jesus. Jesus reveals who he is by enacting who he is, and in so doing Jesus becomes Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Moreover, as Jesus becomes Jesus, YHWH-Saves, so he manifests the Father becoming Father-YHWH-Saves as well as the Holy Spirit becoming Spirit-YHWH-Saves. In the light of this overarching précis, we are now prepared to focus on the particular events depicted within the Book of Signs.

3 n

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

C

hapter 2 of John’s Gospel, the onset of the Book of Signs, begins with the miracle sign at the wedding feast at Cana—the changing of water into wine. The Evangelist introduces the narrative by stating, “On the third day there was a marriage in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.”1 The Third Day and the First Sign of Re-Creation John’s designation that it was “on the third day” alerts the reader that the marriage feast was three days after Jesus found Philip, and Philip found Nathanael and brought him to Jesus.2 This, then, is the seventh day of a designated week that began with John the Baptist giving his first testimony to Jesus.3 Accordingly, this miracle sign that will take place on this seventh day is the first of seven miracle signs that the Evangelist will narrate. John is here alluding back to his Prologue with its intimation of the first creation story in the Book of Genesis. Before the beginning began, the Word was and the Word was with God and the Word was God. When the beginning did begin, God created all that came to exist through his eternal Word. After six creating days, God rested on the seventh. On this present seventh day of the first miracle sign at Cana, God sets aside his rest and once more takes up his new 1.  All biblical quotations in this section are taken from Jn 2:1–12 unless otherwise noted. 2.  Nathanael was “of Cana in Galilee” (Jn 21:2). 3.  See Jn 1:19, 1:29, 1:35, and 1:43. It could also simply denote that it was the third day of the week. Given John’s propensity for symbolism and his seeing the number “seven” as theologically significant, however, I would argue for what follows.

97

98

Chapter 3

work of re-creation, and he does so, as in the beginning, through his eternal Word now become incarnate. The seven miracle signs, then, twin with Genesis’ seven-day creation story. This first miracle sign initiates the subsequent six miracle signs, and all the ensuing signs prophetically anticipate what will take place on another final seventh day—the dead Jesus resting in his tomb. This awaited seventh day of rest will end on the everlasting eighth day, “the third day” after his death, when Jesus will rise from the dead and the fullness of his glory will be manifested.4 In harmony with Genesis, the crucified Jesus will complete his Father’s work on the sixth day; he will rest in the tomb on the seventh, and he will rise on the eighth day becoming the one in whom the faithful can obtain eternal life—an abundant new life with the Father. Again, as observed in the above introduction to the Book of Signs, what we here perceive in John’s Gospel, beginning with the first miracle sign at Cana, is the acting out of what was evoked within the Prologue, that is, that God through his Word incarnate will reenact the story of creation through his enactment of the new creation. As God created the world in six days through his Word, so now he will re-create the world through Jesus his incarnate Word. Jesus’ seven miracle signs denote, and so symbolically replicate in a preeminent new manner, those first six days of creation. It may at first appear that there should only be six miracles, six working re-creating days, corresponding to the six working creation days in Genesis. But I suggest that the first miracle sign of the changing of water into wine finds its fulfillment in the seventh miracle sign, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. In a sense they form one complete miracle sign. The five intervening miracle signs expand and enhance the revelation contained in the first and anticipate their full revelatory significance in the light of the seventh. Thus the culminating seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus, theologically subsumes all that was revealed in the preceding signs, having achieved what was initially revealed and anticipated in the first sign, the changing of water into wine. In turn, the seventh sign of Lazarus’ raising not only fully embodies, enacts, all the theological significance of the signs that preceded it, but it also fully anticipates, in its enactment, the full enactment to which all the signs point—the eighth sign, Jesus’ death and resurrection and the abundance of new life that he now literally embodies. On the cross, Jesus will banish the darkness of sin and death, and his glorious rising on the eighth day is the dawn of the everlasting new day of the new creation. Within the Evangelist’s Gospel, 4.  The first sign at Cana worked on “the third day” concerns, an abundance of life wherein Jesus first displays his glory. The final “third day” of Jesus’ resurrection actualizes what was prophetically anticipated at Cana—the fullness of eternal life and the full actualization and so manifestation of Jesus’ glory.

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

99

all of these signs, signs that find their completion in Jesus’ Paschal Mystery, are portrayed so that the reader might behold the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father and so believe in his name.5 The Hour: Reluctance and Acceptance Having established, with all of its revelatory significance, that the wedding feast took place on the third day at Cana in Galilee, John next informs us that “the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.”6 John’s Gospel never names Jesus’ mother as “Mary,” and, significantly, Jesus never calls her “mother” but always refers to her, here and at his crucifixion, as “woman.”7 Yet John informs us, in the first instance, that “the 5.  Again, it may appear that we are getting ahead of the story, but within the Gospel of John, unless one first sees the entire forest, one will not perceive the significance of each tree. In turn, in examining the trees, the forest comes more into focus. What is enacted on the final days of Jesus’ death and resurrection fulfills what John the Baptist prophetically first proclaimed on day two of the Evangelist’s opening week. In his crucifixion, we behold Jesus “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” and in his resurrection, we behold him who will “baptize with the Holy Spirit.” He is, in accordance with John’s testimony, “the Son of God” (Jn 1:29 and 1:33–34). The Holy Spirit is the fruit of Jesus’ death as God’s sacrificial lamb, and so the abundant and everlasting fount of the new creation that flows from the Father through his crucified and risen incarnate Son. 6.  Mary’s presence at the feast apart from Joseph is the only scriptural suggestion that Joseph had died prior to Jesus’ public ministry. Within the Gospel of Luke, Joseph makes his last personal appearance in the finding of Jesus in the temple when Jesus was twelve years old (see Lk 2:41–51). Joseph is later referred to as the supposed father of Jesus, especially at the onset of Jesus’ public ministry, but such references do not confirm or deny his death (see Lk 3:23 and 4:22; Jn 1:45 and 6:42). But his absence at the wedding feast of Cana, to which he surely would have been invited along with his wife if he had been alive, implies that he has died. This would be in accord with the ancient tradition that Joseph died prior to Jesus beginning his public ministry. We can ask the question, Is there any theological significance as to why Joseph would have died prior to the onset of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus was truly the adopted son of Joseph. But Joseph’s death, and so his disappearance within the later Gospel narratives, highlights that, beginning with his public ministry, Jesus is about his heavenly Father’s business and no longer under the authority of his earthly father. He is no longer doing the carpentry work of his human father but the salvific work of his heavenly Father, thus revealing that he is not begotten in time by Joseph but eternally begotten of the Father. This understanding is especially apropos within John’s Gospel, which emphasizes Jesus’ obedience to his Father and his doing his Father’s work. 7.  To address an adult female as “woman” was not a sign of disrespect in the Old Testament, but for a son to address his mother “woman” is unique and therefore must contain some theological significance. John narrates that when the crucified Jesus saw “his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then

100

Chapter 3

mother of Jesus was there,” and only then does he “also” tell us that Jesus “was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.” Among the attendees of whom John speaks, Mary, “the mother of Jesus” takes pride of place. That Jesus with his disciples was present appears almost as an afterthought—an “also.” But her importance at the wedding feast is precisely because of her being Jesus’ mother. Obvious questions arise: Why is Mary never named or addressed as “Mary?” Why is she designated by the Evangelist only as Jesus’ mother? Why does Jesus never call her “mother,” and why does Jesus, on the two occasions in which she does appear in the Gospel, call her “woman”? Lastly, why is her presence at Cana preeminent? Clearly for John, Mary’s significance lies in her being Jesus’ mother, and for Jesus, according to John, her importance resides in being “woman,” both of which, for the Evangelist, must have important theological implications. What are these implications? The answers to these questions will become apparent as we examine the narrative. Having set the date of the marital feast and alerted us to the significant guests present, John directly informs us that “the wine gave out.” The giving out of the wine puts the storyline in motion as well as provides the clue to the narrative’s theological meaning—what the story of the wedding feast is truly all about. Likewise, the lack of wine is the immediate provocation for “the mother of Jesus” to say “to him ‘they have no wine.’” Such an embarrassing and unfortunate circumstance provokes Jesus to respond, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” Jesus’ response poses difficulties both in translation and meaning. The manner of its translation determines its meaning. The above translation is from the Revised Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version translates it as “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me. My hour has not yet come.” The New American Bible, revised edition, renders it “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” Literally, the first sentence translates, “What to me and to you, woman?” The translation of the second sentence is even more tangled. I will first give a theological interpretation of the first sentence, and then I will offer a twofold translation of the second with its twofold theological meaning. The first sentence of Jesus’ response is a Hebrew expression that is found in the Old Testament, where it conveys either resistance or indifference to a present state of unwelcome affairs.8 Within the Synoptic Gospels the expression is employed by demons whom Jesus is about to expel—asking Jesus what he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’” (Jn 19:26–27). While John designates Mary as Jesus’ mother, though never using her name, Jesus himself only refers to her as woman, referring to her as mother only in relationship to the beloved disciple—John. 8.  See, e.g., Jgs 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18, 2 Kgs 3:13, and Hos 14:9.

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

101

he has to do with them.9 For Jesus, then, to say to his mother, “What to me or to you, woman?” is for him to express, depending on his inflection, either an indifference to the fact that the wine has run out or even his resistance to do anything to rectify the situation. It probably contains both: “I do not care, and I do not want to do anything about it.” Besides, Mary should not get herself in a dither over the dearth of wine. “It is not our problem!” But why is Jesus so negative? The answer resides in Jesus’ second sentence. This sentence is normally translated, “My hour has not yet come.” This would imply that Jesus perceives that Mary’s informing him of the absence of wine, with the implication that she wants him to do something to resolve the predicament, would initiate a course of action that would terminate in his hour—his passion and death. By saying that his hour “has not yet come,” Jesus is expressing his reluctance, to say the least, to commence his saving ministry. He wants no part of the situation in which he presently finds himself, for to do something under the present circumstances would mean that his “hour” has come upon him. Here, within a week of his baptism and the gathering of his disciples, we find Jesus being agonizingly tempted. The Gospel of John neither narrates Jesus’ temptations nor his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, but here at the wedding feast of Cana, his first “social engagement,” he is already wrestling with his “hour.” He is unnerved by the seemingly so sudden and so soon approach of his “hour,” and he is tempted to disregard its presence.10 I propose that John is narrating a scene that is a reversal account, his theological counternarrative, to Jesus’ temptations in the desert, which, within the Synoptics, also takes place at the commencement of his public ministry. In the desert, Satan tempts Jesus to employ his divine power as the Son of God for his 9.  See Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, 5:7; Lk 4:34, 8:28. 10. This understanding of Jesus’ response would be in keeping with later passages. In response to “his brethren,” who encouraged him to do more public works in Judea so that he could more openly make himself known to the world, Jesus admonished them, saying, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here” (Jn 6:3–6). The hour of Jesus’ death has not yet come, and so it is not time for him to go to Jerusalem. Moreover, his disciples, in their mistaken understanding of his salvific ministry, want him to broadcast himself to the whole world so that he could obtain earthly glory and power. Such an attitude is similar to that of Satan’s, where in the desert he enticed Jesus to display his divine power for earthly gain and self-aggrandizement. Jesus here again refuses to succumb to such allurements. Likewise, John notes that while the Jews sought to arrest Jesus, they could not lay hands on him “because his hour had not yet come” (Jn 7:30), and no one was able to arrest him in the temple where he taught “because his hour had not yet come” (Jn 8:20). In these quotations the “hour” specifically refers to the hour of Jesus’ crucifixion. But Jesus’ use of the term “hour” in response to his mother’s request can refer not only to “the end of his hour,” his death, but also to the initiating of his “hour” at the onset of his public ministry.

102

Chapter 3

own grandeur and glory. At the wedding feast, Mary is urging him to exercise his divine power as the Son of God for the benefit of helping others. But Jesus perceives Mary’s request as the initiating of his “hour,” which will lead to his death, and with her “tempting” request Satan is tempting him to say, “I want no part of it.” Thus, in the desert, Satan first tempts Jesus with these words: “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Jesus responds, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Mt 4:3–4; see Lk 4:3–4). At the wedding feast, Mary says, “They have no wine.” The implication is that “since you are the Son of God, you can do something about this.” Being God’s Son, Jesus could change water into wine just as he could change stones into bread. While Jesus is agonizing over Mary’s “temptation,” the words that he must recall are the same as those he spoke when Satan tempted him—“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” As the incarnate Word, the Word that has eternally come forth from the mouth of God, Jesus must enact the word of his Father. His bread, his food, is to do the will of him who sent him and to accomplish his work (see Jn 4:34). Jesus must not perceive Mary as his “temptress,” but rather he must recognize that Satan is tempting him to delay his “hour” to another day and, instead of saying “no” to her, he must beneficently respond to Mary’s entreaty. Satan tempted Jesus, as the divine Son, to enact his own self-glory. Mary is ultimately urging him to accept the glory of his cross, the cross that will truly manifest the eternal glory he possessed from his Father before the beginning began. In the lifeless desert, Jesus refused to turn dead stones into earthly bread, but at the wedding, an event of self-giving and the promise of future life, Jesus will turn an abundance of water into an abundance of wine—signs of heavenly life and joy. I have employed thus far the translation that has Jesus saying, “My hour has not yet come.” This translation conveys that Jesus does not want to engage the “hour” that has abruptly sprung upon him when Mary informed him of the lack of wine. But Jesus’ second sentence can also be translated as a question: “Has not my hour now come?” Here, while Jesus initially wants nothing to do with his mother informing him of the absence of wine, his immediate ensuing thought, after a pregnant pause, is that his hour has indeed now come, and therefore he must inaugurate that hour by affirmatively responding to his mother’s insinuated request. In this translation, Jesus is asking a rhetorical question, the answer to which is a resounding “yes.” His hour has come, and he must lay hold of it despite his tempting reluctance. Although Jesus rebuffed Satan’s temptation to change stones into bread, he will not rebuff his mother’s “temptation” and refuse to change water into wine even though, in so doing, he

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

103

will embrace the hour that he dreads. Jesus, as God’s Son, did not succumb to Satan’s temptation to pursue his own well-being by changing stones into bread, but he now succumbs to his mother’s plea to pursue the salvific good of all. Which translation, then, should be used? What was Jesus really saying? I suggest that John is portraying Jesus as saying both.11 Jesus, in responding to Mary’s solicitation, is initially telling her, in no uncertain terms, that the lack of wine is not their concern. Besides, his hour has not yet come, which he perceived would come if he did do something to relieve the lack of wine. Simultaneously, he recognized that he could not, despite the agonizing temptation to do so, stay the coming of his hour. While giving voice to his tempting aversion, Jesus is also giving voice to his willing acceptance—not unlike his words in the Garden of Gethsemane: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”12 That this is the case is found in Mary’s deliberate reaction and in her resolute directive. “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’”13 Within John’s Gospel, Mary is the catalyst that compels Jesus to undertake his saving work—the work of his Father, the embracing of his hour. But why Mary? Why is she the goad that spurs Jesus to embark upon his hour and ultimately to take up his cross? The answer resides in Jesus’ designation of her as “woman.”14 11.  We will find later other statements in John’s Gospel where two simultaneous and somewhat conflicting interpretations can be given. 12.  Mt 26:39; see also Mk 14:36 and Lk 22:42. 13.  Interestingly, in the Book of Genesis, when the famine came upon Egypt and the people cried out for bread, Pharaoh said to all of the Egyptians, “ ‘Go to Joseph; what he says to you, do.’ ” In the end, “all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain” (Gn 41:55–57). As Joseph distributed an abundance of grain to all the earth in the midst of the famine, so Jesus, in the midst of a deprivation of life (symbolized in lack of wine), will now make available an abundance of life (symbolized in the abundance of wine) to all of the earth. Mary symbolizes Israel and the whole earth crying out for salvation. 14.  Within John’s Gospel, there is a “now” and a “not yet” to Jesus’ hour. Presently, Jesus, in the above first translation, is insisting that his “hour has not yet come.” Such a statement is true in that the “hour” of his death and resurrection is yet to come. Yet, simultaneously, within the second translation, Jesus has acknowledged his “hour,” and by acceding to Mary’s request, he has initiated his “hour” in that he has now embarked on his salvific journey that will terminate in the “hour” of his passion and death. Thus, within John’s Gospel, there are references to Jesus’ “not yet hour.” John notes, for example, that, while the Jews sought to arrest Jesus, they could not lay hands on him “because his hour had not yet come” (Jn 7:30), and no one was able to arrest him in the temple where he taught “because his hour had not yet come” (Jn 8:20). In these quotations the “hour” specifically refers to the “hour” of Jesus’ crucifixion. Only when the hour of Jesus’ death is immanent does Jesus clearly acknowledge that his hour has come. When Philip and Andrew inform Jesus that some Greeks want to see him does he

104

Chapter 3

“The Mother of Jesus” and the Ecclesial “Woman” Within the very saying of the Semitic phrase “what is this to me and to you?,” within his very reluctance and aversion to his mother’s request, he addresses her as “woman.” For Jesus, and for the Evangelist, Mary is not just any “woman.” She is uniquely “woman” in that she is the icon of ancient Israel as well as the icon of the nascent church, the new Israel of God.15 She subsumes all that has gone before and all that the church is and will be. Mary images the church, the woman, whom Jesus will espouse within the “hour” of his death and resurrection, the woman upon whom he will pour out his lifegiving Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the pure and holy bride that he will embrace unto himself.16 Mary personifies the church with whom Jesus, as the head of his body, the church, will become one living flesh, one Spirit-filled communion of head and members. It is this woman, the church, who informs Jesus that “they have no wine.” Mary, as ancient Israel, is alerting Jesus to the reality that the time of old wine has run its course.17 Simultaneously, Mary, declare, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:22). Moreover, shortly thereafter, John informs us, “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). Jesus’ use of the term “hour” in response his mother’s request can refer to both the “hour” of his death and to the initiating of his “hour” at the onset of his public ministry. 15.  The Old Testament employs the image of marriage to illustrate God’s relationship with his people. Hosea sees God’s covenant with his people as a betrothal (see Hos 2:16–23; see also Is 54:5–6, 62:5, and Ezek 16:6–14). Paul, in the light of the new covenant in Jesus Christ, sees marriage as the permanent and holy relationship of love between a man and a woman, and thus as the “sacramental” image of the unbreakable holy bond of love between Christ and his church (see Eph 5:22–35 and 2 Cor 11:2). 16.  As the living icon of the church, Mary, in her person, possesses the fullness of what the church is and will be. Therefore, since the church will possess the fullness of Jesus’ saving grace, Mary, as the living icon of the church, possesses the fullness of grace. Moreover, as the church will be assumed gloriously into heaven, so Mary, as the prophetic living image of the church, will be assumed into heaven. As Mary interceded as the church, in communion with the church, and on behalf of the church at the wedding at Cana, so she ever intercedes as the church, in communion with the church, and on behalf of the church in heaven. Mary, in her person, embodies and personifies all that the church is and does. The above is founded upon Mary’s initial act of faith, her fiat by which she consented to be the mother of Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son, through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Thus, from the conception of Jesus, Mary, as the icon of the church, has always been in living communion with Jesus the life-giving founder of the church. 17.  Within the Old Testament, Israel is often portrayed as longing and praying for the coming the Messiah and the salvation he will bring (see, e.g., Pss 2, 45, 63, 84, 110; Is 11:1–5; 49; Ezek 36). This longing is witnessed in Simeon and Anna in Luke’s Infancy Narrative. Simeon “was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel,” and Anna spoke of Jesus

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

105

as Israel, is pleading with Jesus to undertake, on behalf of all of God’s people, the church, the salvific work of his Father—the overcoming of the nothingness of sin and death and the procuring of the abundance of new life. Mary, the woman, the betrothed of Christ, is the living voice of the church crying out to Jesus for salvation. Moreover, having obtained Jesus’ positive response, Mary speaks to the stewards, men who symbolize the members of the church. As the icon of the church, Mary is then exhorting and requiring the members of the church to do whatever Jesus tells them to do. As Jesus loves his Father and so obediently does all that the Father tells him, and as Mary is the loving obedient betrothed of Christ, so the members of the church, if they love Jesus, must be his obedient followers by keeping his commandments, for only then will they be in communion with him.18 Remarkably, the demons cry out to Jesus as he is about to banish them: “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”19 Ironically, they too are concerned, as was Jesus at Cana, about the “hour” arriving before its time, but for different reasons. But the time—the hour—has come, and Jesus has everything to do with them for he has come to abolish their demonic reign. In response to Mary’s seeming “temptation,” Jesus echoes the words of the demons—“O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come”—as though she has nothing to do with him for his hour is still to arrive. Again ironically, Mary, the woman who images the church, has everything to do, in counterpoise to the demons, with Jesus, and the time—the hour—has come for him both to destroy Satan’s reign and to establish the church that now ardently implores his salvation. Despite Jesus’ reluctance, he does concede to Mary’s entreaty and in so doing acknowledges that the commencement of his “hour” is at hand.20 “to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem (Lk 2:25–38). Mary subsumes into herself and expresses Israel’s ancient longing for the expectant Messiah. Moreover, in saying the above, I do not mean that there is no saving value in the old covenant. For non-Christian Jews today, it still provides God’s irrevocable saving gifts and graces. My point is that with the coming of the “hour,” the Pauline coming of the fullness of time, the Father through his incarnate Son, Jesus, has made a new covenant wherein lies the full salvific outpouring of the Holy Spirit whereby the faithful become righteous children of the Father (see Gal 4:3–7). For a fuller discussion of this issue, see my “The Jews and the Body of Christ: An Essay in Hope,” Pro Ecclesia 27, no. 4 (2018): 412–24. 18.  See Jn 14:15, 14:21–24, 15:10; 1 Jn 2:3–6, 5:3; 2 Jn 6. We will later examine more fully the relationship of loving Jesus with being obedient to his commands. 19.  Mt 8:29; see also Mk 1:24 and 5:7, and Lk 4:34 and 8:28. 20.  Interestingly and significantly, later in John’s Gospel, the disciples are befuddled over Jesus telling them that in a little while they will not see him and then in a little while they will see him. In response, Jesus tells them that they will first weep and lament, but then later they

106

Chapter 3

Moreover, this counterpoint scene, this reversal of roles, alludes back to the Lucan Infancy Narrative. There the angel Gabriel speaks God’s word to Mary, she who is full of grace. He informs Mary that she will conceive and bear a son, whom she is to call Jesus. Her son will be great, will be called Son of the Most High, and will inherit forever the throne of his father, David, and so will establish an everlasting kingdom. Mary asks how this will be since she knows not man, to which Gabriel responds by telling her that she will conceive by the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit. Mary then declares, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:26–38). Mary’s fiat is her “yes” to God’s word. She is willing to be the mother of “the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). At Cana, Mary informs her divine Son that “they have no wine,” strongly intimating that she wants him to solve their quandary. Jesus is reluctant, as if saying, “How can this be since my hour has yet to come?” Yet he acquiesces to Mary’s request and in so doing embarks upon his “hour.” As Mary said “yes” to God’s word spoken to her by Gabriel, so Jesus now says “yes” to the full-of-grace ecclesial “woman,” his mother. Jesus says “yes” to the need of the “they,” to ancient Israel’s and to the future church’s supplication, imaged in Mary—the old wine has come to an end and new wine of salvation needs to be procured. In Jesus’ “yes” to will rejoice. Jesus immediately provides an example, an illustration that suggests the “woman” of Mary. “When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is born into the world.” (For Old Testament examples of women in labor, see Is 13:8, 26:14, and Mi 4:9–10. John’s Gospel is the only Gospel that includes Jesus presenting this illustration.) Mary, at the wedding at Cana, is a woman in “anguish,” symbolized in her concern over the shortage of wine, though her real travail is that the hour has come for the birth of church, of which she is the symbol. For John, in Mary asking her son, Jesus, to alleviate the lack of wine, she is actually asking him to bring to life the church and so relieve her of her true “hour” of anguish, that of giving birth to the church. Jesus, in responding to her request by changing the water into wine, delivers her of her real “hour” of distress, the cry of wanting the church to be born, but he has also, in so doing, grasped the hour of his anguish, the travail of the cross. Moreover, both Jesus and Mary, the church, will rejoice when the reality of the church actually comes to be in Jesus’ death and resurrection. At the end of his response to his disciples’ concern, Jesus tells them that upon the day of their rejoicing, “you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full” (Jn 16:16–24). The church, through the Paschal Mysteries, will be united to the Father, in communion with Jesus his glorified Son, and so the Father will hear and answer any requests made by the church in Jesus’ name. The church will then possess the fullness of joy. Mary, the ecclesial woman and mother of the church, is the first to ask that the church be given life, and she is the first to rejoice not simply in the abundance of wine, but in the fullness of life to which the plentiful wine bears witness. This interpretation also has affinities with the vision of the woman in labor and to the wedding feast of the Lamb, both in Book of Revelation (Rv 12:1–17 and 19:6–9).

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

107

Mary, his mother, he has said “yes” to the church, and in saying “yes” to the church, he has ultimately given his fiat to his Father, who spoke his word through Mary, the ecclesial woman. Jesus’ fiat ensures, as did Mary’s, the fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophetic words. Jesus “will be called Son of the Most High,” the holy “Son of God,” to whom God will give the everlasting throne of David (Lk 1:32–35). Mary’s fiat and Jesus’ fiat are now one—Jesus and his church are united within their perichoretic “yes” to pursue together the work of the Father, the salvation of humankind.21 Luke’s infancy narrative portrays Mary, as the icon of the church, in communion, from the moment of conception, with her incarnate Son. Similarly, in John’s Gospel, Mary, the ecclesial “woman,” is united to her Son from the commencement of his ministry at the dawning of his “hour.” Jesus, as her Savior and Lord, is always united to his betrothed church.22 What we perceive within the wedding feast of Cana is not, then, simply the celebration of the betrothal of a man and woman. Their betrothal is the contextual graphic image of Jesus’ saving betrothal to his church, the ecclesial woman, personified in Mary. This feast, for John, is celebrating a wedding that will not bring forth children of the flesh, but children born anew unto eternal life.23 Moreover, from this point onward, we must always bear in 21.  What we have described above is the theological basis for the Catholic Church’s understanding that Mary, in union with Jesus, is co-redemptrix. Jesus is the one definitive source of salvation, yet he now always works in union with his church, for the church is the living voice of the Gospel and through which the grace of salvation is mediated, particularly in the sacraments. This ecclesial mediating, co-redemptive, work of the church is first perceived and imaged in Mary—in her motherhood of Jesus and in her subsequent union with him—even to her communion with him in his salvific death on the cross. The church is a co-redeemer with Jesus, for Mary, the ecclesial woman, was always joined to Jesus, the redeemer of the world. 22.  For a further understanding of Mary as the icon of the church, being united to Jesus from his conception, see JBJ 1:11–13. Significantly, not only were Mary and Jesus “invited” to the wedding feast but also “his disciples.” Given that Mary is the ecclesial “woman,” the disciples represent the first “apostolic” members of the church—those foundational ecclesial members who will be responsible for preaching the Gospel and governing the nascent church. The relationship between the Apostles and the church will be discussed further when treating Jesus’ giving his mother, the “woman,” to his beloved disciple as his “mother” (see Jn 19:26–27). For a further understanding of Jesus being united with his Apostles from the onset of his ministry, see JBJ I:113–15. 23.  This image of Jesus’ betrothal to his church finds its fulfillment in heaven. Within the Book of Revelation, there is a vision of the heavenly multitude rejoicing in their salvation and so jubilantly singing, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride [the church] has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen in the righteous deeds of the saints.” Then an angel declares, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rv 19:6–9). Those who are invited to the

108

Chapter 3

mind that, within John’s Gospel, the “woman” Mary, in union with Jesus, provides the ecclesial bookends that hold together the entire Gospel narrative. She is present at the arrival of Jesus’ hour and at the termination of his hour—standing beneath his cross, the cross from which the church is born from the pierced side of Christ. The church resides at the very heart of John’s Gospel—from beginning to end. Before we examine the miracle sign itself, we must return to Mary being designated “the mother of Jesus.” As the biological mother of Jesus, Mary is the mother of the Word/Son of God incarnate, the Mother of God.24 Being the mother of the Word/Son incarnate is Mary’s preeminent honor and so the spring from which all her other honors flow. Now, as “the mother of Jesus,” she is the mother of him who brings to life the church. Mary bears Jesus into the world. She makes present the world’s Savior. Thus to be “the mother of Jesus” is to be “the mother of the church”—the iconic ecclesial “woman.” Moreover, Mary is not only the mother of the church in giving birth to the church’s founder, but she is also the icon of the church in that the church, throughout the ages, will, like her, bear Jesus into the world through word and sacrament. Through, with, and in the church, therefore, all of the faithful are born anew into saving union with Jesus. The church, the woman betrothed to Christ, will give birth to those who are born “not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the

marriage supper of the Lamb are the same as those invited to the wedding feast of Cana—the mother of Jesus and his disciples, the saints of the church clothed in righteous deeds. Until this fulfillment with the glorious appearance of Jesus at the end of time, “the Spirit and the Bride say ‘Come’ ” (Rv 22:17). As Mary urged Jesus to commence his salvific work of founding the church, so the church on earth ever echoes Mary’s plea for the fulfillment of that work at the end of time—“Come!” In the interim, the church, in union with Mary’s own intercession, continually exhorts Jesus to send forth his salvation upon the earth. 24.  Elizabeth, upon the visitation of Mary, is the first to call Mary the Mother of God when she jubilantly asks, “And why is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Lk 1:43). For a further discussion of Elizabeth’s declaration, see JBJ 1:21–27. Nonetheless, Origen is probably the first to use the exact title “Mother of God” (theotokos). It subsequently became common among the later Greek Fathers. To call Mary “the Mother of God” was seen as not only honoring her, but more so in highlighting the mystery of the Incarnation—the Son of God was conceived within her womb and so was born of her. When Nestorius judged the title inappropriate, for the reason that God cannot have a mother, Cyril of Alexandria championed the title, for it safeguarded the true reality of the Incarnation. If Mary was not the Mother of God, then the Word of God did not truly take flesh in Mary’s womb and was not truly born of her. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny the Incarnation of God’s Son. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) sanctioned the title, and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) likewise doctrinally approved it by dogmatically stating that one and the same Son was eternally begotten of God as God and born of Mary as man in time.

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

109

will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:13).25 Being the mother of the church, Mary is therefore the new Eve, the new mother of all of the living, for from her comes forth the new Adam, Jesus Christ, her son. Equally, as the mother of the new Adam, she images the church as the new Eve, for the church is she from whom and in whom the new life of Jesus, the new Adam, is bestowed—the divine life of the Holy Spirit.26 Thus, for the Evangelist, these two inextricable intertwined designations circumscribe or define Mary’s identity—her being the living icon of the betrothed church flows from her being the mother of Jesus. The Sign: Changing Water into Wine If Mary, as “the mother of Jesus” and as the ecclesial “woman,” is the facilitator of Jesus’ miracle sign at the wedding at Cana, what is the ecclesial theological significance of the sign that Jesus performs? This is found in two seamless stages. The first resides in the Evangelist next apprising us that “six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each 25.  The Book of Revelation portrays, in one of the visions, Mary as both the mother of Jesus and the mother of the church. She, again unnamed, is “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head is a crown of twelve stars” (which could represent the twelve Apostles upon whom Jesus founded his apostolic church). “She was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish of delivery.” Although the dragon attempted to devour the child that was born, the woman and her child were taken up to God and fled into the wilderness to be nourished by God. Having been conquered by Michael and his angels, the dragon pursued the woman and attempted to sweep her away in a flood, but the earth swallowed the water. “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear witness to Jesus” (Rv 12:1–17). Foiled in his attempt to destroy the woman’s son, Jesus, the dragon makes war on the woman’s other children, the members of the church to which she has also given birth. 26.  The notion that Mary is the mother of the church will be examined further when treating the crucifixion of Jesus. We have already noted that from the cross Jesus “said to his mother ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to his disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ ” The Evangelist then adds: “And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (Jn 19:26–27). Important to note at this juncture is that the “hour” that begins at the wedding of Cana, the “hour” initiated by Mary’s supplication to Jesus, is completed at the conclusion of the “hour”—when Jesus finishes his Father’s work, the founding of the church, imaged in the person of Mary. Mary, the woman, is given over to the beloved disciple; he who is to care for the mother of Jesus who is now his “mother,” the church. For a further study of Mary being the new Eve, see my “The Annunciation and Nativity: Undoing the Sinful Act of Eve,” in Jesus: Essays in Christology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2014), 172–89). This essay was first published in the International Journal of Systematic Theology 14, no. 2 (2012): 217–32. Following upon the Catholic Church’s long tradition, Pope Francis established, on March 3, 2018, the Feast of Mary the Mother of the Church to be celebrated on the Monday following Pentecost.

110

Chapter 3

holding twenty or thirty gallons.”27 Whereupon “Jesus said to them [the servants], ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim.” That the jars were used for the rites of Jewish purification immediately alerts us to a twofold significance. First, the sign that is about to be miraculously performed has to do with baptism—a purification that symbolizes not simply the cleansing of sin but an actual purification that makes one holy. Jesus, who enacts the miracle sign, is he who will baptize in the Holy Spirit. Water, then, is the efficacious sign of the reality it symbolizes—cleansing of sin and new life in the Spirit. Second, the abundance of water, between 120 and 130 gallons in total, recalls the abundance of life foretold of old. Isaiah promises that the people will joyfully “draw water from the wells of salvation,” and this water will be accompanied by God’s Spirit (Is 12:3). “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring” (Is 44:3). Similarly, this evokes Moses’ striking the rock in the desert from which came forth water in abundance.28 For John, as will become evident later, Jesus is the source of living water, the Holy Spirit, for he is the wellspring of salvation, and ultimately he is the rock that will be struck and from whose side will flow streams of living water. Thus the first stage of the miracle sign bears witness to Jesus as the baptizer in the Holy Spirit. This Spirit baptism is the foundational transforming gift that Jesus gives to his espoused church and from which offspring are conceived anew in the likeness of Jesus the glorified incarnate Son and are born of the church, the new mother of the Father’s Spirit-enlivened children. Having filled the jars to the brim, Jesus instructs the servants: “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” The Evangelist then states, “So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom.” What did the servants draw out? When did the water become wine? From John’s parenthetical aside, it would appear that they drew out water, for they knew from where the water came. But what the steward tasted was the water that was “now” wine. Somewhere en route to the steward the miraculous sign took place without the servants perceiving it—the changing of the water into wine. The theological significance of this transporting event can only be grasped in the light of what ensues. Having tasted the water-become-wine, the steward calls the bridegroom and, in puzzled surprise, remarks, “Every man serves the good 27.  For other references to the Jewish rites of purification, see Mk 7:1–4 and Jn 25. 28.  See Ex 17:1–7, Dt 18:15, Pss 78:15–16 and 105:42, Wis 11:4, Is 48:21, and Ez 14:8.

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

111

wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” The commonsense strategy at banquets, such as the wedding feast, is to serve the best-tasting wine first, when all are sober and capable of appreciating good wine. The guests, having drunk freely the good wine, and in so doing having become “merry,” are later served the inferior wine without their being able, in their merriment, to discern the difference. What intrigues the steward is that the bridegroom has reversed the order of service and has apportioned the best wine last. (Of course the bridegroom did not have a clue from where the good wine came. The same is true of the steward. He was probably just as befuddled, though relieved, at the sudden turn of events. The narration ends without a rejoinder by the bridegroom, however.) Here we are able to perceive the ecclesial and sacramental significance of the Johannine imagery. Most importantly, we must see the seamless progression of the water becoming wine. Given the ecclesial and sacramental setting that the Evangelist recognizes within the wedding feast, the conveying of the water to the steward is the act wherein the transforming of the water into wine occurs. This conveyance is, then, the symbolic act of ecclesial advancement, the sacramental conveying of the faithful, from baptism to the Eucharist. The faithful, having been born anew into the church through the Spirit-filled waters of baptism, proceed to the good wine of the Eucharist. Theologically and ecclesiastically, baptism is oriented or ordered to the Eucharist. Baptism, the giving of the new life of the Holy Spirit, finds its fulfillment in giving of the fullness of life within the Eucharist. The abundance, the filling to the brim, of the cleansing and life-giving water proceeds to the further abundance of the cleansing and life-giving Spirit-filled communion with the blood of Jesus—“from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (Jn 1:16).29 As with the prophecies concerning a new abundance of saving waters, so the Old Testament also speaks of an abundance of new wine in the Messianic age. “And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine” (Jl 3:18). “On this holy mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.”30 With the coming of Jesus and in the person of Jesus, the promised abundance of new wine has arrived, not only for Israel 29.  The above interpretation of the relationship between baptism and the Eucharist, the ushering of the baptized to the Eucharist, is the basis for the church’s later theological understanding of the Sacraments of Initiation. The sacraments of baptism and confirmation lead to and culminate in the Eucharist. They are one seamless liturgical action that brings the faithful into Spirit-filled communion with Jesus and, in him, with his Father. 30.  Is 25:6; see also Is 55:1–2, Jer 31:12, Hos 14:7, Jl 2:18–24, Am 9:13–14, Ps 4:7.

112

Chapter 3

but also for all nations. These fulfilled prophecies also explain the theological significance of the steward’s comment that the bridegroom has surprisingly saved the best wine until last. The old wine of the past, God’s covenant and revelation to Israel, has now unexpectedly been surpassed by the coming of Jesus—he is the new and better salvific wine that comes in abundance with the dawning of the Messianic age. Conclusion With the steward having expressed his surprise that the bridegroom has served the good wine last, John rather abruptly concludes the narrative. “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” This is the first sign performed by the Word made flesh; the Word who now dwells among us; the in-fleshed Word who is full of grace and truth. It is the first work the Father enacted through his Son and so the first act whereby the Father glorifies his Son and the Son glorifies his Father. Thus this is the first sign of the Father’s re-creation through his Son, and so it parallels the first act of Father’s original creation through his Son. We saw in treating the Prologue that in Genesis, when God said “Let there be light,” the light that came to be was the created expression of the eternal light that is his Word or Son. God, in his first act of creation, glorified his Son/Word. The sign at Cana is the first “light,” the first miracle, by which the Father manifests the glory of his incarnate Son. This sign, then, manifests Jesus as “the true light that enlightens every man”; he who is the life of light (Jn 1:4–5). In this first sign, “we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). In beholding Jesus’ glory, we, like his disciples, are to believe in him—to make an act of faith that he is the Son of God incarnate and so give him our lives. This first miracle sign and all the remaining signs are to elicit faith, for they will all manifest the glory of Jesus as the Father’s only Son. With the conclusion of John’s narrative, the question arises: Why did John place this particular miracle sign at the wedding at Cana as the first of the signs? The answer could simply be that it was actually the first sign that Jesus worked. That may be true, but I believe that John also identified its significance, more importantly, as the hermeneutical key for perceiving the significance of the remaining six signs, or the interpretive lens through which the remaining signs must be read. The subsequent signs are to be understood as Jesus more fully revealing and manifesting what was initially revealed and manifested within the miracle sign at Cana—the centrality of the church as signified in Jesus’

Changing Water into Wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana

113

relationship to Mary, the ecclesial woman; baptism and the Eucharist as Jesus’ ecclesial and sacramental gifts bestowed upon his church; the Spirit-filled communion with Jesus, and so with his Father, that is achieved through these sacraments; and the realization that the church and the sacraments that abide in her and that she enacts are founded upon Jesus’ eighth culminating sign, his death and resurrection. Thus this first sign prefigures and anticipates all the remaining signs—signs that will find their full enactment, their full reality, in the Paschal Mystery that Jesus is. In this final sign, we will behold the fullness of his glory, first observed at Cana, and so come to believe that Jesus is the Spirit-­filled only Son from the Father—the Messiah. For John, the miracle sign at Cana in Galilee contains in miniature the entirety of his Gospel, the remainder of which he will now further expound and expand. All of the signs, beginning at Cana and which culminate in the eighth sign of Jesus’ death and resurrection, represent and make real the central theme of John’s Gospel—the Father’s work of re-creation enacted through his incarnate Son, who will baptize in the Holy Spirit those who believe in his name (the church) and so come into full living communion with him in the Eucharist.31 Moreover, the miracle sign at Cana, which embodies in embryo John’s entire Gospel, is also the first sign, the emergent precursor, of Jesus becoming Jesus. Within the subsequent signs and within the entirety of the Gospel, we will behold Jesus more and more maturating into Jesus, YHWH-Saves. Jesus will become fully Jesus when this sign and all of the subsequent signs find their final maturity in Jesus’ death and resurrection, for in that eighth sign Jesus will have definitively become YHWH-Saves. There he will have completed, as the Lamb of God, the saving work of his Father, the re-creation of humankind. Only in that salvific work is he empowered, as YHWH-Saves, to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Thus, within the Paschal Mystery, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will manifest, each in accordance with their individual identities, that they are the one God—YHWH-Saves. Above, I parenthetically noted that the bridegroom makes no response to the steward’s baffled surprise that he had served the best wine last. That bridegroom is silent because he is the symbol of the true bridegroom, Jesus himself. Jesus, within John’s Gospel, is the bridegroom who is now setting off, after Cana, to woo his church, and he will not be a silent suitor. Jesus’ subsequent signs and teachings are his actions and words, as with any good male courtier, that display his enticing splendor and glory. In betrothing his church on the 31.  The miracle sign at Cana also looks back to the Prologue. This sign, as are all the signs including Jesus’ death and resurrection, is but the further acting out, and so the fuller manifestation, of the truths found in the Prologue.

114

Chapter 3

cross, Jesus will bestow on his bride the church his own glory. Together they will give birth to a new creation, men and women born anew in the living waters of the Holy Spirit and nurtured on the new wine of his risen body and blood so as to share in the same abundant and everlasting love of the Father that he himself shares. By way of transition, the Evangelist states, “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples; and they stayed a few days” (Jn 1:12). Jesus and his church, personified in Mary, his mother, and composed of his relatives and disciples, briefly rested in Capernaum prior to setting off to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, the first of Jesus’ public ministry. To proceed from the wedding at Cana to the Passover in Jerusalem anticipates his final Passover. Then Jesus will pass over from death to life and will escort his betrothed church from the darkness of death’s nothingness into the life of light—the glorious abundance of his resurrection. n n n

In this chapter I have introduced the theological themes contained in the Book of Signs, themes that will carry over into the Book of Glory. I have also extensively examined the first miracle sign worked at the wedding feast at Cana. There we clearly recognized that baptism and the Eucharist are Jesus’ bestowed gifts upon his church. The following two chapters will examine, sequentially, Jesus’ signs and teachings that bear upon baptism and the Eucharist. With this in mind, we now can proceed to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple.

4 n

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

I

n chapter 3, we examined Jesus’ first sign, the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. John’s narrative revealed that this sign prophetically manifested the sacramental significance of baptism and the Eucharist—Jesus’ gifts that he will bestow upon his church imaged in his mother, the ecclesial woman. John’s Gospel will now proceed to narrate the manner in which Jesus, throughout his public ministry, reveals the fuller theological content of these sacramental mysteries, content that will be fully enacted within the Paschal Mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In this chapter, we will focus on Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and his teaching on baptism during his conversation with Nicodemus. Both of these events manifest one of the Evangelist’s major themes—that of Jesus re-creating humankind into his own divine likeness. This re-creation is accomplished by Jesus’ cleansing of sin through baptism. After enacting his first sign, the sign that first revealed his glory and so elicited faith in him, John narrates that Jesus proceeded down to Capernaum with his mother and disciples and remained a few days. The narrative action immediately resumes by John informing the reader that “the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (Jn 2:12–13; see Dt 16:1– 6). This is Jesus’ first of two Passover journeys to Jerusalem, during the second of which he will undergo his passion and death (see Jn 12:1).1 That Jesus is journeying to attend the Passover alerts the reader that all that will take place in Jerusalem is set within the theological and liturgical context of that feast, particularly the manner in which Jesus, as the Messiah, will complete and so 1.  Jn 6:4 also mentions a chronologically intermediate Passover to which Jesus does appear to have attended.

115

116

Chapter 4

fulfill the Passover. This understanding is initially discerned in John’s emphasis that Jesus was making his way to “the Passover of the Jews.” At first sight, this qualifier appears to be redundant since there is no other Passover other than a Jewish Passover. By accentuating that Jesus is going to Jerusalem to attend the Passover “of the Jews,” John is intimating that, while presently there is only a Jewish Passover, there will be another Passover, a new universal Passover, a Passover that Jesus will himself become through his death and resurrection. Upon Jesus’ second Passover journey to Jerusalem, he will himself be the new high priest and the new Passover lamb of sacrifice who will pass over from death to life. In this Passover, Jesus, the promised Jewish Messiah, will free the whole of humankind, not from the slavery of Egypt but from the slavery of sin and death, and thus lead all those who believe in him into the new and everlasting Promised Land, the heavenly New Jerusalem of eternal life. All that takes place within Jesus’ first Passover in Jerusalem must then be interpreted as a prophetic anticipation of what will take place during his second Passover in Jerusalem. Jesus’ attendance at the first Passover focuses on the importance of baptism, and his attendance at the second Passover will enact the reality of baptism—his own passing over from sin and death into the holy everlasting life of the Spirit. Having enacted within himself the reality of baptism, the risen and glorious Jesus will be empowered to baptize in the Holy Spirit. The faithful will thereby pass over from sin and death into the divine life of the Holy Spirit. Also contained within John’s emphasis that Jesus was setting off to attend the Passover of the Jews is the prophetic anticipation of Jewish disbelief. John’s use of the phrase “the Jews” rarely designates the Jews as a whole, but rather tags those who refuse to believe in him, those unreceptive and antagonistic Jews, particularly the Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem. Thus, in speaking of the Passover of the Jews, John is forewarning the reader that, while Jesus, as the expected Messiah, will enact the new universal Passover of the new covenant, the Passover of the old covenant will remain for those Israelites who do not believe in him, the Passover of Jews. All that is contained within John’s speaking of “the Passover of the Jews” is in keeping with the Prologue: “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:11–13). The Jews who refuse to believe in Jesus’ name as the Father’s Son will not be re-created and so not pass over from sin and death to holiness and life. But all those who do believe Jesus to be the Father’s Son, Jew and Greek alike, will pass over from sin and death to holiness and life. They will be born anew as the Father’s children—re-created through baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

117

With this introduction, we can proceed to the enactment of the above— what is to take place in Jerusalem during the Passover of the Jews. The Cleansing of the Temple For John, Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is the prelude to his teaching on baptism, for it prophetically anticipates what will transpire within the Paschal Mystery and so what transpires within baptism—the cleansing from sin and the entrance into the new life of the Spirit. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus will become the new living temple, the one in whom the baptized are born anew and come into communion with his Father through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Synoptic Gospels place Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the climax of his triumphal enter into Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (his only appearance) and so at the onset of the week of his passion and death.2 John positions it as Jesus’ initial act upon his first arrival in Jerusalem for the Passover of the Jews.3 While the chronology differs, the setting for all four Gospels is that of the Passover.4 Having informed us of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, the Evangelist directly states: 2.  See Mt 21:1–13, Mk 11:1–19, and Lk 19:28–46. The Gospel of Mark has Jesus cleansing the temple the day after his triumphal entry. 3.  All passages within this section will be taken from Jn 2:13–22 unless otherwise noted. 4.  The obvious question nonetheless arises: Which narrative is historically accurate? Scholars differ as to which is more historically correct. Since it is often argued that the Synoptic Gospels are more faithful to the historical narrative, many conclude that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple took place at the end of his public ministry. They also argue that, since John’s Gospel is more theological in nature, John placed the cleansing at the onset of Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons. Undoubtedly, John did place it at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry as part of his theological interpretation, but such a placement does not necessarily mean that it did not actually take place historically at that time. Moreover, since the Synoptics have Jesus in Jerusalem only once, they would have had no other opportunity to put the cleansing within their narratives other than at the end of his ministry, and they, like John, could have done so for theological reasons as well. Ultimately, when Jesus actually cleansed the temple, either at the beginning or at the end of his public ministry, is not of the utmost importance. What is central is that he did cleanse the temple, and both the Synoptics and John perceived the revelational significance in his doing so. The theological emphasis of this event may differ from one Gospel author to another, and when it took place may highlight their various theological agendas, but all of the Gospel authors together nonetheless provide a comprehensive, complimentary, and noncontradictory theological understanding of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. For my theological interpretation of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple within the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1:255–62.

118

Chapter 4

In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”5 John’s Gospel, although describing the same event as narrated in the Synoptics, provides a detailed list of the animals present in the temple precinct— oxen, sheep, and pigeons. Mark alone speaks only of “pigeons” (see Mk 11:16). Likewise, John portrays Jesus acting in a more belligerent and even violent manner than do the Synoptics. He not only overturns the tables of the money changers but also chucks their coins upon the pavement. Similarly, he does not simply drive out the merchants and the money changers from the temple, but he does so by lashing them as they flee, along with the sheep and oxen, with a whip of cords that he himself fashioned. Moreover, Jesus speaks directly to those who sold pigeons rather than to all of merchants and money changers together.6 While such added detail suggests that John was an eyewitness of this historical event, unlike the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, the theological importance of the event resides in Jesus’ words, for his words give meaning to his actions. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus speaking a combination of quotes taken from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Foreigners will join themselves to the Lord, and “these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah). “Has this house [the temple], which is called in my name, become a den of robbers in my eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the Lord” (Jeremiah). Mark renders Jesus’ words as “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mk 11:17; see also parallels). Thus, in the Synoptics, Jesus speaks of God’s temple becoming a place of worship for all nations, which has presently 5.  The presence of the animals in the temple precinct was to provide sacrificial animals for the worshippers coming to the temple; the money changers afforded the proper coinage for the annual temple tax that was to be paid by every male Jew over nineteen years of age (see Ex 30:11–16 and Lv 1:14, 5:7). 6.  See Mt 21:12–13, Mk 11:15–17, and Lk 19:45–46.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

119

become a den of robbers owing to the greed of the merchants and the avarice of the money changers. Significantly in the Synoptics, however, by using “my,” Jesus has taken personal ownership of the temple. It is his temple that is to be a house of prayer for all peoples, and it is his house that has now been soiled by decadent commercialism. For the Synoptic Gospels, then, Jesus as God’s Son has come upon the earth, precisely through his own sacrificial saving death and glorious resurrection and through the subsequent outpouring of his Holy Spirit, to cleanse once more the house of God and make it holy—that is, to make within himself a new living temple of God’s holy people.7 John’s Gospel does not deny the Synoptic theological interpretation of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple. What the Evangelist does is provide a complimentary theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition that focuses the cleansing of the temple more on who Jesus is and on his motivation for cleansing the temple that springs from who he is. Such a focus accentuates why Jesus does what he does. Directly addressing those who sold pigeons, Jesus says, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” Within the Synoptic accounts, Jesus’ words, referencing Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, accentuate the phrase “my house,” and so Jesus’ “house,” is to be “a house of prayer” and not a den of thieves. While alluding to Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Johannine account changes “my house” to “my Father’s house.” His Father’s house is not to be “a house of trade.” The emphasis now resides in who Jesus is in relation to God. In cleansing the temple, Jesus is manifesting that he is the Father’s Son, and his being the Son accounts for why he has acted in such an aggressive manner in his cleansing act. As the Father’s loyal Son, he will not tolerate his Father’s dwelling being exploited for the sake of roguish profiteering. For John, the very act of Jesus cleansing the temple is a revelation of his divine Sonship, for only one who is the Father’s Son would act with such zeal on behalf of his Father. This is exactly the conclusion John draws. Significantly, John adds his own corroborative comment that heightens Jesus’ own words. “His disciples remembered that it was written ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’ ” (quoting Ps 69:9).8 John does not specify when the disciples recalled this passage, but it would appear that it is a post-Paschal Mystery recollection. Psalm 69 is a psalm of lament, that is, a crying out to God 7.  The First Letter of Peter expands on this notion that the church is composed of living stones of which Jesus is the cornerstone (see 1 Pt 2:4–10; see also 1 Cor 6:19 and 3:16). 8.  Significantly, John has changed the passage from the past to the future—from zeal “has consumed me” to zeal “will consume me,” thus making the passage a prophetic anticipation of Jesus’ present zeal for his Father’s house.

120

Chapter 4

in the midst of innocent suffering with the hope that God will vindicate the intercessor. In the midst of such blameless suffering the accursed will praise the name of God and give him thanks. Not surprisingly, then, John’s Gospel references this psalm on two other occasions. Jesus laments later that the world hates him because he has done the works of his Father. In hating him who is the Father’s Son, the world also hates the Son’s Father. This hatred is to fulfill what has been written. “They hated me without a cause.”9 Similarly, on the cross, Jesus “said [to fulfill the Scripture] ‘I thirst.’ A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (Jn 19:28–29). The Scripture that is fulfilled is Psalm 69:21: “They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”10 Moreover, the concluding segment of the verse that John quotes in referencing Jesus’ zeal reads, “and the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me” (Ps 69:9). While the world insults God in its disbelief, those abuses fall upon Jesus, who is the Father’s Son, for the world does not believe in him either. I will now attempt to draw a number of theological conclusions that are tightly interwoven within what we have examined thus far. First, the fact that Jesus is cleansing his Father’s house of prayer, the temple, calls to mind that within Luke’s Gospel he, at the age of twelve, was in the temple sitting among the teachers who were amazed at his questions and learning. When his parents discovered him and Mary queried why he had treated them so when they were anxiously seeking him, Jesus responded, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house/that I must be about my Father’s work” (Lk 2:49). For John, the first work that Jesus performs in Jerusalem concerns his Father’s business—that of cleansing his Father’s house. This zeal for his Father’s work never wanes. Throughout the whole of John’s Gospel, Jesus as the Father’s Son is totally immersed, in heart and mind, in enacting the work that the Father has commissioned him to do as the anointed Messiah. Here lies Jesus’ emphatic insistence that he is always obedient to his Father and that he only does what the Father tells him or shows him. “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17; see also Jn 9:4). Again, Jesus’ zeal will culminate when, upon the cross, he, in his final words, declares, “It is finished.” Conjoined to these words as one act, Jesus “bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (Jn 19:30). Simultaneously inherent within Jesus’ offering of his holy 9.  Jn 15:25 quoting Ps 69:4; see also Jn 15:18–24. 10.  This psalm has multiple allusions to Jesus crucifixion and so is referenced in the Synoptic Passion Narratives (see Mt 27:33–44, Mk 15:23 and 15:36, Lk 23:33–39).

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

121

life to the Father is his breathing forth his Father’s Spirit upon the church. In so doing, Jesus finishes his Father’s work—the re-creation of humankind and the birth of his new living temple, the church.11 Second, Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is a prophetic act. Although Jesus drives out the merchants and money changers, this act prophetically anticipates the actual cleansing that needs to be accomplished—the cleansing of God’s people from sin and their being made holy so as to worship God in spirit and truth (see Jn 4:24).12 Moreover, the driving out of the sacrificial animals foreshadows Jesus’ becoming the new high priest who freely, consciously, and lovingly, unlike the animals, offers himself as the all-holy sacrifice, a sacrifice that will cleanse of sin and reconcile the faithful to his Father, thus rendering the oxen, sheep, and pigeons superfluous. Likewise, there will no longer be any need for merchants and money changers, for salvation now is a gift of the Father given freely to all who believe in his Son Jesus.13 Lastly, given the liturgical context, Jesus’ act of cleansing the temple prophetically embraces the Passover. Decisively, as intimated above, the true Passover, which the Jewish Passover prefigured, is Jesus himself, who as the new high priest will offer himself as the authentic Passover lamb of sacrifice, not simply for Jews but for all nations. In so doing he will pass over from this world of sin and death into the Promised Land of abundant holiness and life, the heavenly and everlasting temple. This becomes clear in the following exchange between Jesus and the Jews. In response, the Jews’ immediately question Jesus. “What sign have you to show us for doing this?”14 Jesus rejoined, “Destroy this temple, and in 11.  Again, we find a parallel within Luke’s Gospel. There Jesus expresses his zeal by emphatically stating, “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished” (Lk 12:49–50; see also Mk 10:38–39). Jesus’ baptism is his death and resurrection, through which he will purify the world of sin and death and enliven it with the waters of the Holy Spirit. The subsequent sacrament of baptism, given to his church, will be a participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Rom 6:1–11). 12.  In Ezekiel the future outpouring of the Spirit occasions the cleansing of all sin and impurity (see Ezek 36:27–29). 13.  The prophet Zechariah foretells that the Lord will become king over all the earth: “there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord on that day” (Zec 14:21; see also 14:9). 14.  Within the Old Testament the authenticity of a true prophet was confirmed by the marvels, the miraculous signs, that he worked on God’s behalf (see Is 7:11). For example, when the Syrian commander, the leper Naaman, came to the king of Israel to be healed, the king rent his clothes and protested that he was not God who could heal, and so he took Naaman’s request as provocation. Elisha, upon hearing of this confrontation, sent a message to the king. “Why

122

Chapter 4

three days I will raise it up.” To which the Jews retorted, “It has taken forty-­ ­six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” Here we enter into a complex exegetical issue and so a complicated theological interpretation. Within the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks of the future destruction of the temple, a destruction that took place when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 70 AD.15 Also within Matthew, Mark, and the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is accused of saying that he will destroy the temple and rebuild it. In Matthew at his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus is accused of saying, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days’ ” (Mt 26:61). Mark has an accuser state, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with human hands’ ” (Mk 14:58).16 Significantly, although Jesus is denounced during his trials within the Synoptic accounts for saying that he will destroy the temple, he never declares this anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels. The closest Jesus comes to saying what he is accused of saying in the Synoptics is found in John’s Gospel, but even there he says “destroy this temple” and not “I will destroy this temple.” Curiously, moreover, within John’s Gospel, Jesus, during his various trials, is never accused of saying that he will destroy the temple. Jesus does, nonetheless, in three accounts, testify or is alleged to have said that he can rebuild such a destroyed temple in three days. How can all of the above be theologically aligned and coherently understood? First, since the Johannine account of the cleansing of the temple narrates that during his confrontation with the Jews Jesus asserted that even if the temple is destroyed he will rebuild it in three days, his account appears to be more historically accurate. Only if Jesus said what he declares in John’s account could he be falsely accused of saying that he will destroy the temple as narrated have you rent your clothes? Let him [Naaman] come to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:1–8). Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jews in their disbelief ask Jesus for a sign so as to prove that he does the works of God and so is the Messiah, the Father’s Son (besides Jn 2:18, see also 6:30, 7:30, 9:16, 9:33). 15.  See Mt 24:1–2, Mk 13:1–2, and Lk 21:5–6. 16.  In the Acts of the Apostles, Stephen is accused of saying that “Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [the temple]” (Acts 6:14). Luke does not offer an account during Jesus’ trial of his being accused of destroying and rebuilding the temple, though he must have known of such since such an accusation appears in Acts. Matthew and Mark also narrate that those passing by the crucified Jesus taunted him, as they wagged their heads in mockery: “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross” (Mk 15:29; see also Mt 27:39–40). Ironically, although Jesus is not destroying the temple in his death, he is cleansing and purifying God’s people of their sin and will construct, in three days, the holy temple in his resurrection—the heavenly temple that he himself is.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

123

within Matthew and Mark, for these Gospels never relate any instance of Jesus coming close to saying what he is accused of asserting.17 Second, given that Jesus is accused in Matthew and Mark of saying he will destroy the temple and that John has Jesus state “destroy this temple,” what is the theological import of his never having said that he can or will destroy the temple? The theological meaning resides in the fact that, although the Romans destroyed the temple, Jesus came not to demolish the temple but to cleanse the temple, and so build it anew in the sense of refurbishing it spiritually. All the revelational truth prophetically exemplified and expressed in the temple building in Jerusalem—the covenants, the presence of God in the midst of his people, the sacrificial offerings, and its being a house of prayer—all are now subsumed within and fulfilled in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Nothing is lost, and all is elevated to a new salvific level. Third, it is here that the specification that Jesus will build a destroyed temple in three days acquires its meaning. Matthew simply has Jesus’ accuser note this fact. Mark’s accuser speaks in terms of Jesus destroying the temple “made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” The allusion in both instances is obviously referring to Jesus’ ensuing death and his glorious resurrection on the third day. In Mark’s account, however, the resurrection is more clearly evident because, though the material temple was built with human hands, Jesus will build a new temple that exceeds human causality and so implies it will be of divine origin—a temple not made by human hands.18 17.  This point could indicate that John’s placement of the cleansing of the temple at the onset of Jesus’ public ministry is historically accurate, rather than at the end of his ministry as in Matthew and Mark. Only in John do the Jews petulantly query him as to the grounds for his doing so. Jesus’ response would give them the basis for their later false accusation of his of wanting to destroy the temple. 18.  That the risen Jesus is the new temple not made by human hands is taken up by Paul and especially in the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul assures the Corinthians that while what is seen is transient, what is unseen is eternal. “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor 5:1). On one level, Paul is first speaking of the earthly tent that is our mortal humanity, yet such a humanity alludes to the earthly tent that housed the Ark of the Covenant wherein God dwelt (see Ex 25:10–27:20). In contrast, even though our earthly tent, our temporal humanity, dies, we are assured of a heavenly “house,” a heavenly temple, not made with hands but built by God and so everlasting. For Paul, to abide in this heavenly temple is to abide, through the Holy Spirit, in the risen Lord Jesus as the Father’s children. Similarly, the Letter to the Hebrews develops the same theological notion. “But Christ appeared as high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent [not made with hands, that is, not of this creation] he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing

124

Chapter 4

While inherent within Mark, John’s account, presuming its historicity, makes clear what Mark suggests and so makes clear the divine origin of the new temple. Here Jesus himself, not a misquoting accuser, declares, “Destroy this temple.” At first glance, the “this” references the temple, as does the second part of the sentence: “and in three days I will raise it [the temple] up.” But by allowing Jesus to speak for himself, John recognizes that Jesus, in the “this,” is not simply referring to the temple building, though he is doing that, but he is pointing to himself as well.19 The Jerusalem temple may be dismantled, and Jesus’ humanity may be destroyed in his death (the twofold reference contained in the “this”), but if he is killed, Jesus himself will, on the third day, raise “it” up, that is, the new temple of his humanity. The divine cause of the new temple being raised up on the third day, a temple not made by human hands, is now explicitly stated. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is the divine cause of new temple. But what is the temple that he is divinely raising up? John’s aside answers this question unequivocally. The Jews may not have caught the double meaning of Jesus’ response since they inform him that “this temple” took forty-six years to build, implying that it would be impossible for him to do so in three days.20 John, however, informs the reader: “But he spoke of the temple of his body. an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11–12; see also 10:20). Jesus, through the sacrifice of himself, passes over and so enters into the Holy Place—that is, into the presence of his Father—and in so doing empowers those who abide in him to enter into the heavenly temple, the dwelling place of God. “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:19–22). This understanding finds its completion in the Book of Revelation. John “saw no temple in the city [the New Jerusalem], for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of the God is its lights, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Rv 21:22). Jesus, the risen Passover lamb, is the new temple in communion with his Father, and at his eschatological return, all will behold his full glory “as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). 19.  Interestingly, this is the second instance where the Gospel of John has what was said of a person placed in the mouth of the person himself. Whereas Matthew and Luke attribute Isaiah 40:3 to John the Baptist’s ministry, the Evangelist has John himself speaking the passage. “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’ ” (Jn 1:23; see Mt 3:3 and Lk 3:4–6). In so doing the Evangelist is emphatically allowing the person himself to define who he is. In the present instance, Jesus is defining himself as the new temple. 20.  I do not have a clue how this historically could have come about, but ironically the accuser in Mark’s Gospel, despite misquoting Jesus, actually answers the Jews’ incredulous amazement in John’s Gospel. The reason the temple could be destroyed after forty-six years in the building and Jesus rebuild it in three days is that the Jerusalem temple was built by human hands and the rebuilt temple will not be built by human hands.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

125

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and believed the scriptures and the word which Jesus had spoken.” Jesus, as the Father’s Son, will divinely raise himself up, and in so doing he will be the new and living temple. John’s statement takes us to a further theological point. Fourth, John makes explicit what was also implied in Matthew and Mark. The reference to three days does denote Jesus’ resurrection, but John has now clearly specified that Jesus himself, and not simply what was inferred by his unwitting false accusers, was speaking of his own risen body.21 This is in accordance with who Jesus is for John. As the Son of God incarnate, Jesus is already, in his earthly existence, the supreme expression of God’s presence on earth—as the Father’s Son, he is the living temple in whom God dwells.22 Moreover, in, with, and through that earthly humanity, Jesus, for John, reveals his glory—­“glory as of the only Son of the Father” (Jn 1:14). Jesus reveals his glory not simply within his miracle signs but definitively in his resurrection— the supreme miracle sign that manifests his divine Sonship. As all of Jesus’ miracle signs were enacted to provoke faith, so this ultimate expression of his glory elicits in his disciples their definitive faith. In remembering his statement, they “believed the scriptures and the word which Jesus had spoken.”23 Moreover, the fullness of glory that is manifested in, with, and through Jesus’ risen humanity, the glorious flesh of the Father’s Son, reveals fully that he is the new and everlasting temple, for in him was enacted the supreme sacrifice, the saving Passover and covenantal sacrifice; in him one comes into the full presence of God, and thus in him is found the temple of worship for all nations. Jesus, as the new and everlasting temple, is the fulfillment and so elevation of all that the Jerusalem temple prefigured, embodied, and signified. Thus Jesus does not destroy the earthly temple but reveals and, in himself, literally embodies its true historical and lasting significance.24 21. Unlike the Synoptic authors, John sometimes provides theological asides within his Gospel. Moreover, John even offers lengthy theological commentary. Even more unique, as I will argue, is that John places his theological interpretation within the mouth of Jesus himself. These theological interludes strengthen my argument that John, in his Gospel, is providing a theological interpretation of the one apostolic kerygmatic tradition individually narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. 22.  The Letter to the Colossians expresses this same understanding. In Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness of life in him” (2:9–10). 23.  In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus emphases that his resurrection fulfills the Scriptures (see Lk 24:25, 24:27, 24:44–45). 24.  The Romans, not Jesus, destroyed the temple in 70 AD. For a theological interpretation of the temple’s destruction within the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1:270–76.

126

Chapter 4

Fifth, however, John in his statement appears to contradict what Jesus declares. Jesus emphatically states, “I will raise it up [the humanity that is his temple],” while John states that he “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this.” On the one hand, Jesus declares that he has the power to raise himself up from the dead. This would be in keeping with what Jesus later declares. He professes that the Father loves him “because I lay down my life, that I may raise it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father” (Jn 10:17–18). On the other hand, John speaks of Jesus being “raised” from the dead and thus that someone other than himself raised him—this could only be his Father. The immediate interpretive key here is that the Father has charged him to lay down his life as well as raise it up again. Jesus never performs any action that is not also the simultaneous action of his Father. Thus Jesus, as the Father’s Son, raises himself glorious from the dead because he is doing so in union with his Father. This communality of action accords with Jesus’ later prayer to his Father. “I glorified you on earth having accomplished the work you gave me to do; and now, Father, glorify you me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made” (Jn 17:4–5). As Jesus glorified his Father in performing his Father’s work of salvation, so the Father will glorify him by raising him from the dead, and so bestow upon him the glory that he possessed from all eternity. In a sense the Father glorifies Jesus by empowering him to raise himself from the dead, a “raising” that Jesus performs only in communion with his Father, the source of all of the incarnate Son’s actions.25 Sixth, the question now arises as to whether John perceived another referent to Jesus’ words when he declared that he would raise up the temple on the third day, which John confirms is a reference to his body. Is the body that will be raised up not only Jesus’ personal glorified risen body but also the body of his church? Does the new temple include both Jesus and his church? Given what we already saw within his miracle sign at Cana, Jesus’ integral betrothal relationship to his church as imaged in his mother, the ecclesial woman, such 25.  Within the Acts of the Apostles the Father is consistently said to have raised Jesus from the dead (2:24, 2:32; 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 13:33, 13:34, 13:37). The Pauline corpus is similar (see Rom 1:4, 4:24, 6:4, 8:11, 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; Gal 1:1; and Col 2:12). Rom 1:4 and 8:11 specify that the Father raised Jesus from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the light of the above, it would appear that John wishes to make evident that Jesus, as the Father’s Son, and the Father, as the Son’s Father, work in unison, and so Jesus’ resurrection can be predicated of either one or both.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

127

an interpretation appears to be warranted.26 There, too, we saw that the two gifts Jesus will bestow on his church are those of baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism establishes a union with Jesus in the Spirit, and the Eucharist is a communion with the risen Jesus himself. Similarly, Jesus will shortly declare to the Samaritan woman that “the time is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worship will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:21, 4:23). To worship the Father in spirit and truth is to worship the Father in unity with Jesus, who is the new all-holy temple. One needs to be united to the risen bodily Jesus and so be a member of his body, the church, in order to worship the Father as he so desires. Moreover, Jesus concludes his high priestly prayer by ardently beseeching his Father that his disciples be one in him and so with his Father. Jesus prays that those who believe in him “may all be one; even as you Father are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us . . . I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one” (Jn 17:21, 17:23; see also Jn 17:20–26). While more could be said and will be said as we proceed, John’s Gospel highlights the indispensable salvific relationship between Jesus and those who believe in him, and so the requisite relationship between himself and his church. Thus when Jesus declares that he will raise up the temple in three days and John specifies that he is referring to the temple of his body, that body would seem to entail not only Jesus’ own body but also the body of church, for his own resurrection will give rise to his church—those who are one with him in the Spirit.27 The Evangelist concludes his cleansing narrative by noting that while Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover, “many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did” (see also Jn 4:45). What signs Jesus worked John does not specify, but again they were miracle signs that revealed his glory and so prompted faith. But John informs the reader of Jesus’ surprising negative reaction. “Jesus did not trust/commit himself to them [those who 26.  This spousal relationship between Christ and his church finds its fulfillment in Jesus’ coming in glory at the end of time. “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I head a great voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them’ ” (Rv 21:2–3). 27.  Paul develops this notion that the church is the body of Christ (see Rom 12:4 and 1 Cor 12:12–13). Paul declares in his Letter the Ephesians, “And he [God] has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22–23). Again, also see 1 Pt 2:4–10, where Christ and his church are said to compose one living temple.

128

Chapter 4

believe in him] because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.”28 Jesus was leery of those who believed in him because he knew how fickle human beings are. He knew the sin that resided in them. This will be a constant concern of Jesus throughout John’s Gospel—those who constantly waffle in their faith and so cannot be trusted. Similarly, Jesus had no need of their bearing witness to him, not simply because of their half-hearted faith, but more so because there were greater witnesses—John the Baptist, the Scriptures, his works, and above all his Father (see Jn 5:30–47). By way of concluding this section on Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, a few more summary theological remarks are appropriate. First, all of the above gives expression to what the Evangelist declared in his Prologue: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt/tabernacled among us” (Jn 1:14). Jesus, as the new and living temple, is the Word tabernacling among us. Within his pre-resurrection incarnate state, the Word tabernacles among us as the one who is wooing and establishing his bride the church. Within his risen incarnate state, the Word and his church coalesce into the one living and Spirit-filled temple. To abide in him, the new temple prefigured in the old, is to reside truly in the presence of his Father and so proffer unto him rightful worship. This communion of the risen Jesus and his church will find its fulfillment in the heavenly temple, when at the close of time the heavenly Spirit-filled bride, the church, will give full glory to the Father in union her spouse, Jesus Christ (see Rv 21:3, Jn 21:22–26). Second, the Jews, in response to Jesus’ cleansing, sought a divine sign that would authorize such an inflammatory action. Jesus offers them a prophetic sign, a sign that would be realized in the future. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The sign will be his own resurrection, for his resurrection will conclusively manifest that he is the Father’s Son and thus enjoys his Father’s authority to purify his Father’s house. Because he cleansed the temple during the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus is also prefiguring his own Passover. The ultimate cleansing of the temple will be effected in his own death, the sacrificial offering of himself to the Father for the purification of sin, and in his passing over into the new life of his glorious resurrection. Jesus will embody the new and everlasting covenant and so establish himself as the new and everlasting temple. Again, in Jesus, the glorious incarnate Son, all who believe in him will have access to the throne of his heavenly Father. Baptism is the means 28.  The Old Testament recognizes that only God can know the vacillating minds of men (see 1 Kgs 8:39; Ps 33:15, 94:11; Sir 42:18; Jer 17:10, 20:12). That Jesus “knew what was in man” implies that he possesses this divine ability as the Father’s Son.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

129

by which one is born anew, re-created in the Spirit, so as be united to the risen Jesus and so enter into God’s presence.29 Lastly, Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is a prophetic act that anticipates Jesus becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. While his cleansing of the temple is in itself an act of Jesus becoming Jesus, it is such in that it prefigures Jesus becoming the new Passover through his being the new high priest who offers himself as the everlasting Passover sacrifice, a sacrifice through which he passes over through his resurrection into the heavenly presence of his Father.30 Through this salvific act, Jesus therefore cleanses God’s people of sin so that they, too, in union with him, can pass over into the heavenly sanctuary. Jesus, then, is himself the new living temple in whom all of the faithful come into living worshipful communion with his heavenly Father. These are the definitive saving acts by which Jesus becomes Jesus. But how do people come into communion with Jesus, the living everlasting temple, so as to enter into the very divine abode of his Father? They need to be born anew of the Holy Spirit, for only then can they enter into the heavenly kingdom of God—a kingdom that Jesus himself embodies as the new Spirit-filled temple. To this new birth we now turn by examining Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus. Nicodemus: The Need to Be Born Anew Having narrated Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and summarized the signs he worked in Jerusalem in the course of the Passover, John next informs the reader that “there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.’ ”31 Being a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin), Nicodemus would 29.  Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and his ensuing antagonistic encounter with the Jews may be another example of John attempting to woe his contemporary kinsmen to faith. At this historical point, they would have seen or at least been aware of the destruction of their temple by the Romans. The entire contentious dialogue between Jesus and the Jews is to make evident that the destruction of the temple is not the demise of God’s presence in their midst. Rather, the risen Jesus, as the new and living temple, is the preeminent presence of God in their midst, and so the fulfillment of all that the earthly temple prophetically anticipated and symbolically presaged. 30.  That Jesus is the new and ever living Passover lamb that abides in heaven is depicted in the Book of Revelation. In a heavenly vision, John beholds “a lamb standing as though he had been slain” and to whom the heavenly court give praise, honor, and worship (Rv 5:6–14). 31.  All quotations in this section are taken from Jn 3:1–21 unless otherwise noted.

130

Chapter 4

normally, in John’s Gospel, be classified under the heading of “the Jews,” that is, among those who were antagonistic toward Jesus and who refused to believe. That he came to Jesus “by night” also suggests this to be the case. Out of trepidation, he did not want his fellow “Jews” to know that he was in amenable conversation with Jesus. That the Evangelist specifies that it was night also alludes to the spiritual darkness that inhabited Nicodemus. In coming to Jesus at night, however, the benighted Nicodemus comes into the light that is Jesus himself, for he, as God’s Word, is the light that shines in the darkness, the light that has come into the darkness of the world (see Jn 1:5 and 1:9).32 Thus, for John, what will transpire between Jesus and Nicodemus will entail Nicodemus’ enlightenment—his passing over, at this time of Passover, from the darkness of sin, death, and ignorance into light of holiness, life, and truth. Nicodemus initiates the conversation by calling Jesus “Rabbi,” acknowledging him to be a teacher, although not simply an ordinary Rabbi but “a teacher come from God,” and the reason is that no one performs the signs he enacts “unless God is with him.”33 In employing these phrases, “come from God” and “God is with him,” Nicodemus probably meant that Jesus came from God in the sense that he was a man anointed by God. And as an anointed teacher from God, God would be present to him in a manner similar to previous anointed prophetic teachers. Within the Johannine context, however, these expressions “came from God,” and God being “with him” also possess a threefold deeper meaning, a meaning still veiled to Nicodemus’ unenlightened mind. As the Son of God, he is “the only Son from the Father,” that is, eternally begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14). Moreover, Jesus “came from God” in the sense that God sent him into the world as his incarnate Word—a major theme within John’s Gospel.34 Jesus is, then, the consummate Rabbi (teacher) sent by 32.  Jesus will later define himself as the light of the world in contrast to the darkness that resides within the world. We will therefore discuss this more fully later. 33.  Nicodemus does not say “I know” but that “we know” that Jesus is a teacher come from God because of the signs he works. The identity of the “we” is not specified, but presumably he is referencing his fellow pharisees—“the Jews.” If such is the case, he is then admitting that his Jewish colleagues do know Jesus to be a teacher come from God precisely because of the signs. If this is the case, their disbelief in Jesus is all the more inexcusable and hypocritical, for they obdurately will to deny, despite their acknowledging the validity of the signs, what they actually know to be true. Because of this admission, Nicodemus quietly ferrets out Jesus at night. In the Synoptics, the scribes, chief priests, members of the Herodian party, and pharisees were sent to entrap Jesus, and they did so by disingenuously professing that he teaches the way of God (see Mt 22:16, Mk 12:14, and Lk 20:21). Unlike these duplicitous Jews, the Jew Nicodemus is sincere in his address to Jesus. 34.  See Jn 3:17, 5:38, 6:29, 7:28–29, 8:26, and 8:29.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

131

God because he embodies the complete truth (Word) of the Father. Likewise, God is “with” Jesus in that they ontologically co-inhere in one another as the Father’s Son and Son’s Father, and so they together coexist as the one God.35 Nicodemus is presently ignorant of these profounder truths. During the course of their colloquy, Jesus will attempt to reveal to him the loftier meaning of his own introductory profession. Jesus appears to ignore Nicodemus’ introductory statement. Rather, Jesus initiates a topic that seems to have no bearing upon what Nicodemus says to him. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew [or ‘from above’ or ‘again,’ depending on the context and translation], he cannot see the kingdom of God.”36 Jesus focuses Nicodemus’ attention on the need to be born anew or from above, and therefore his need to be born again. Only through this new rebirth is one able to see God’s kingdom. Although Mark and Luke often speak of the kingdom of God and Matthew of the kingdom of heaven, John employs this phrase only twice in his Gospel—here and in verse five immediately following.37 There is a threefold reason for this, each bearing upon my contention that John’s Gospel is a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition as found, in three distinctive manners, within each of the Synoptic Gospels. We saw in our previous theological interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus embodies the kingdom of God, a kingdom that is prophetically prefigured in his public ministry and decisively comes into being through his death and resurrection. On the cross, Jesus puts to death the old order of sin and death and establishes the new order of God’s kingdom through his own resurrection. Jesus’ outpouring of his Spirit at Pentecost is the fruit of his death and resurrection, and those who partake of that Spirit through faith and baptism enter into God’s kingdom, for they come to 35.  See Jn 10:30, 10:38, and 14:11. 36.  “Truly, truly” is the English translation of “Amen, amen.” The declarative “Amen” means that one gives assent to what has been said as is done within Christian practice of saying “Amen” at the end of a liturgical prayer. That Jesus commences a declarative statement with a double “Amen” accentuates that he is demanding that it be accepted prior to his proclaiming it. Through this singular practice on the part of Jesus he manifests his divine authority, for only God could demand that one accept something as true prior to its being decreed. 37.  Although John does not emphasize the phrase “Kingdom of God,” the notion that Jesus is a “king” does surface later. Having multiplied the loaves and seeing the peoples’ enthusiastic response that he is the prophet who has come into the world, he, “perceiving then that they were about to come and take him away by force to make him king Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself ” (Jn 6:12–14). We also find references to Jesus being king at his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and most significantly during his trial, where Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king, to which he responds that he is a king but not of this world. We will discuss the theological significance of these passages at the appropriate time (see Jn 18:37, 19:12, 19:14–15).

132

Chapter 4

live in the risen Christ through the indwelling Spirit and so come into communion with his Father as his children. What John is presently doing is, first, bringing that Synoptic narrative into Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, and he is doing so by placing that narrative within his—or, maybe better, Jesus’— theology of baptism.38 Second, John emphasizes through Jesus’ words that to see God’s kingdom is to behold Jesus as the Father’s Son, and this recognition can only be achieved fully when one is born anew from above. Third, John wishes to accentuate that one enters into that kingdom by being born from above by the Holy Spirit and so is conjoined to the risen Jesus who embodies the new abundant life of God’s kingdom—the divine life of the Spirit. Nicodemus takes Jesus’ words on the need for rebirth in a literal physical manner and so responds, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Nicodemus’ response does not only display the darkness of his ignorance but also allows Jesus to emphasize the fuller and deeper meaning of his teaching. For John, Nicodemus is then the means by which the reader is more fully drawn into the discussion and so into what Jesus is revealing.39 In response to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding that Jesus is implausibly suggesting that a grown man can once more enter his mother’s womb, Jesus declares: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do you marvel that I said to you, “You must be born anew?” The wind/spirit blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or wither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. 38.  It is sometimes difficult to discern whether what John portrays Jesus as saying is really the words of Jesus or John’s theological interpretation placed in the mouth of Jesus. Presuming the historicity of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus, it would appear that Jesus is providing a theological account of the significance of his death and resurrection as this Paschal Mystery bears upon baptism. 39.  This pattern of dialogue wherein Jesus’ interlocutor first takes his words literally only to have Jesus elaborate more fully their spiritual and so deeper meaning is found throughout John’s Gospel. We will find it again, for example, when Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and his discussion with Martha over his being the resurrection and the life. These consistent stylized dialogues raise again the issue of historicity. The various encounters would appear to be historical, yet the actual Johannine interchange, while not the exact historical words of Jesus and his interlocutor, may, I suggest, be John’s dialogical theological interpretation of what transpired between Jesus and interlocutor. This would be similar to the miracles that John narrates but are not found within the Synoptic Gospels. John employs his distinctive miracles to highlight their deep theological sign value.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

133

So Nicodemus (and the reader) now learn a number of intertwining points. The rebirth of which Jesus is speaking is accomplished through water and the Holy Spirit, thus making it explicit that Jesus is speaking of baptism—the sacramentality of which consists in the pouring of water, which effects a rebirth, a new birth in the Holy Spirit. This new birth from above initiates one’s entrance into God’s heavenly Kingdom. Alluding to Nicodemus’ reference to being born from a woman’s womb, Jesus declares that what is born of the flesh (sarx)— that is, born by natural causality—is flesh (sarx) and so possesses the attributes that pertain to the flesh, but what is born anew or from above is born of the Spirit—that is, born by divine causality—is spirit and so possesses those attributes that pertain to the Spirit. Here we must pause to make three theological observations, all pertaining to the Prologue.40 First, the Prologue declares that the Word who was with God and was God “became flesh (sarx) and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14). In treating this passage we stressed that, in becoming man, the Word or Son assumed the weaknesses and frailty of humanity—flesh. He dwelt among us as one who bore the birthmark of Adam’s fallen race, though without sin. John here is highlighting the truth found in Matthew and particularly Luke—that Jesus’ lineage is composed of sinful men and women and finds its origin in Adam. While the Son of God was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, the humanity he inherited was that of fallen Adam. Second, because Jesus was born of the flesh of sinful Adam, he too needs to be born anew or from above. Although not a sinner, he needs to cast off the sin-disfigured flesh of Adam and rise as the new and glorious man. Only after he is born anew in his death and resurrection is he born into in the fullness of the Spirit.41 Only then does he fully embody the kingdom God and so be able to baptize his followers in the Holy Spirit who will then be united to him and partake of God’s kingdom. Within John’s Gospel, to live in God’s kingdom is to share in the abundance of eternal life—an abundance of life that the risen Jesus himself embodies.42 Again, it is “from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace” (Jn 1:16). Third, as flesh begets flesh and Spirit begets spirit, so to “those who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh (sarkos) nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:12–13). 40.  I believe that the statement “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” has a twofold meaning. I will treat the first understanding here and the second shortly. 41.  Such an understanding would be in accord with Jesus’ recognition that he must undergo a baptism and is eager for it to accomplished (see Lk 12:49–50 and Mk 10:38–39). 42.  See Jn 3:15,10:10, and 20:31; see also 1 Jn 5:13.

134

Chapter 4

In, with, and through Jesus, by believing in his name as YHWH-Saves, the baptized pass over from the realm of the flesh, sin, and death, into the abundant life of God’s kingdom, a passing over that Jesus himself will accomplish on a subsequent Passover of the Jews.43 Thus Jesus’ teaching, in his conversation with Nicodemus, looks back to the Evangelist’s Prologue and anticipates the future when the crucified and risen Jesus will fulfill his present declarations by baptizing with the Holy Spirit.44 Jesus proceeds to exhort Nicodemus not to “marvel” at what he just said: “You must be born anew [or from above].” He then provides a rather enigmatic illustration. “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or wither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Like the wind, the Spirit is never seen; one only knows both by the sound that they make, but neither the wind nor the Spirit make sounds. The sound that is heard is the effect of the wind or the Spirit upon that which it passes. The rustling of leaves or the rattling of windows manifests the presence of the soundless unseen wind. The changed life of a person, his being born from above, is the effect that manifests the invisible presence and silent power of the Spirit. Moreover, as the wind is unpredictable, it blows where it wills and comes and goes unimpeded, so it is with one “who is born 43.  This understanding of the relationship between Jesus’ death and resurrection and what transpires in baptism is in keeping with Paul’s teaching in his Letter to the Romans. For Paul, in baptism we have been united to Jesus’ death and resurrection wherein he put our sinful flesh, “our old self ” to death on the cross so that as Christ was raised from the dead so too might those who are baptized be raised to life (see Rom 6:3–11). Moreover, God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” in order that it might be put to death. Having done so, Christians can live “according to the Spirit,” for Christ has raised them up to new life in his own Spirit-filled resurrection. Christians therefore no longer live in the flesh but according to the Spirit of Christ (see Rom 8:1–17). This interpretation would also be in accord with Paul’s notion that Jesus is the new Adam. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). And “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45, see also 15:48–49). Being of the stock of Adam, Jesus died, but in rising from the dead, he became the new Adam and so, through baptism, is able to raise up a new race—one born anew of the Spirit. 44.  Jesus’ teaching on baptism also looks back to Ezekiel. God, through Ezekiel, declares that he will vindicate his holiness, for “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all of your uncleannesses. . . . A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” (Ezek 36:23–27; see also 11:19, 18:31). This cleansing of water and this giving of a new heart will be the re-creating of God’s people—making them holy. This will be accomplished because “I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land” (Ezek 37:14). This new land will be God’s kingdom, a kingdom in which those reborn of the Spirit will live.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

135

of the Spirit.”45 Those born anew of the Spirit do not control the Spirit, for the Spirit freely comes upon those born of him. He freely bestows the gift of faith and freely bears anew those reborn in baptism. Jesus insists, nevertheless, that by this unpredictable and unimpeded power of the Spirit, one needs to be reborn. Nicodemus still does not comprehend: “How can this be?” (These are Nicodemus’ last words. From this point on, he silently fades from the scene, but does he enter back into the night of ignorance and unbelief from which he came? We will see.) Nicodemus’ incomprehension nonetheless allows Jesus to delve even more deeply into the mystery—not only the mystery of baptism, but also into the very source of this mystery, the mystery of the Trinity as well as that of the saving Incarnation. Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven but he who as descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. In addressing Nicodemus’ final query as to how one can be born anew from above, Jesus queries him. Since Nicodemus is “a teacher of Israel,” should he not be able to grasp what Jesus is saying? But why does Jesus think that, being a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus should understand? I suggest that the answer lies within Israel’s entire history. God, from the onset of his choosing Abraham, has done mighty works in the midst of Israel and on Israel’s behalf—deeds that are as incredible as that of being born anew by water and the Spirit. From all of the 45.  Ecclesiastes speaks of the unknown movements of the wind and spirit (see Eccl 11:4–5). Interestingly, the wind can either be slight or be strong, and either can manifest the presence of the Spirit’s presence. God revealed himself to Elijah not in the strong wind that rent the mountains, nor in the following earthquake, nor in the resulting fire, but in “a light silent sound” (1 Kgs 19:9–13; translation from the New American Bible, revised edition). Contrast this whispering wind with Pentecost: “When the day of Pentecost had come, they [the Apostles] were together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were filled with the Holy Spirt and began speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1–4). The Spirit blows where he wills and makes a sound, subtle or loud, in accordance with his will. (For this insight I am indebted to my good Capuchin friend William Fey, former bishop of Kimbe, Papua New Guinea.)

136

Chapter 4

nations, God chose Israel to be his people, making a covenant with them. In King David he promised them an everlasting kingdom. Through the prophets he spoke to them. He forgave their sins and poured out his blessings. He dwelt in their presence—particularly in the Jerusalem temple. He promised them a new and lasting covenant and a savior who would reign forever. Within this historical context that goes back a millennia, a narrative that is found in the ancient Scriptures, Jesus would expect Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, not to “marvel” but at least to recognize, if not fully comprehend, what he was saying. But, alas, the benighted Nicodemus appears to remain ignorantly in the dark.46 Despite Nicodemus’ reluctance to believe what he says, Jesus emphatically asserts (“Truly, truly”) that he “speaks of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen,” even if Nicodemus does “not receive our testimony.” The first question to arise is: Who is this “we”? Since Jesus is speaking with no one other than Nicodemus, one would assume that he would say that he speaks of what “I know” and to what “I bear witness,” and to which Nicodemus does not receive “my testimony.” Is Jesus employing the royal “we” simply to add gravitas to his teaching? No, the “we” refers to his Father and to himself as the Father’s Son. If such is the case, what do Jesus, the Son, and his Father know, and to what are they bearing witness to in their conjoined testimony? To answer this question, we need to proceed to what Jesus next tells Nicodemus. “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Once more, though, what Jesus says raises further questions. First, while it appears that Jesus is speaking solely to Nicodemus, he now employs the plural “you” (ùmîn). To whom is this plural “you” referring? Second, what are the earthly things of which he speaks that Nicodemus and others do not believe? And, third, what are the heavenly things that Jesus could and no doubt will reveal (the “what if ”) that Nicodemus and others will find even harder to believe? Although at opening glance they may first appear to be “heavenly things,” the “earthly things” refer to Jesus’ teaching regarding the need to be baptized in water and the Spirit so to be born anew from above, for only then can one enter the kingdom of God. The sacrament of baptism, as all of the sacraments, 46.  My above suggestion finds warrant later in John’s Gospel. In one of his later disputes with the Jews, Jesus states, “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Jn 5:39–40). Interestingly, Nicodemus came to Jesus, and Jesus taught him that he must be born of the Spirit if he is to have life. Or again: “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words” (Jn 5:45–47).

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

137

is enacted here on earth though it has heavenly effects in that it raises the baptized into the very life of the Trinity. What, then, are “the heavenly things” that Jesus will doubtlessly reveal that are even more incredible? I suggest that Jesus is referring to the heavenly foundational origin of baptism. Earthly baptism of water and the Holy Spirit reflects and so finds its source in the reality that the Son is eternally begotten, born, of the Father. Only because the Son is begotten of the Father are human beings able to be begotten of water and the Spirit and so come to share in their heavenly divine relationship. This truth is what “we [Jesus, the Son, and his Father] know,” and “we bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony.” If Nicodemus and others do not understand what it means to be born anew here on earth, how then will he and others ever come to understand that the Son was eternally begotten of his Father in heaven?47 Here we must also return to Jesus’ statement concerning flesh begetting flesh and Spirit begetting spirit. I emphasized above that in becoming man in the Incarnation, the Son of God assumed the sinful flesh of Adam. Thus he too needs to be born anew of the Spirit in order for him to baptize in the Spirit. Jesus’ rebirth is enacted in his death, whereby his Adamic flesh is put to death, and in his resurrection, whereby he is raised up as a new man bearing fully the abundant life of the Holy Spirit, thus empowering him to baptize in the Holy Spirit.48 Moreover, hidden within Jesus’ statement that what is born of Spirit is spirit resides the heavenly truth that Jesus, as the Father’s Son, was eternally begotten or “born” of the Spirit and so is eternally divine as the Father is divine—eternally spirit as the Father is spirit. The Father’s begetting of his Son in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, is what Jesus and his Father know and to which they together now bear witness for they have obviously seen it. This eternal “begetting” in the Spirit is the heavenly thing Nicodemus and others will find even more difficult to believe than that human beings need to be born anew in the Spirit. Yet the Son’s being eternally begotten of the Father in communion with the Spirit is the prerequisite, the sine qua non, for human beings to be begotten of the Spirit and so being taken into the divine life of the Trinity. What we then theologically perceive here is a threefold interconnected 47.  The Book of Wisdom notes: “We can hardly guess at what is on earth, and what is at hand we find with labor; but who has traced out what is in the heavens? Who has learned your [God’s] council, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirt from on high?” (Wis 9:16–17). Only through the light of the Holy Spirit is one able to grasp heavenly things, that is, that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father. 48.  This understanding is in accord with Paul where he states, “Thus, it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45; Paul is quoting Gn 2:7).

138

Chapter 4

causal series. First, since the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, the Son through whom the Father created humankind in his image, it is proper that the Son become flesh to re-create humankind in his own image—the “becoming flesh” causally follows upon, finds it source in, the eternal “begetting.” Second, as man, Jesus, the begotten Father’s Son, accomplishes humankind’s salvation through his being “born anew” through the enactment of the Paschal Mystery—­Jesus’ earthly being born anew in the Spirit follows upon, is achieved, because he who enacts the saving Paschal Mystery is the Son who is eternally begotten by the Father in the love of the Spirit. Third, being the only begotten Son of the Father, who became flesh and was born anew in the Spirit, Jesus is empowered to baptize the faithful in the Spirit, the same Spirit in whom he was begotten as God, and born anew as man. This threefold wondrous series of causal relational acts subsumes the Christian faithful within the very life of the Trinity—initiated and orchestrated by the Father, mediated through the Son, and consummated in the Holy Spirit. The “heavenly things” and the “earthly things” are inherently interrelated through the heavenly and earthly acts of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are the truths that the Father and Jesus his Son together know and to which they bear witness—the begetting of the Son in the Spirit and the faithful being born anew in the Spirit. Here we are now able to perceive to whom the plural “you” refers—Nicodemus and the unbelieving Jews. Jesus may be directing his admonition at Nicodemus, the Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, but he is also addressing the unbelieving faction that Nicodemus personifies.49 As will become evident later in the Gospel, “the Jews” refuse to believe what Jesus insinuated that he would reveal—the heavenly things—that God is his Father and thus that he is from the Father as the Father’s Son. Moreover, the Father and his Son, Jesus, together perform the Father’s works, and thus the works they conjointly enact bear witness to his divine Sonship. Yet the Jews refuse to accept their conjoined testimony (see Jn 5:17–18, 5:30–47).50 49.  For John, Jesus is also addressing John’s contemporary unbelieving Jews. 50.  We will examine this conflict between Jesus and the Jews more fully at the appropriate time. It needs to be noted here, though, that the “we” of whom Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, the “we” who bear witness to what they know and have seen, he and his Father, manifests itself again later in John 5. Jesus speaks of the joint testimony of his Father and the works that he performs that bear witness that he is from the Father as the Father’s Son. The Evangelist never narrates “an oddity,” such as the “we” when Jesus alone is present and speaking; or the plural “you” when Jesus is speaking solely to Nicodemus that does not become more evident and so more fulfilled at a later time within the Gospel. In these examples the more complete enactment of both is found in Jn 5, 10:25, 14:11, and 15:24.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

139

To proceed, Jesus’ address to Nicodemus finds its climatic confirmation in what he proclaims next. No one has ascended into heaven but he who has descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. Jesus is obviously referring to himself. He will ascend into heaven, for he has descended from heaven. These are again “the heavenly things” of which Jesus and his Father speak and to which they bear witness. Moreover, what takes place between the descending and the ascending are “the earthly things” of which Jesus speaks. Who is speaking is Jesus, the Son of God, but he now identifies himself as the Son of man. As always, the key Old Testament passage for discerning the meaning of the designation “Son of man” is Daniel 7:13–14. In Daniel’s vision, he sees “one like the son of man” coming down out of heaven before the “Ancient of Days and is presented before him.” The Ancient of Days, the eternal God, gives to the Son of man “dominion and glory and kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” That the Son of man came down out of heaven testifies to his divinity, and yet he has the appearance of one born of human stock. Thus the title is perceived to be a reference to the Incarnation, whether employed by Jesus himself or attributed to him by others.51 The Son of God came down out of the heavens and became man and so is now truly a Son of man as well—both divine and human. In ascribing to himself this title, Jesus is professing not simply that he, as the Son of God, has descended from heaven as the Son of man, but strikingly that as the descended Son of man he will ascend into heaven. There is a coming down out of heaven, an abiding on earth, and a going back up into to heaven. “No one” else has done this except the Son of man.52 How will the heavenly Son of man who descended upon 51.  For a further treatment of the meaning of “Son of man” within the Gospels, see JBJ 1:225–27. 52.  Later, in response to the murmuring of his disciples upon hearing they must eat his body and drink his blood, Jesus says, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (Jn 6:62). Also, in response to the Pharisees’ objection that Jesus testifies on behalf of himself, Jesus states, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going” (Jn 8:14). As the Father’s Son, Jesus is begotten of the Father, and so he comes to earth as the incarnate Father’s Son. Moreover, he

140

Chapter 4

earth rise up again into heaven? Jesus informs Nicodemus and the reader by employing an Old Testament event as an illustration. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” To grasp fully the theological significance of what Jesus says, we need to know the context of his image. As the Israelites journeyed through the desert, they “spoke against God and against Moses,” for in the wilderness there was no food and water. In response, “the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.” The people went to Moses and confessed that they had sinned against God and asked Moses to intercede for them that God might banish the serpents. Moses in turn said, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live” (Nm 21:4–9).53 The infestation of poisonous serpents was the divine punishment for Israel’s sin. The irony is that a replica of the very punishment became the divine means of healing. To look upon the lifted-up fiery serpent, then, was not only to behold the Lord’s punishment for their sin, and so the evil consequences of their sin, but also to behold, in the very viewing of their sin and its penalties, the Lord’s mercy. The cause of their death became the source of their life-giving healing. Thus as Moses lifted up the serpent, containing all of its inherent meaning, so must Jesus, the Son of man, be lifted up. But what is the meaning of Moses’ lifting up that is now transferred and elevated in Jesus being lifted up? Scripture scholars note that Jesus does not simply employ the Greek word for physically setting something up or placing it at a spatial higher level, but a word that connotes a raising up to a more exalted plane or assuming a more illustrious status (ùpsothênai). Jesus, then, is prophetically referring to his cross and resurrection and so to one twofold continuous seamless causal act.54 The ascending upon will ascend from whence he came; that is, he will return to his Father as the glorified Father’s incarnate Son. These are the heavenly things, the begetting of the Son and the becoming man in the Incarnation, that the Jews do not know and so do not believe. 53.  The Book of Wisdom speaks of this event as well and emphasizes that the one who “turned toward it [the lifted depiction of the fiery serpent] was saved, not by what he saw, but by you, the Savior of all” (Wis 16:5–7; see also 16:12). The lifted-up serpent was merely the sign of God’s present healing power. 54.  This understanding is in keeping with Is 52:13: “Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.” Jesus, as the Suffering Servant, will be lifted up upon the cross only to be exalted on high. There is also an allusion back to Jn 1:51, where Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see greater things: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Because of Jesus’ saving death on the cross with his concomitant ascending, the heavens will be opened with angels ascending and descending upon him, for this man is the Father’s Son.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

141

the cross precipitates, gives rise to, Jesus’ being lifted up into the glory of his resurrection and ascension. Why is this so? As the serpent that Moses placed on the pole both depicted the evil of Israel’s sin and the Lord’s mercy, so Jesus’ act, the act of the Son of man who is the Son of God, of ascending the cross, manifests the hideous wickedness of humankind’s sin as well as the unbounded mercy of the Father. Moreover, the efficacious salvific nature of Jesus’ being lifted up upon the cross is the simultaneous cause, the wellspring, of his being exalted in his glorious resurrection and ascension and of humankind’s freedom from sin and the eternal life that is now made available to those who believe. Jesus is informing Nicodemus and the reader that this twofold lifting up of the Son of man is the foundational twofold act that provides the means by which one casts off that which is born of the flesh and is born anew in the Spirit, a birth that lifts the newborn up into the life of God’s kingdom—a heavenly eternal life that the risen Jesus now literally embodies, the divine life of the Holy Spirit. While Jesus, as the Son of God, descended from heaven to earth as the incarnate Son of man, he will ascend through his cross and resurrection from earth into heaven as the glorious incarnate Son of God—the Son of man in glory. The earthly salvific acts of “the descended” are the means by which “the descended” is able to ascend from whence he came—heaven. Here I am compelled to make what may first appear to be a somewhat lengthy digression, but without it I am convinced we cannot continue our theological interpretation of John’s Gospel in an appreciative manner. I noted early on in our study that the Evangelist has neither Peter’s profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, nor the Transfiguration. I also expressed the conviction that the entirety of the Gospel is a depiction of Jesus’ divine glory that is meant to elicit faith in his divine Sonship—“We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). I have also suggested, on a number of occasions now, that John’s Gospel is a theological interpretation of the one Gospel/kerygmatic tradition as found variously within Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Within the Synoptic Gospels, then, immediately following upon Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus professes that because he is the Christ, the Son of God, he must go to Jerusalem “to suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised,” to which declaration Peter objects (Mt 16:16, 16:21–23; see also parallels). Importantly, Jesus makes this same assertion not only here but on two following occasions (see Mt 17:22–3 and 20:17– 19; see also parallels). The next event narrated is Jesus’ Transfiguration. The Transfiguration depicts Jesus’ resurrected glory. Importantly, moreover, it also depicts, within his dialogue with Moses and Elijah concerning Jesus’

142

Chapter 4

passing over, Jesus’ departure from this earthly life into the transfigured life of glory (see Lk 9:28–32 and parallels). The interpretive clue to understanding the entire Transfiguration event is found in the Father’s closing words: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, listen to him” (Mt 17:5; see also parallels). I argued in the first volume of Jesus Becoming Jesus on the Synoptic Gospels that the Transfiguration is therefore the enacted depiction of Peter’s profession of faith that Jesus is indeed the Son of God as confirmed by his Father’s words, and also a declaration of the necessity that Jesus, because he is the Christ, must suffer and die so as to enter into his risen glory. In his salvific death on the cross, Jesus, in whom the Father is well pleased, fully manifests that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and his glorious resurrection is the Father’s lasting confirmation.55 Now Jesus’ three prophetic declarations within the Synoptic Gospels that, as the anointed Father’s Son, he must suffer, die, and rise on the third day cannot be isolated from Jesus’ corresponding three prophetic declarations employed in John’s Gospel—the image of Moses lifting up the serpent as illustrative of himself and his salvific mission—the first of which we just examined (see also Jn 8:28 and 12:32). For John, Jesus, in utilizing the Mosaic image, is providing his own theological interpretation of Peter’s profession as well as his own theological exposition of his Transfiguration. More will be said at the appropriate times; nonetheless, in these three instances, where he applies Moses’ lifting up of the serpent to himself, Jesus is subsuming or incorporating, in this one illustration, that for him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, as Peter professed, signifies that the cross is the ascending means, the agent of his passing over, to his transfigured glory. Jesus’ transfigured glory confirms that he truly is the anointed one of God, the beloved living Father’s Son as his Father declared at the Transfiguration. Each time Jesus employs this Mosaic illustration, he emphasizes a different salvific result of his being lifted up. In the present instance, Jesus stresses that the Son of man must be lifted up—on the cross and into his glory—so that all who believe in him “may have eternal life.” In John 8:28, Jesus accentuates that “when you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he (égo eími), and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” That Jesus is lifted up upon the cross into his exalted glory will manifest that he is truly God, He-Who-Is, for he is the Father’s 55.  What Peter failed to grasp, that for Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, he must be crucified and die, the centurion at the foot of the cross in Mark’s Gospel clearly perceives. “And the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’ ” (Mk 15:39).

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

143

obedient and faithful Son. Referencing back to the first instance, he is, as the one Who-Is, able to give eternal life. The third use of the Mosaic lifting up of the serpent follows upon Jesus being troubled in spirit, and he asks himself whether he should petition his Father to save him from this hour. Instead he prays, “Father glorify your name,” to which a voice from heaven declares, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” In this context, Jesus says that this is a time of judgment when the ruler of this world will be cast out for “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” The Evangelist comments, “He said this to show by what death he was to die” (Jn 12:27–34). The Father’s glorification of Jesus, both in his crucifixion and in his resurrection, will be the Father’s judgment upon the world and the vanquishing of the evil one. These same liberating salvific acts will also allow Jesus, the Father’s glorified Son, to simultaneously draw all unfettered humankind to himself—he who is and so the one who gives eternal life.56 56.  The question cannot be avoided: Why does John’s Gospel have Jesus three times apply to himself the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent when the Synoptics make no mention of Jesus ever saying such? Again, is the Johannine account historical, or is it a theological invention created by John? As in similar scenarios, these are difficult issues to sort out. While I have taken the texts as if Jesus historically made use of this illustration, what is far more certain is that the Evangelist recognized that the example of Moses was of preeminent theological importance when applied to Jesus. Moreover, John realized, as I have argued, that such an image contained the narratives concerning Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus’ fuller clarification of that profession through his prophetic declarations that the Son of man must die and rise on the third day. Likewise, John realized that the Transfiguration was an anticipatory enactment not only of Jesus’ risen glory but also the cross being the proximate ancillary means to that glory. Should we then conclude that John has put words into Jesus’ mouth as a means to advance his own theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition as found in the Synoptic Gospels? I hesitate to draw that simple conclusion, for it would undermine the historicity of John’s Gospel. We must appreciate that Nicodemus is only mentioned in John’s Gospel and that Jesus first used the Moses analogy when speaking privately with Nicodemus. Thus Jesus may never have employed such an image when speaking publicly. Only if Nicodemus revealed his conversation with Jesus could it be known, and John may have learned of the conversation from Nicodemus himself. This would be in keeping with John being acquainted with the Jewish ruling class, such as the high priest (see Jn 18:15). Nicodemus would have also been a member of the Jewish elite and so have been an acquaintance of John (see Jn 3:1 and 7:45–52). I would tentatively suggest that, having learned that Jesus did employ the Mosaic example in Nicodemus’ presence, John later fully recognized its immense theological importance. I would also suggest, however, that, having recognized its importance, John continued to use it at appropriate places to enhance the meaning of Jesus’ words that he must suffer and rise on the third day in order to accentuate the theological significance of Jesus’ words and so the deeper meaning that resided within his words. In other words (no pun intended), we may not always have the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but we do always have the enriched theological thought contained in Jesus’ very words—the fuller ipsissima sententia of Jesus. We will have to visit this issue again at future points in John.

144

Chapter 4

By way of concluding our examination of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, we must recall, as intimated in the above, that the entirety of this exchange took place within the liturgical context of the Passover of the Jews. While Nicodemus would not have perceived the theological connection between the Passover and Jesus’ teaching on the necessity of being born anew in water and the Holy Spirit, nor the fact that he must be lifted up on the cross so as to pass over, be elevated, into the glory from which he descended, the Evangelist would. Jesus’ descent and ascension are his own Spirit baptism, his passing over, from the life of the flesh into the abundance of eternal life. Similarly, the Mosaic image implies that Jesus is the high priest who offers himself on the cross as the Passover lamb of sacrifice (the lamb of God) and in so doing efficaciously merits to pass over into his Father’s glory. Moreover, having been lifted upon on the cross and so ascending into glory, Jesus is now able to baptize in the Spirit those who believe in him. In this baptismal act, Jesus enacts the faithful’s passing over from the sinful mortality of the flesh and their ascending into the eternal life-giving new birth of the Holy Spirit. Those who are baptized into Christ who descended on their behalf now ascend with him into glory. God So Loved the World At this juncture in John’s Gospel, we are confronted with a conundrum. Upon Jesus’ saying that those who believe in him will have eternal life, the Gospel immediately continues, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Scholars debate, beginning with this verse and those that follow, whether Jesus continues to speak or whether the Evangelist is appending his own theological commentary on what Jesus had just declared. I would side with the latter. Noticeably, the linguistic style changes in that what is said reads more as a third person providing further explanation that enhances and builds upon what has gone before. The initial word “for” alerts the reader that what will now be said supports what Jesus has said previously. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Jesus, in what follows, would reference himself as “Son” and “Son of God.” While Jesus is the Son of God, he never calls himself such. That he is the Father’s Son is revealed only in that Jesus consistently calls God his Father. What we hear now, I believe, is the voice of John. But why did John, by the use of the word “for,” seamlessly proceed from Jesus’ voice to his own voice? Here again, while John is speaking, he does not want his words to be perceived merely as his personal theological interpretation, but rather he wants his addendum to be grasped as the further reflections of what Jesus

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

145

himself meant when speaking to Nicodemus. John intended that in hearing his voice one is really hearing the voice of Jesus.57 Given all that Jesus taught Nicodemus about being baptized in the Spirit and about himself as the Son of man, John tells us that the reason for all of this (the “for”) is that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.” The immensity of God’s love for the world is found in the giving of his only begotten Son. This “giving” is twofold. First, the Father lovingly gives his Son by sending his Son into the world as his incarnate Son. Second, the Father lovingly gives his Son by the giving up of his Son as a loving sacrifice for the world’s salvation. This Incarnational and sacrificial giving is why those who believe in Jesus, as the Father’s Son, “should not perish but have eternal life.” John explicitly states this in what follows. “For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”58 The Father’s love would never intend the world’s condemnation, but rather his love is the motivating force for saving the world from its approaching, if not otherwise impeded, judgment. The one who believes in Jesus as the Father’s Son is “not condemned”; however, “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” The “name” of the Son of God is “Jesus,” for in him alone, as YHWH-Saves, is humankind divinely saved. That John speaks of “the only Son of God” recalls the Prologue, to which John now returns so as to add further observations. This is judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come into the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

57.  My explanation here is in keeping with what I suggested in note 56 above. John provides the ipsissima sententia of Jesus. 58.  The First Letter of John reiterates this same point. “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:9–10; see also 4:14). The Father’s twofold love is witnessed in the sending of his Son into the world as man, but also in his giving his incarnate Son to be the redeeming sacrifice for humankind’s sin. John’s making the same point in his Letter seems to corroborate that it is he who is speaking in Jn 3:16–21 and not Jesus. Paul states something similar. “If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things in him” (Rom 8:32).

146

Chapter 4

Although God so loved the world that he sent his Son into the world as the world’s life-giving light, the same divine light through which the darkness of nothingness was dispelled and the light through which all that is came to be, yet “the world knew him not” (Jn 1:10). Moreover, the Son came to his own home (Israel), and even his own people (the Jews) “knew him not” (Jn 1:11). John now tells why this is the case—men loved the darkness of their evil deeds, ultimately the darkness of nothingness, for evil is the sheer absence of good. What John proposes next is a prophetic utterance, the fulfillment of which we will shortly see. Those who love evil hate to come into the light, lest their evil deeds be recognized—these will be the Jews who ardently refuse to believe that Jesus is the life-saving light that has come into the world, and so their lack of faith will be their own condemnation.59 But those who come into the light—that is, those who believe in the name of Jesus and so manifest that their faith has been of God—they are the ones who are not “born of blood nor of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God,” that is, born anew of water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 1:13). Thus John’s added commentary concludes where Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus began—“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Those who insist upon living in the darkness of unbelief, because they love evil, cannot see the kingdom of God and so are already condemned. Earlier, I questioned whether the benighted Nicodemus remained in the darkness of unbelief. I think not, because he was not afraid of entering into the light that is Jesus, where his evil deeds might be exposed. Rather, his coming to Jesus at night was “a deed wrought of God.” He may not as yet have come fully to believe in Jesus and so come into the light of God’s kingdom, but he did not return to the darkness from which he came. What is Nicodemus doing the last time he appears in John’s Gospel? He is burying Jesus. With Joseph of Arimathea, “Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him [Jesus] by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds in weight,” and together they buried Jesus (Jn 20:39). At this the hour of deepest darkness, Nicodemus once more comes to Jesus. As he may have left Jesus somewhat puzzled and befuddled on that first dark night, so he must now have been perplexed and bewildered at his coming to Jesus when the light of day dimmed below the horizon into the darkness of Jesus’ death. Yet now he came out of love for Jesus. Little did he know, upon placing Jesus’ body in the darkness of the tomb, that what Jesus told him on that first dark night would shortly dawn. Literally, in 59.  The Book of Job depicts evildoers as those who love darkness and hate the light (see Jb 24:13–17).

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

147

the light of Jesus’ early morning resurrection, the eternal day of God’s kingdom dawned and could be seen. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it” (Jn 1:5). Through faith and baptism, being born anew of water and the Spirit, Nicodemus would enter into the life of light that is Jesus himself and so abide forever in the light of the kingdom of God. Jesus’ Ministry in Judea The Evangelist continues by informing the reader that “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.”60 So Jesus left Jerusalem, having celebrated the Passover of the Jews, and went down to Judea, presumably near the Jordan River since he baptized.61 Immediately following, the Evangelist states, “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put in prison.”62 Both Jesus and John are now baptizing, and this gave rise to a debate and a conflict. “Now a discussion arose between John’s disciples and a Jew over purifying. And they came to John, and said to him ‘Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing and all are going to him.’” The topic of discussion was that of “purifying.” Since it took place between John’s disciples and a Jew, the dialogue probably concerned the difference between John’s baptism of repentance and Jewish purifications.63 Surprisingly, the issue that the discussants bring to John is 60.  All quotations in this section are from Jn 3:23–36 unless otherwise noted. 61.  Jn 4:1–2 clarifies this statement. John informs us that “Jesus himself did not baptize but only his disciples.” Attribution given to Jesus must have been on the basis that it was his disciples who were baptizing and so under Jesus’ authority. This baptism also must have been in the manner of John the Baptist—that of being a baptism of repentance. 62.  The location of Aenon is unknown, but it must have been near the Jordan since there was an abundance of water. Thus Jesus and John were in geographical proximity to one another. Although the Evangelist notes that John the Baptist was not yet imprisoned, he does not narrate John’s death, as do the Synoptics. 63.  Who the Jew was is unknown. Some ancient manuscripts have “Jews,” but this may have resulted from the fact “the Jew” is not named and so it is more sensible to speak of a group of “Jews.” Scholars speculate as to who “the Jew” might be. In contrast to what I said above, if Nicodemus followed Jesus when he left Jerusalem, he could be the “Jew.” This would be in keeping with John’s description of him: “Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.” Having listened to Jesus’ teaching on baptism, Nicodemus may have entered into a debate with John’s disciples based upon what he thought he had learned—though the discussion would have probably been quite confusing since Nicodemus would not as yet have had a complete understanding of what Jesus told him. Thus this muddled, but frenzied, discussion may then be the reason for approaching John the Baptist for clarification.

148

Chapter 4

not that of purification, but that of Jesus baptizing. John’s disciples appear to be irate that the one John bore witness to is now himself baptizing and so is seemingly in competition with their own beloved Rabbi. More exasperating, Jesus is now attracting more followers than John—everyone is going to him.64 Given that the original discussion concerned purification and that John himself bore witness to him, could John’s disciples be apprehensive as to whose baptism, which purification, John’s or Jesus’, is more spiritually helpful—their trepidation being that Jesus’ is? John’s response definitely tilts in favor of Jesus. John in his answer distinguishes himself from Jesus and in so doing emphasizes the singular importance of Jesus relative to his own. “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.” John’s disciples should not be anxious, for if Jesus is greater than he, it is because the God of heaven has given to him something greater. His disciples already know that he is not the Christ, the anointed Messiah, but rather his heavenly gift was that of being sent before the Christ. The obvious implication is that Jesus is the one who is the Christ. The Baptist here is referencing back to what he saw and declared earlier. “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove form heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” (Jn 1:29–34) What was given to Jesus from heaven was the abiding indwelling Spirit. Jesus, therefore, unlike John, is the Christ. Moreover, while John baptizes with water, Jesus, who possesses the Holy Spirit, will baptize with the Holy Spirit. 64.  Here John’s disciples are concerned that “all are going to him.” Later, because of his miracle signs, many believed in Jesus. This faith in Jesus came to the attention of the pharisees who reacted by stating, “If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him” (Jn 11:48). Shortly after, their concern is heightened: “The Pharisees then said to one another, ‘You see that you can do nothing; look, the world has gone after him’ ” (Jn 12:19).

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

149

Likewise, because he possesses the Holy Spirit, as befitting the Father’s Son, he is the Son of God. John was sent to bear witness to these truths. So the fact that Jesus is presently baptizing (or his disciples, according to Jn 4:2) now acquires new theological significance. That Jesus (or his disciples) is baptizing becomes a prophetic anticipation of what he will ultimately do—baptize with the Holy Spirit. This baptism will also resolve the present debate on purification. Jesus’ baptism will exceed, not just in degree but in kind, both Jewish purifications, and John’s baptism of repentance for it will be a baptism with the Holy Spirit.65 John the Baptist continues to address his disciples—employing now an analogy that again distinguishes himself from Jesus. “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease.” Jesus is the bridegroom of his betrothed bride. John, Jesus’ friend, is his “best man.” He awaits the bridegroom’s approach, and when he hears his voice, he rejoices because he knows that the wedding is now about to take place. As the one sent by God to prepare for the coming of the Christ, John eagerly awaited the arrival of the one for whom he was to prepare. Now John knows his joy is full, not only because his divinely appointed task is complete, but also even more so because he has heard the voice of the bridegroom, Jesus Christ.66 John therefore assures his disciples that he must decrease—that is, fade from sight—and that Jesus’ public salvific presence, as the bridegroom, must increase. 65.  Presuming that his disciples and not Jesus were doing the baptizing, though with Jesus’ authorization, their baptizing becomes a prophetic image of Jesus and his church. Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit, and he will do so through the instrumentality of his church. Jesus’ relationship to his church will become evident shortly. Here as well, we might find further evidence to my tentative suggestion that the “Jew” could be Nicodemus. Given John’s response that he is not the Christ, but Jesus is, and so the one who would baptize in the Spirit, Nicodemus could have been attempting to inform John’s disciples that John’s baptism was not adequate. Rather, “Jesus said,” Nicodemus would have pontificated with poised conviction, that one needs to be baptized with the Spirit and so born anew. Such a brazen declaration would raise the hackles of John’s disciples, forcing them to find out what John himself thought of all of this. If such were the case, John came down on the side of Nicodemus even if Nicodemus did not fully comprehend and was only able to narrate Jesus’ teaching in a mystifying, if not incoherent, manner. Nonetheless, John the Baptist would have instinctively known what he meant, for he had prophesied such. 66.  As the Baptist finds his complete joy in Jesus, so Jesus later speaks of his followers finding complete joy in him. “I have spoken to you [Jesus’ disciples], that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full” (Jn 15:11). “But now I am coming to you [Jesus’ Father]; and these things I speak in the world, that they [his followers] may have my joy fulfilled in themselves” (Jn 17:13). Fullness of joy is in knowing Jesus as the Father’s Son, for those who know Jesus share fully in his same joy, that of being children of his Father.

150

Chapter 4

The Baptist’s use of the marriage analogy is not without theological significance. Nor is it insignificant for the Evangelist. We already determined, when examining the theological content of the wedding feast of Cana, that the genuine betrothal that is celebrated at Cana is that between Jesus and his church— imaged in the ecclesial woman, his mother. John the Baptist here corroborates that truth. Thus John is not only rejoicing in the presence of the bridegroom, Jesus, but also in the presence of his bride the church. Without the bride, John would not be the bridegroom’s friend. The Baptist realizes that without the church, Jesus would be reduced to bachelorhood, and thus he would be unable to engender life. How does Jesus, the bridegroom, engender life? He does this by laying down his life for his bride and by raising her up to new life in his own resurrection. His bride the church is composed of those whom Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the bond of life between Jesus, the Spirit-filled bridegroom, and the church, his Spirit-filled bride.67 Once again we must ask: Is what follows a continuation of the words of the Baptist or is it a summarizing commentary composed by the Evangelist? I would judge that, since it does summarize both Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus concerning the necessity of baptism and the episode concerning the Baptist and his disciples, it is the Evangelist’s theological summation. Moreover, the Baptist’s pronouncement that he must decrease and that Jesus must increase bears the characteristic of a definitive and final declaration. In summary, then, John begins by stating: He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony; he who receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. Jesus, as the Father’s heavenly Son, comes from above. He is, as he said to Nicodemus, the one who has descended and will ascend from whence he came. Moreover, as he also informed Nicodemus, Jesus will bear witness to what he has seen—his eternal begetting from his Father. Those of the earth, such as the benighted Nicodemus, only speak and understand what is of the earth—the 67.  Paul develops this understanding. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:25–27). The church is cleansed and made holy through the water and Spirit in which her members are baptized.

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

151

flesh.68 While the Jews will reject Jesus’ testimony that God is his Father and thus that he is the Father’s Son, those who receive him in faith, such as the future enlightened Nicodemus, have set their seal, having been born anew and so sealed by the Spirit of truth, that God, the author of truth, has revealed the truth that Jesus is his only Son.69 John concludes his theological summary by declaring: For he whom God has sent utters the word of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit; the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. God sent his Word into the world and that Word became flesh—and his name is Jesus. Because of this “sending,” Jesus speaks the words of God because he is literally the en-sarxed Word of God—“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:15; see also Jn 1:17). Being his Father’s incarnate Word/Son, Jesus, the Messiah, possesses the fullness of the Spirit, the Spirit of Sonship, so that in all that he does he pours out without measure the Spirit—“grace upon grace” (Jn 1:16). The Father loves the Son and has given all into his hand because he will be the one who is lifted up upon the cross so as to conquer sin and death, and he is the one whom the Father will raise into glory so as to give eternal life (see Jn 13:3). Again, as Jesus told Nicodemus, this is the gift given to those who “believe” in the Son. Lastly, however, as John himself already declared, those who do not obey “the Son” shall not see life, for as Jesus said, they have not been born anew so as to see the kingdom of God. Rather, their very lack of faith will bring down upon them God’s wrath. Theological Summary The primary difficulty in writing a theological interpretation of John’s Gospel is sorting out its complexity. As exemplified in this chapter, there 68.  Later, Jesus himself will declare, “You [the unbelieving Jews] are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (Jn 8:32). 69.  In his First Letter, John states, “He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” (1 Jn 5:10–12).

152

Chapter 4

is a continuous progressive interweaving of theological themes. Sometimes Jesus is doing the braiding, sometimes John is doing the entwining, and sometimes the hands of Jesus and John together are doing the knitting. This interweaving can include the liturgical setting—in this chapter, it is the overarching celebration of the Passover of the Jews. There is also the entwining of Old Testament passages and allusions, such as Moses’ lifting up of the serpent. Likewise, Johannine theological themes are constantly in play—here we perceived the differences between the tainted temple built in stone by human hands and the living holy temple not built by hands that will be the risen Jesus. Then there are contrasts between flesh and Spirit, light and darkness, what is from above and what is from the earth, what has descended and what has ascended, the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God, unbelief and belief. Moreover, John is ever looking backward, primarily to his Prologue, and ever looking forward in anticipation of what will come as his Gospel narrative continues. The Johannine goal of this intricate theological design is to perceive clearly the whole of Jesus in all his various unified shades. Jesus is at the heart of all of this intertwining, for he is the Father’s Son who will bring about God’s kingdom in his very person, and he will do so because he is the Spirit-anointed Messiah. In the midst of all this theological intricacy, though beautifully rich, I have attempted to unravel the various theological threads and present them in a logical and clear fashion. Only in examining each ever lengthening thread can one appreciate its theological significance. I have also attempted to re-entwine the various threads, for only as each thread is knitted to the others do they form the full theological tapestry that John is weaving—Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, the Savior of the world. Being aware of this Johannine portrait, I would like to highlight a couple of concluding points. In my first volume on the theological interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, I emphasized the importance of “acts,” particularly the saving acts that Jesus performs. Only as Jesus enacts his saving acts does Jesus become Jesus. As I mentioned in concluding our examination of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, that act of cleansing was a prophetic action anticipating his final salvific acts— that of his death and resurrection. In his death, Jesus will cleanse the world of sin and vanquish the scourge of death. In his resurrection, Jesus will rise as God’s living and holy temple. Thus, in his cleansing of the temple, Jesus is prophetically becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. In his meeting with Nicodemus, Jesus does not perform any actions other than speaking. Nonetheless, he informs Nicodemus of what actions he must enact in order to save humankind. Jesus does so by first declaring

Cleansing of the Temple and Being Born of the Spirit

153

to Nicodemus that he must be born anew from above. This is the saving action that Nicodemus must undergo if he is to see God’s kingdom. This saving transformation from flesh to spirit is accomplished through water and the Holy Spirit, for through this sacramental action one is born anew in the Spirit from above. Having declared to Nicodemus the need for his Spirit-filled rebirth, Jesus informs him that this will be made possible by the one who will ascend into heaven because he has descended from heaven, the Son of man. Only because Jesus, as the Father’s Son, descended from heaven and came to live as man upon this earth will he ascend into heaven as the glorious Son of man. What he accomplished on earth is his own new birth in the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ inherited sinful flesh will be put to death on the cross, and in his resurrection he will arise again as new and glorious Spirit-filled Son of man. Jesus is, then, the fulfilled image and enactment of Moses lifting up the serpent, for in ascending the cross, Jesus ascends gloriously into heaven, thus obtaining salvation—the abundance of eternal life. Having become Jesus, Jesus will be empowered to baptize Nicodemus and the whole of humankind so that they too can be born anew in the Holy Spirit and so ascend into the abundance of life. Thus Jesus is prophetically informing Nicodemus of the salvific actions that he, Jesus, must perform in order for him to become Jesus, YHWH-Saves. Jesus is therefore providing his own theology of “act” as well as his own philosophy of “act.” Everything that is is what it is only in that it is in act as to what it is. A doctor, for example, must be in act as a doctor, must truly be a doctor, if he is to act rightly as a doctor. Jesus must be in act as YHWH-Saves if he is to be fully Jesus, YHWH-Saves. Nicodemus must be in act as one born of the Holy Spirit if he is to be fully saved—for only then will he live in Christ and so within God’s kingdom. The Evangelist theologically interprets Jesus’ prophetic words to Nicodemus. He does so by informing the reader that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son into the world so that all may be saved through him. This is the act by which the eternal Father becomes Father-YHWHSaves. In the actions of Jesus, Son-YHWH-Saves, the Father continues to act as savior, for the Son always does what he sees the Father doing. Similarly, as Father’s Spirit-anointed Messiah, Jesus always enacts his saving acts in communion with the Holy Spirit, through and in the Spirit’s power. Thus, throughout the entirety of Jesus’ saving mission, the eternal Holy Spirit is ever becoming Spirit-YHWH-Saves. The earthly things that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit enact on earth manifest the heavenly things that are enacted within the Trinity itself—the Father begetting his Son within the love of the Holy

154

Chapter 4

Spirit.70 As we noted earlier, only if such is eternally enacted in heaven can it be salvifically replicated on earth—the begetting anew of the Father’s children, in the likeness of the Son, within the love of the Holy Spirit. This is all in accord with John’s central theological theme—the Father re-creating humankind through the Spirit-filled saving actions of his incarnate Son, Jesus. Theologically significant, for John, is the flesh, the humanity of Jesus. That humanity, for John, holds salvific primacy. All that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit enact for humankind’s salvation is in, with, and through Jesus’ humanity, for he is the Father’s incarnate Spirit-filled Son. To know rightly who the man Jesus is, as I said often in my previous volume, is to know the entire Trinity, and to behold that humanity in action is to behold the saving enacted glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The act that human beings are called to enact is that of the act of faith in the name of Jesus. By believing that Jesus is the Father’s Son, the faithful leave the darkness of sin and come into the light of truth—God’s Word incarnate. Those who do not believe remain in darkness, for they love their evil deeds more than they love the light of truth. In this refusal to believe is found God’s judgment. After John the Baptist’s concluding testimony concerning Jesus as the bridegroom of his betrothed church, the Evangelist informs us that “now, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples], he left Judea and departed to Galilee” (Jn 4:1–3).71 With this announcement we too must move to chapter 5, where we will examine Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. There Jesus will further develop the meaning and effects of baptism.

70. Within JBJ 1, I developed this notion as well—that all three persons of the Trinity, each in accordance with who he distinctly is, contribute conjointly to humankind’s salvation. Thus each person in accordance with his subjective manner of being YHWH is YHWH-Saves. See, e.g., JBJ 1:27–39 and 1:98–101. Also, for a fuller understanding of notion that the Father begets his Son in the love of the Holy Spirit, see my The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995). 71.  Structurally, this sentence does not work. It is written as if “the Lord” and “Jesus” are two different people. Some ancient manuscripts have “Jesus” instead of “Lord,” but this does not help either. Normally one would not say, “when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making.” This now gives the impression that there are two different persons named “Jesus.” If this sentence is to make grammatical sense, it should read, “Now when the Lord/ Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was making.” Thus someone other than John must have played around with some earlier “original” text.

5 n

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

H

aving participated in the Jewish Passover in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple and met with Nicodemus, Jesus left Judea and began to make his way back up to Galilee. John proceeds to narrate two major events in chapter 4 of his Gospel. The first takes place in Samaria, where Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman at the well, and the second takes place again at Cana, where he heals the son of the official. In his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus continues his teaching on the efficacious significance of baptism. His healing of the official’s son highlights, in turn, his principal ministry, as witnessed in his teaching on baptism, that of re-creating humankind—here freeing it from sickness and death. With this brief introduction, we can immediately proceed to the biblical texts. The Samaritan Woman at the Well John informs the reader that Jesus “had to pass through Samaria.”1 Strictly speaking, Jesus was not geographically obliged to pass through Samaria. He could have skirted around it by crossing the Jordan River to the east and then making his way north to Galilee. Many Jews took this route because of their disdain of the Samaritans and out of fear of their being contaminated by them. The Samaritans were not fully Jews, for they had intermarried with various Gentile groupings and in so doing observed some of their pagan beliefs and rituals (see Jn 8:48 and 2 Kgs 17:24–28). That Jesus traveled 1.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 4:4–42 unless otherwise noted.

155

156

Chapter 5

through Samaria (“had to”) signals that he did so purposely for salvific reasons. He wanted to enact his name further as YHWH-Saves. “So he came to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.” Before examining Jesus’ interchange with the Samaritan woman, it is helpful to make a few preliminary comments on John’s introductory observations. Setting the Scene First, scholars believe that Sychar is the ancient city of Shechem (Sichara in Aramaic) or the present city of Askar. While there is no biblical mention of “Jacob’s well,” Genesis does speak of a field that Jacob purchased and gave to his son, Joseph, and in which Jacob was himself later buried.2 Second, having come to Sychar, John informs us that, because of his weariness, Jesus sat beside Jacob’s well. Although John’s Gospel is often perceived as the Gospel that accentuates Jesus’ divinity, here we see him noting the fullness of Jesus humanity—the weariness of his sarx. As we will see in the course of Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman, it is precisely through his weak human flesh that Jesus will provide the living waters that spring up to eternal life. As stated previously, John is thoroughly incarnational. The Son of God brings forth salvation through his humanity and only through his humanity. Only by his assuming the weakness of human flesh can humankind be re-­created by the Father’s Son. Third, wells and meetings at wells are significant within the Old Testament. Jacob met his future wife Rachel at a well (see Gn 29:1–12). When Moses fled from Pharaoh, he sat down at a well and helped the daughters of the priest of Midian water their flocks. This resulted in Moses marrying one of the priest’s daughters (see Ex 2:15–22). God provides wells and water for Isaac so that his people would be fruitful (see Gn 26:12–22). During their sojourn in the desert the people frequently complained to Moses that they did not have water, yet God consistently provided water for them (see, e.g., Ex 15:22–25). The most significant example occurred when the people murmured against Moses because of the lack of water and so wanted to return to Egypt. God commanded Moses to take his rod and strike the rock at Horeb, from which water gushed forth (see Ex 17:1–7).3 Within this context, water 2.  See Gn 33:18–19, 48:22; Jos 24:32. 3.  This event will be seen as a prefigurement of the side of the crucified Jesus being pierced and the living water of the Holy Spirit coming forth (see Jn 19:32–35; see also Rom 10:1–5).

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

157

came to symbolize the life that God provides for his people and the fullness of life that will come within the messianic age. Because of God’s steadfast love for his people, Psalm 36:7-9 declares: “They will feast on the abundance of your house, and you will give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.” Moreover, “there is a river whose streams make gladden the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High” (Ps 46:40). Isaiah assures the Israelites that because God is their salvation, “with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Is 12:3). Likewise, God promises that “I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring” (Is 44:3). And again Isaiah exhorts, “everyone who thirsts, come to the waters” (Is 55:1; see also 58:11). Through Jeremiah, God reprimands his people because “they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer 2:13). God gives Ezekiel a vision of the temple from which streams of fresh water, in all four directions, abundantly flow, providing all kinds of fruit trees and a plethora of fish (see Ezek 47:1–12). On the day of the Lord “the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all of the stream beds of Judah shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the Lord and water the valley of Shittim” (Jl 3:18). Similarly, “living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer and winter” (Zec 13:8). Within the Wisdom literature, wisdom is seen as God’s bestowal of living water upon his people— understanding by which they can live holy lives.4 Within this biblical theological context, Jesus comes and wearily sits beside the well of Jacob, and in doing so he is literally, prophetically positioning himself as the one in whom all of the above, now perceived as prefigurements, will be fulfilled. As the one who will embody the new cleansed living temple within the new city of God and as the Spirit-filled Messiah who will baptize in the Holy Spirit, Jesus will be the one from whom eternal life-giving waters will flow in abundance. Lastly, by designating that it was “about the sixth hour,” John is informing the reader that it was about midday—when the sun is at its zenith and so at its brightest. This detail not only attests to the historicity of the event but also alludes to its theological significance. While Jesus met with Nicodemus in the dead secrecy of night, he will now shed, in full daylight, further illumination on the consequences of baptism and so provide a more enlightened 4.  See Prv 13:14; Sir 15:3 and 24:23–29.

158

Chapter 5

understanding of what it means for him to be the one who will baptize with the living waters of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the only other time when John speaks of the sixth hour is at the very end of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. John notes, “Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Here is your king.’ They cried out, ‘Away with him, away with him, crucify him!,’ ” at which point Pilate hands Jesus over to them (Jn 19:14). At the sixth hour Jesus promises the Samaritan woman living water, and at the sixth hour Pilate hands Jesus over, and in so doing, at this brightest and darkest hour, Pilate authorizes that it will be from the cross that the life-giving water of the Holy Spirit will flow from Jesus’ pierced side. In this very same event, at this same hour, Jesus manifests that he is the king of God’s life-giving kingdom. Thus what prophetically takes place here at Jacob’s well will be fulfilled on the cross—the wellspring of eternal life. The Living Waters That Well Up to Eternal Life Having set the stage, John now begins to tell of the event itself. “There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink.’ For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman from Samaria?’ For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” The weary Jesus, in the absence of his food-buying disciples, asks straightforwardly for the Samaritan woman to give him a drink—a request that sounds almost like a command.5 The woman, with a tinge of haughtiness, a testiness that may have arisen from the command-like nature of Jesus’ request, responds by pointing out the obvious, which John himself makes evident in his aside. “How could you, as a Jewish man, how could you of all people, be requesting, much less commanding, me to give you a drink of water when I am one of those dreaded Samaritans—even more so an unclean woman of Samaria?”6 In response to the woman’s caustic challenge to his request, Jesus said, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” Although he was genuinely thirsty, we now perceive that Jesus’ request for a 5.  The significance of Jesus’ disciples purchasing earthly food will become evident as the event unfolds. 6.  In keeping with the Jewish disdain of Samaritans, Samaritan women were considered ritually unclean. Therefore nothing that they touched could be used by Jews—in this case the pail to obtain water from the well.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

159

drink of water enclosed a deeper purpose. Jesus’ real inner thirst was not to receive water to quench his physical craving, but a thirst to give living water to all who are spiritually parched—even Samaritans.7 Moreover, Jesus informs the woman of her lack of knowledge. She neither knows “the gift of God” nor “who it is” who is asking for a drink. As will become evident, “the gift of God” is the Holy Spirit given in baptism—the living water.8 Likewise, Jesus is God the Father’s Son, the anointed Messiah, and being such, if she would have asked him for a drink of water, he would have given her the gift of God that is the life-giving water of the Holy Spirit. What we perceive in Jesus’ response is the Trinitarian nature of baptism. Within baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father through the saving action of Jesus, his incarnate Son, who as the risen Messiah will baptize in the Holy Spirit—the Spirit who subsumes the baptized into the very divine life of the Trinity itself. Just as Nicodemus completely misunderstood what it meant to be born anew, so the Samaritan woman here completely misses the point that Jesus is attempting to convey.9 In reaction to Jesus’ enigmatic response, the woman’s reply is similar to that of Nicodemus when she incredulously retorts, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father, Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons and his cattle?”10 The Samaritan woman’s response contains a fair bit of irony, irony that is prevalent within John’s Gospel. First, the woman addresses Jesus as “sir” (kyrie in Greek). While such a term could simply be a respectful 7.  Jesus’ “give me a drink” finds its fulfillment on the cross. “Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), ‘I thirst.’ A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth” (Jn 19:28–29). In his thirst for the salvation of the world, Jesus will drink fully the vinegar of the cross that all might receive the life-giving water of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that Jesus will now breathe out upon the world and that will gush forth from his pierced side (see Jn 19:30 and 19:34). 8.  Jesus could be seen as “the gift of God” since he is the one sent by the Father—a major theme within John’s Gospel. Given the context, however, it would seem that “the gift of God” of which Jesus speaks is the Holy Spirit since he is more fully elaborating his teaching on baptism. 9.  Because of this stylized Johannine dialogue, the question of historicity again appears. John provides too much detail to doubt that Jesus actually conversed with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and that the topic discussed followed along the lines John narrates. But John appears to employ, as he did within the Nicodemus story, a dialogical template whereby Jesus’ opening provocative statement leads to misunderstanding that, in turn, allows Jesus to advance and deepen his teaching on the topic at hand. Such a dialogical template appears to be more for the benefit of the reader of John’s Gospel than for the benefit of the person who is actually engaged in the dialogue. 10.  Later, the Jews will sarcastically ask Jesus, “Are you greater than our father Abraham . . . ?” (Jn 8:53). In both instances, Jesus is greater than Jacob and Abraham, for he is the Word incarnate.

160

Chapter 5

form of address as in “sir,” it could also be used as a formal way of addressing a deity, as in “master” or “lord.” Within the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was used to translate Adonai, which was employed for the tetragrammaton YHWH. Obviously, the Samaritan woman did not at this point believe Jesus to be divine and so was not addressing him as God. Ironically, nonetheless, it is proper for her to address him as “Lord,” for unbeknownst to her Jesus is, as his name denotes, YHWH-Saves. As we will see later, Jesus does designate himself as “I Am He” (ego eimi). Second, the woman points out the obvious and so draws an evident conclusion. Jesus does not have the wherewithal to obtain the water, and, moreover, the well is deep. (Jesus is well aware of these impediments since he asked for a drink of water in the first place.) So she concludes by wondering where he is going to obtain this living water, since he certainly is not going to get it from Jacob’s well. Intuiting the answer to her own question, that whatever living water Jesus might have, it would not come from the present well, she speculates about another possibility. She does so by skeptically asking Jesus a question that she believes must elicit a negative answer. In a sense, this somewhat haughty Samaritan woman is attempting to back Jesus into a corner. “Surely, you do not think you are greater than our father Jacob, the very person who gave us this now ancient well; the well from which he himself drank as well as his sons and his cattle? Certainly, you are not greater than Jacob, the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham?” In the midst of the Samaritan woman’s response and skepticism, there is again ironic truth—this time symbolic. Jesus does not have the physical means to draw water from Jacob’s deep well. Jacob, however, as the last of the Jewish patriarchs, is the earthly fount or well, from which all of God’s further revelation to his covenanted people sprang. God the Father acted within and throughout the whole of Jewish history through his Word and through his Spirit—beginning with the Patriarchs. Jesus, as the Word incarnate, has drunk deeply from the entire well of Israel’s covenantal history, not merely as a recipient and embodiment of this sacred history but also as the Father’s heavenly well from which this sacred history flowed and in which that sacred history now finds its consummation. Jesus, as the Word incarnate, literally incarnates all that Jacob’s deep well signifies, and in so doing, from him, as the Father’s anointed Son, will flow the lifegiving waters of the Holy Spirit—the very depths of divine life, the fullness of grace upon grace (see Jn 1:16). So, ironically, more than the skeptical Samaritan woman could have ever imagined, Jesus is “greater than our father Jacob.” Moreover, not only will Jacob’s sons drink from the well that

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

161

is Jesus but all of God’s children will as well—Jews and Gentiles, including the despicable Samaritans.11 Jesus, as expected, does not directly address the Samaritan woman’s questioning incredulity, but rather advances the significance of the living water he will give in contrast to the water contained in Jacob’s well. “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give will never thirst; the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Jesus acknowledges that the water he will give is not that of Jacob’s well, for those who drink such water will continue to become thirsty. In contrast, those who drink the water that he will give will never thirst. Rather, the water will itself become an eternal life-giving spring within the person. Thus, while human beings ingest earthly water from without to which they must continually return, the water that Jesus provides, while coming from Jesus to the person, becomes within the person a never-ending source of eternal life. The Samaritan woman once again interprets Jesus in an earthly manner. “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.” She desires enchanted water, interior, ever replenishing water that would keep her from ever being physically thirsty again and so would terminate her need to return daily to Jacob’s well. That Jesus assures her that the water he would give wells up to eternal life completely passes by her and beyond her. I See That You Are a Prophet Almost as if frustrated with the Samaritan woman’s lack of comprehension, Jesus abruptly changes the topic: “Go, call your husband, and come here.” Why this sudden unexpected change of course? One would have expected Jesus to further explain the concept of baptism, as he did when he told Nicodemus that one needs to be born anew of water and the Holy Spirit, concluding that the Holy Spirit is the wellspring of eternal life that dwells within those reborn. But the real problem would probably remain, for the Samaritan woman would still not know, after Jesus’ determined effort, “the one” who is speaking to her. Jesus, in a sense, is back to square one and so decides to change strategies—again, within the Johannine context, probably more so for benefit of the reader than for the ignorant woman. 11.  Speaking through Isaiah, God declares, “But now hear, O Jacob, my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! . . . Fear not, O Jacob my servant . . . For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring” (Is 44:1–3; see also 49:10). Jesus is fulfilling his Father’s promise to Jacob.

162

Chapter 5

The woman simply responds to Jesus’ instruction by saying that she has no husband. This straightforward denial of a spouse provokes Jesus’ unexpected declaration. “You are right in saying ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”12 Again, ironically, in attempting to deceive Jesus as to her marital status, the woman tells the truth—she has no husband, for the one she now has is not truly her husband, she having had four previous ones. The Samaritan woman endeavored to put Jesus on the spot, but Jesus has now put the Samaritan woman on the spot. Having been caught out by Jesus, however, she now begins to grasp what Jesus was attempting to teach her from the onset, for she responds, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.” She is beginning to see “who it is” who asked her for a drink. Jesus’ change of strategy has worked and will proceed successfully.13 Again, however, the woman introduces another unanticipated topic. “Our fathers worship on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” The Samaritans built a temple on Mt. Gerizim in the fourth century BC in opposition to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, though it had been an early site of sacrifice when the Israelites first crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land (see Dt 27:1–8; Mt. Ebal is the Jewish name for Mt. Gerizim). Since she now believes Jesus to be a prophet, the Samaritan woman wants Jesus’ opinion on where is the proper place to worship. Again, in a sense, she is back on the offensive—wanting to put Jesus the Jew on the spot, having been just been put on the spot herself. But why, nonetheless, is there this sudden shift as to the rightful place of worship when the major topic at hand is that of living water welling up to eternal life? The answer lies in Jesus’ response, for he will now address the major consequence of both being born anew by water and the Spirit (Nicodemus) and of possessing eternal life-giving water (the Samaritan woman)—namely, worshipping the Father in spirit and truth. Jesus responds by raising the issue

12.  Some scholars see the woman’s five husbands as symbolic of the five Gentile nations that sullied the Jews and so constituted them as Samaritans (see 2 Kgs 17:24–41). 13.  While tangential and so not an overly strong argument, Jesus does appear here to condemn divorce and remarriage, similar to his teaching as found in the Synoptic Gospels (see Mt 5:31–32, 19:1–9; Mk 10:1–9; and Lk 16:18). While in the Synoptics emphasis is on men divorcing their wives, in Mark, Jesus does say, contrary to Jewish law at the time, that if a woman “divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk 10:12). Interestingly, Jesus in John’s Gospel gives the impression that the Samaritan woman was the lead agent in marrying five men and not five men marrying her, thus implying that she, and not her previous husbands, was responsible for the divorces.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

163

to a whole new level—one that transcends the Jewish/Samaritan rift.14 Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus first exhorts the Samaritan woman to believe him. But why should she believe him? Is she to believe him because she believes him to be a prophet? Yes, but in a manner she does not yet fully grasp. Jesus is a prophet, but a prophet different in kind from the prophets of old. As the Word of God incarnate, Jesus is the source, the spring from which all prophetic words flow, for he literally embodies the Word of God as the incarnate Father’s Son. This is why the woman should believe what he is about to say. The Samaritan woman asked where is the proper place to worship God— the mountain upon which they now stand, on which her fathers worshipped, or in Jerusalem, where Jesus as Jew would seem to insist that true worship is to be given to God. Jesus, however, assures her that “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” For Jesus, true worship of God in the future will not be predicated upon a specific geographical location. Moreover, the hour is coming when it will not simply be “God” who is worshipped but “the Father.” When that hour comes, there will be a change such that those who worship will be able to worship God as their Father, and they will be able to do so because Jesus, the Father’s Son, will make such worship possible. The Samaritans, Jesus informs the woman, “worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Although the Samaritans may worship God, they do not truly know him, but the Jews, as God’s covenanted people, do truly know him, and because they truly do know God as God’s chosen people, it will be from the Jews that salvation will come. Actually, the coming hour of salvation is at hand because Jesus the Jew is, as his name declares, YHWH-Saves. 14. Jesus’ answer transcending the Jewish/Samaritan divide is similar to Jesus’ responses within the Synoptics when the Jews attempt to trap Jesus. There also he responds by raising the issue to a higher level, for example, that people should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God (see Mt 22:15–22, Mk 12:13–17, and Lk 20:20–26).

164

Chapter 5

Jesus next states, “the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Previously, the temple in Jerusalem was the proper place to worship, but, as Jesus’ cleansing of the temple prophetically prefigured, the worshippers within the holy temple, even though they knew God, were not truly holy. They were not true worshippers because they were not worshipping in spirit and truth. Interiorly, they could not worship God as he desired because they had yet to become the Father’s children, for only in becoming the Father’s children could they worship him in spirit and truth. This is what the Father desires, and this, by implication, is what Jesus, his incarnate Son, is accomplishing—the hour “now is.” Because God is spirit, true worshippers must, in a sense, become like him so as to worship him “in spirit and truth.” Here we must clarify what may first appear to be an ambiguity. Jesus throughout the above response to the Samaritan woman consistently speaks of “spirit and truth” and concludes that God “is spirit.” English translations regularly render the term “spirit” using the lowercase. I think such lowercase translations are correct, for true worshippers are to worship God, who is spirit and not material, from within their own spiritual interiority and from within the truth that resides within them. This does not mean that physical or bodily liturgical or prayerful gestures are unimportant or forbidden. Being bodily creatures, we can only properly express what is within us, our thoughts and feelings, physically—that is, through bodily words and actions. But our bodily words and actions, in this instance our worship, must spring from an interiority that is truly of our inner spirit, a spirit that is imbued with truth. Here the seeming ambiguity can be clarified. Although we must worship God in spirit and truth, implied in Jesus’ demand that such must be the case is the realization that such can only be enacted if we are transformed by the Spirit and so filled with the Spirit of truth. This transformation is the result of being born anew of water and the Holy Spirit. Being able to worship in spirit and truth is the spiritual effect of possessing the living water, the wellspring of the Holy Spirit that wells up within the baptized unto eternal life. Only in the Holy Spirit, as children of the Father, in the likeness of Jesus, the Son, can the faithful worship the Father in spirit and truth.15 The Johannine ever anticipated 15.  This is in keeping with what John professes in his Prologue. “But he who received him, who believed in his name [Jesus, the incarnate Word], he gave the power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:12–13). Moreover, while John in his Prologue employs the words “grace and truth,” such designations are similar to and compatible with “spirit and truth.” The Word made flesh is “full of grace and truth,” and from him we have received “grace upon grace.”

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

165

“hour” is coming and now is precisely because Jesus, through his sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, will make this transformation possible. As the risen Lord, he will baptize in the Holy Spirit. For John, Jesus is re-creating and will re-create humankind in his own divine image so that in him, possessing his Spirit of truth, the truth that Jesus embodies as the Word, we will become worshippers “such as the Father seeks.”16 I Am He The Samaritan woman, in response to Jesus, finally appears to be catching on to what Jesus is attempting to teach her, for she now speaks of the coming of the Messiah—the anointed one of God. “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is the Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.” Even though a Samaritan woman, she is aware that the Jewish Messiah (or, in John’s aside, the Christ, in Greek) is expected and that he will be the fulfillment of all God has promised. Significantly, she does not say that the Messiah “will teach us all things” but that “he will show us all things.” What will be the entirety that the Messiah will manifest? For John, the fullness that the Messiah will “show” is the Father, for the Messiah will be the Father’s Son—the Word of God incarnate. This is keeping with John’s Prologue: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he will make him known” (Jn 1:18). Jesus, as the Spirit-filled Messiah, will make the Father known not simply in and through the words of his teaching, but primarily in and through himself and the actions he performs as the Father’s Son. To observe the works of Jesus is to behold the Father, for he enacts, as the Father’s Son, the Father’s works. Later, Jesus will declare: He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you [Philip] say “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn 14:8–11) While the law came through Moses, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:14– 17). Paul perceives this transformation in the Holy Spirit. “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying ‘Abba! Father!’ ” (Gal 4:6). Similarly, “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:15–16). 16.  Jesus later speaks of the Spirit of truth (see Jn 14:16–17, 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7).

166

Chapter 5

To see Jesus is to behold the Father, for, as Father’s Son, he is in the Father, and the Father, being the Son’s Father, is in him who is the Father’s Son. Although Jesus can explain this divine perichoretic ontological relationship in words, his works are what clearly manifest this divine relationship, for in performing the works of the Father as the Father’s Son, Jesus manifests the Father. As the Father’s anointed incarnate Son, the Messiah “shows us all things.”17 Jesus’ concluding response is therefore significant. “I who speak to you am he.” This declaration not only reveals who Jesus is, but in so doing also theologically draws into itself Jesus’ entire interchange between himself and the Samaritan woman. Recalling that in response to his request for a drink the Samaritan woman asked how a Jewish man could request some water from her, Jesus responded, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would ask him, and he would have given you living water.” Now in declaring to her that “I who speak to you am he,” the Samaritan woman knows both who Jesus is—the Messiah—and the gift of God that he as the anointed Messiah gives—the living water of the Holy Spirit. This is why he is greater than her father Jacob and why the living water that he provides will well up to eternal life. Moreover, by emphatically affirming that “I am he” (égw ´ eími), Jesus is identifying himself not only as the Messiah but also that he is the one Who Is—the divine I AM. He is the expected Messiah, for he, as the Father’s eternal Word incarnate, possesses fully, as the Father’s divine Son, the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. Thus Jesus, as the eternal Father’s Son, possesses, because of his divine nature, the Holy Spirit as well as the Holy Spirit by reason of his human nature, for He Who Is is he who is incarnate. The divinely Spirit-imbued Son of God as the humanly Spirit-imbued Messianic incarnate Son is able to baptize in the Holy Spirit those who believe in his name, Jesus (YHWH-Saves), and so empower them, as the Father’s children, to worship his Father in spirit and truth. Could This Man Be the Christ? On this climactic note, Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman ends. His disciples return from purchasing food, and what they see takes them 17.  While a great deal more could be said concerning Jn 14:8–11, and will be said at the appropriate time, here again I want only to highlight the primacy, for John, of actions over words. While Jesus is the Word incarnate, the revelation of his being the Father’s Son, and so the revelation of the Father, is principally revealed through the human actions of the divine Son. As the divine Word, the Word is the Father’s Word in act. He enacts all the truth or reality that the Father is. As the incarnate Word, Jesus is the Word in act. He literally embodies, and so enacts bodily, all the truth or reality that the Father is.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

167

aback. “Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but none said, ‘What do you wish?’ or, ‘Why are you talking with her?’ ” While rather scandalized by what they found upon their return, the disciples were not about to interrogate Jesus, their teacher, as to the propriety of what they had come upon, even though if he required something, they felt they were better equipped to provide for his needs than some problematic woman. Whatever the situation might be, they considered it unbecoming to find their Master speaking to some errant Samaritan. Catching the negative vibes of the disciples, the Samaritan woman immediately sensed the uncomfortable scene in which she now found herself, “so the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?’ ” In her desire to flee the embarrassing situation and in her excitement to tell others of what had just transpired, the woman left her water jug at the well. Ironically but significantly, neither the Samaritan woman nor Jesus got what they wanted in the end—a drink of water. Yet in the end Jesus accomplished his real goal, the revealing of who he is as the Messiah, the one who is able to provide God’s gift of living water, and the Samaritan woman received what she truly needed, the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah who could give her the wellspring of eternal life, the Holy Spirit. Moreover, what the woman told her townsfolk is literally not true. Jesus did not tell her everything that she did. Her exaggerated rhetoric did, nonetheless, accomplish her two aims. First, it would have immediately increased the curiosity of her hearers to come and see the man who told her everything she had done. Second, she avoided publicly admitting that what Jesus really told her was that she had five husbands and the one with whom she is presently living is not really her husband, thus saving her embarrassment. Simultaneously, she would realize that her neighbors would immediately grasp that within the “everything” was her not-so-hidden disgrace, since everyone was well aware of her suspect marital situation, and so the real significance of what Jesus told her pertained precisely to her past and present sinfulness. Moreover, such telling on the part of Jesus and such knowing on the part of the citizens would likewise engender a heightened curiosity as to Jesus’ identity. How could Jesus know “everything”—unless he was “the Christ?” (see Jn 2:25). Thus the woman asking, “Can this be the Christ?” is not expressing a doubt that Jesus is the Christ, despite his telling her that he is. Rather, the woman’s strategy, contained within her dramatic announcement, was to animate her townsfolk to come and see the man who told her everything in the hope that they too would come to believe what she now believes—that Jesus is the Christ. (This

168

Chapter 5

interpretation will become apparent at the end.) She succeeded, and all of the people “went out of the city and were coming to him.” Thus the Samaritan woman becomes Jesus’ disciple. Following the pattern found earlier in John’s Gospel—where Jesus told the Baptist’s two disciples to come and see where he lived, and Andrew in turn tells his brother Peter about Jesus, and then Philip tells Nathanial to come and see—so the woman now tells her fellow Samaritans to come and see (see Jn 1:35–51). What they will see, in their coming to the man Jesus, is the divine Messiah—He Who Is. Sowing and Reaping While all of this excitement was transpiring in the city, John returns to the simultaneous action taking place between Jesus and his now-returned disciples. “Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, ‘Rabbi, eat.’ ” At the onset of the story, Jesus wanted a drink of water and never received it, and now his disciples, probably feeling guilty that their absence meant Jesus became dependent upon an objectionable Samaritan woman, are encouraging him to eat. “But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know.’ ” The roles are now reversed, but Jesus’ strategy remains the same. He asked for water and did not receive it, only to advance his agenda of revealing that, as the Messiah, he has living water. The disciples now want him to eat, but Jesus ignores their exhortation only to advance his agenda of revealing that he has food of which they are not aware. Like Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, the disciples entirely miss the revelational point that Jesus is attempting to make. The disciples said to one another, probably sideways and in a whisper, “Has any one brought him food?” If Jesus has food they know not of, human logic would demand that that someone must have brought him some in their absence. Jesus responds, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.” What nourishes Jesus, what keeps him alive, what urges him on is doing the will of his Father. Jesus’ whole being, as the Father’s Son, is focused on the Father’s will both within his eternal divine nature and now within his human nature. The eternal Son, ever attentive to his Father’s will, was sent into the world precisely to accomplish his Father’s work of salvation, and it is his obedience that will energize Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son.18 The one who ultimately compels Jesus, as the Messiah, is the Holy Spirit—the nourishing wellspring of life that uniquely dwells within him as the Father’s 18.  Jesus often reiterates that he only does the will and so the work of his Father. See Jn 5:30, 5:36, 6:38, 9:4, and 17:4.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

169

Son. Jesus now proceeds to speak in an enigmatic manner, a manner that is difficult to decipher. Do you not say, “There is four months, then comes the harvest”? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, “One sows and another reaps.” I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor. The hermeneutic key to interpreting this passage is to determine the identity of the pronouns and who are the subjects of the statements. So the “you” of “Do you not say” is the disciples to whom Jesus is speaking. Interestingly, Jesus does not say “we,” even though he is a Jew within a Jewish culture and so the saying would be part of his own milieu. Jesus is distancing himself from his disciples because he knows that what he is about to say contradicts the common saying. Although within nature the harvest comes four months after the sowing, within the present context of Jesus’ presence as the incarnate Word, the reaping of salvation is already at hand. If only his disciples would open their eyes and look around them, even in Samaria, they would see that “the fields are already white for harvest.”19 Jesus, having been fed and nourished on his Father’s will, is already now accomplishing the work of his Father. At this juncture the identities of the subjects of the sentences become somewhat murky. Jesus continues: “He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘one sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”20 It would appear that Jesus himself is the reaper who receives wages, his own glorious resurrection, for through his work of salvation, his own death and resurrection, he gathers the fruit, those who are saved, for eternal life. But how, then, are we to interpret the last clause—“so that the sower and reaper may rejoice together”? On one level, Jesus himself is the sower and the reaper because, as the Word of God, he sows the seeds of God’s word, and he equally 19.  What Jesus declares here is in keeping with what he says in Matthew and Luke: “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few, pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Mt 9:37–38; see also Lk 10:2). 20.  Jesus is quoting Job 31:8: “Let me sow, and another reap.” See also Mi 6:15.

170

Chapter 5

reaps what he has sown—the salvific fruit of eternal life for all who believe in him. Actually, Jesus himself, as the Word incarnate, is the seed that is sown within those who believe in him and in communion with him the faithful bear the fruit of eternal life (see Jn 12:23–24).21 On another level, it appears that Jesus’ disciples are the reapers, since one person sows and another person reaps. Jesus has sent them to reap even though they did not sow; others have done the sowing before them—all of the holy men and women of the Old Testament, especially people like the Patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets. This would especially apply again to Jesus, for all that was sown in the past, the Father’s Old Testament revelatory acts and words, was done through the actions and words of his Word/Son. Thus, although the disciples did not labor in the original sowing, they have now entered into that labor—that is, like Jesus, both sowing and reaping. How, then, does all that Jesus proclaims here fit together? Jesus’ food is to the do the will of his Father, which he is eager to accomplish. The will of the Father that Jesus wants to fulfill is the reaping of salvation—the giving of eternal life. Jesus, as the Word incarnate, is both the sower and the reaper, and his sowing and reaping look back to all that was accomplished within Israel’s sacred history as well as look forward to all that will be accomplished by his present and future disciples. All of human salvific history is subsumed into Jesus Christ. As the Father’s eternal Word, Jesus is the primordial and principal sower, and the eschatological reaper who employs sowers and reapers—past, present, and future, to help sow and gather the fruit of eternal life—those who believe in him and are born anew in the living waters of the Holy Spirit, the wellspring of eternal life.22

21.  This interpretation could be seen in the light of Jesus’ parable of the sower within the Synoptics, where the sown seed is the word of God (see Mt 13:1–23, Mk 4:1–21, and Lk 8:4–15). Likewise, such an interpretation could be seen as the fulfillment of Ps 126:5–6: “May those who sow in tears reap with shouts of joy! He that goes forth weeping, bearing the seed for the sowing, shall come back home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him” (see also Am 9:13–14). Although the crucified Jesus ultimately sowed the seeds of salvation with tears and weeping, he returns gloriously to his Father’s heavenly home, rejoicing because he carries with him his sheaves, the men and women he has saved (see Dt 20:6). 22.  In one of his visions within the Book of Revelation, John sees the risen Jesus as the eschatological reaper. “Then I looked, and lo, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like the son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat upon the cloud. ‘Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.’ So he who sat upon the cloud swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped” (Rv 14:14–16).

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

171

The Savior of the World After Jesus’ declaration, John abruptly states, “Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did.’ ” Having been informed of all that Jesus had told the woman, her townsfolk, as she had hoped, believed, like her, that Jesus was the Christ. Thus, while Jesus was telling his disciples that he sent them out to reap, the Samaritan woman was actually doing the sowing and reaping. Within the Gospel of John, she—a Samaritan woman—is portrayed as the first non-Jewish evangelist and so one of the first to gather fruit for eternal life (see Jn 17:20). While salvation comes from the Jews, as Jesus informed the woman, the salvation that Jesus brings is for all—even Samaritans. “So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them and he stayed for two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.’ ” The first two Jewish disciples wanted to know where Jesus was staying, and having stayed with him, Andrew went out to find Peter telling him that they have found “the Messiah” (see Jn 1:35–41). Now the Samaritans want Jesus to stay with them because they believe he is the Messiah. During Jesus’ two-day stay, many more Samaritans came to believe, no longer simply because of the woman’s testimony but because of Jesus’ very own word. The conclusion they draw is not simply Nathanael’s proclamation that Jesus as the Father’s Son is “King of Israel,” but that he is the universal “Savior of the world” (see Jn 1:49; 1 Jn 4:14). Jesus, by revealing to the Samaritans that he is the Messiah, disclosed that he is truly YHWH-Saves—the Spirit-­anointed savior not only of the Jews but also of the whole of humankind. The non-Jewish Samaritans, in turn, were the first to believe and the first to proclaim this truth.23 Conclusion Before proceeding to the healing of the official’s son, I would like to conclude this section on the Samaritan woman by highlighting two theological points as well as appending one point that was not previously made. 23.  Interestingly, later in John’s narrative, the Jews accuse Jesus of being “a Samaritan” and of having “a demon” (Jn 8:48). Is this accusation founded upon the fact that the Jews became aware that Jesus associated with the Samaritans, and that many came to believe in him? His close association with them, living with them for two days, could also account for the claim that he is infected with a demon—which in their view could easily happen to one who is socializing with the likes of the contaminated Samaritans.

172

Chapter 5

First, there is a theological continuity and progression beginning with the changing of the water into wine at Cana, proceeding to Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus on the need to be born anew of water and the Holy Spirit, and concluding with Jesus’ discussion with the Samaritan woman concerning his possessing living water that will well up to eternal life. Jesus, in this unified succession of events, is gradually articulating the full meaning of baptism and its efficaciousness. The abundance of water at the wedding feast signifies the baptismal abundance of life that Jesus provides as well as its initiatory effect of empowering the baptized, as initiated members of the church, to partake of the fullness of life that is the Eucharist—Jesus’ risen body and blood. Jesus teaches Nicodemus that baptism is the act of being born anew in water and the Holy Spirit and so entrance into the kingdom of God. Jesus knows this to be true, for he himself, as the Father’s Son, is eternally begotten of the Father in the Holy Spirit, and what has been eternally enacted in heaven will now be made available on earth. Those born anew of the Spirit will become children of the Father in the likeness of Jesus his Son. Within his conversation with the Samaritan women, Jesus reveals that his thirst, his food, is to do the will of his Father, that is, to give living water, the wellspring of eternal life that resides within those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit. In so doing, Jesus reveals who he is—the incarnate divine Messiah, He Who Is—the Father’s Son. Thus not only do we as readers of John’s Gospel come to a fuller understanding of baptism and its effects, but we also find confirmation of what John the Baptist, having been sent by God, proclaimed at the very onset of Jesus’ ministry. I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. (Jn 1:32–34) While the Evangelist’s narrative looks backward, it also looks forward to the fulfillment of what Jesus has revealed about himself and to what he will accomplish.24 This baptism imagery will reappear again when Jesus heals the lame man at the pool of Bethzatha and the blind man at the pool of Siloam, and ultimately when, upon the cross, in his thirst for 24.  It must also not be forgotten, as we saw at the beginning of our examination, that Jesus is revealing that he fulfills all that was prefigured within the Old Testament concerning God giving springs and rivers of life-giving water with the coming of the messianic age.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

173

humankind’s salvation, he pours forth his life-giving blood and water from his pierced side. Moreover, what Jesus has thus far revealed about himself as the source of living water, the living water that is the Holy Spirit, he will also advance later. “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst” (Jn 6:35). Likewise, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” John makes explicit that Jesus spoke “about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was yet to be glorified” (Jn 7:37–39; Jesus is referencing Is 44:3, 55:1, and 58:11). Thus Jesus reiterates what he said to the Samaritan about the wellspring of eternal life, for in believing in him, there will arise within the very heart of the believer rivers of living water—the divine life of the Spirit that Jesus will pour out upon his church when he has gloriously risen from the dead.25 Second, within John’s advancing baptismal narrative, we clearly perceive the centrality of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Jesus is the Messiah, for he singularly possesses the Father’s Spirit as the Father’s Son. He is therefore the wellspring of the Spirit and so the one who is able to give the living water of the Holy Spirit to others. All of these truths converge on Jesus’ humanity, and only through his humanity does the Son of God act in a salvific manner; only through his humanity does he enact his Father’s will, and only through his humanity is the Holy Spirit poured out upon the faithful. Thus, while Jesus is primarily teaching the Samaritan woman (and previously Nicodemus) the importance of baptism and its sanctifying effects, he is simultaneously making known the integral action that he himself will perform, that he is the one who will baptize in the Holy Spirit. He is making known his central role as the Messiah, the Father’s Son. Ultimately, what we perceive in this progressive teaching on baptism is Jesus speaking of the manner in which he will become Jesus—the actions in, with, and through which he will become and act as YHWH-Saves. Equally, we also recognize the actions in, with, and through which the Father and Holy Spirit will become and act as YHWH-Saves, each in his own respective manner. The salvific work of the Jesus the Son is the salvific work of the Father, and together they enact their one shared salvific work in communion with the Holy Spirit. 25.  Jesus, as the baptizer of the Holy Spirit, only completes his salvific mystery in heaven. Those who share in his glory “shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore; . . . For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rv 7:16–17). These verses are alluding to the fulfillment of Is 25:8 and 49:10, Ps 23:2 and 121:6, and Ezek 34:23.

174

Chapter 5

As the salvific nature of baptism is founded upon the Son’s human act of baptizing, in communion with the co-inhering acts of the Father and the Holy Spirit, so the effect of the one baptismal action is also, by its very nature, Trinitarian. Those who are baptized by Jesus the Son are born anew in the Holy Spirit and so become Spirit-filled children of the Father. Abiding in the humanity of the incarnate Son, the baptized are taken up into the very divine eternal life that Jesus himself shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In, with, and through Jesus, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, the faithful are thus empowered to worship the Father in spirit and truth. Again, the salvific effects of baptism reside within the humanity of Jesus, for only in being united to Jesus the incarnate Son is one assumed, through the Holy Spirit, into the heavenly dwelling of the Father.26 As we would now expect, the Gospel of John will continue to enhance Jesus’ teaching on baptism and its effects, and he will do so by intertwining this teaching with other dominant theological themes contained within his Gospel. Third, I want to put forward a consideration that I did not address in the above theological examination of the story of the Samaritan woman. To do so, we must return to Cana. Jesus begins his teaching on baptism by performing the miracle at Cana, where Mary is a major actor. He ends his baptismal teaching in the course of his encounter with the Samaritan woman. Moreover, with his miracle of changing water into wine, Jesus initiates his “hour.” He begins his salvific ministry. Within his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus tells her that “the hour is coming, and now is.” Likewise, although the reader knows, in the telling of the Cana story, that Jesus’ mother is named Mary, Jesus addresses her only as “woman.” “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come” (Jn 2:3). In the story of the Samaritan woman the woman remains anonymous. She is referred to as “the woman” or “the Samaritan woman” eleven times. Only in one significant instance does, Jesus, as he did with his mother, address her as “woman.” “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship.” Thus two women, each of whom Jesus addresses as “woman,” are bookends to 26.  Paul’s understanding of the effects of baptism is in accord with John. “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear; but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom 8:15; see also Gal 4:5–6).

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

175

his teaching on baptism. In the light of all of this, what are the theological implications embedded within these similarities? In our theological examination of the miracle at Cana, we recognized that Mary is identified as the ecclesial woman—the perfect icon or image of the church. She is the New Israel and the nascent church. She personifies what the church is and will be. As the New Israel and imploring church, Mary exhorts her son to undertake his salvific ministry, for his hour has come. She will accompany Jesus along the way to the fulfillment of that hour beneath his cross. She is the bride (the ecclesial woman) that Jesus will espouse on the cross and purify with the living waters that flow from his pierced side and upon whom he will pour out his Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Mary, as the new Israel, is the Jewish root from which will bud forth a savior for the whole of humankind. She is also the ecclesial woman whom Jesus gives to his Apostle John. John is to care for her as a sign for future ages—the apostolic care of the church until the end of time. Thus the church, as recognized in Mary as the perfect ecclesial woman, the exact icon of the church, is the one through whom Jesus will sanctify all who believe in him. Through the sacramental instrumentality of the church, beginning with baptism, Jesus will continually make holy those who believe in him.27 Now, if Mary is the icon of the all-holy church through whom Jesus sanctifies the members of his church, the Samaritan woman is a contraposed image and icon of the church. She is the sinful woman, the image of all the Gentiles, who needs to enter into the church so as to be made holy, and in so doing she is the image of the church that is ever in need of repentance and growth in holiness.28 Whereas Mary is the ever believing church—the one who knows that her son can change an abundance of water into wine, the Samaritan woman must come to believe that Jesus can provide living waters that well up to eternal life. In due course she does come to faith and believes that Jesus is the Christ, and so the one who can pour out the life-giving water of the Holy Spirit. In her faith, and ultimately through baptism, she will be made holy and continue to grow in holiness. Mary as the ecclesial woman is then the ever eschatological icon of the church—the all-holy church. The anonymous Samaritan woman is 27.  For a fuller presentation of Mary as the ecclesial woman and perfect icon of the church, see chap. 3. 28.  By saying that the Samaritan represents the sinful Gentiles, I do not mean that the Jews, represented in Mary, need no repentance. I simply want to accentuate that the sinful Gentiles find their salvation from the Jews—in the Jewish Jesus as savior by way of Mary, his Jewish mother who is the living icon of her son’s church. The church, as represented in Mary, never loses its Jewishness, and all of the nations are subsumed into this Jewish-rooted church (see Rom 11:17–25).

176

Chapter 5

the earthly church—a church imbued with the Holy Spirit that only finds its fulfillment when her spouse returns to glorify her and make her perfect in holiness.29 What Mary is the Samaritan woman will become—the earthly church will become the heavenly church, the earthly blemished spouse will become the heavenly bride without stain or wrinkle. The earthly church has only one husband, Jesus Christ, who will bring his spouse to heavenly glory at the end of time. Thus the ecclesial woman Mary and the ecclesial woman of Samaria will, at the end of time, become one woman, for the Samaritan woman will become as the woman Mary is. Lastly, as Mary is the heavenly icon of the church perfectly worshipping the Father in spirit and truth, so the Samaritan woman, living in Christ and so possessing the Spirit that wells up to eternal life, is the earthly image of the church worshipping the Father in spirit and truth. She does so in the assurance of hope that she will one day become a full member of the heavenly choir of saints and angels. Thus it would seem that, for the Evangelist, both Mary and the Samaritan woman portray the church— what it truly is on earth, holy and sinful, and what it will eschatologically be in heaven—the all-holy heavenly bride of Christ. This progressive transformation is initially predicated upon baptism, for within this act Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, quenching the thirst of the faithful with the wellspring of eternal life, so that together in him they might abide with his Father here on earth and in heaven.30 The Healing of the Royal Official’s Son Having completed his two-day stay in Samaria, John informs us that Jesus “departed for Galilee,” the destination for which he had set out when he had left Jerusalem. “So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had 29.  Found at the end of the Book of Revelation are both Mary as the icon of the fulfilled eschatological church and the Samaritan woman as the icon of the church ever growing in holiness. There “The Spirit and the Bride say ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price” (Rv 22:17). This passage is alluding to and so desires the fulfillment of Is 12:3 and 55:1. The Spirit that imbues the wells of salvation and the thirsty Bride who possesses and yet eagerly desires the full Spirit-filled waters of salvation cry out for the return of the one who is the source of the living waters of eternal life—Jesus the Messiah. Only when he returns will the thirst of his spouse the church be satiated. 30. Within the Eastern Churches and particularly within the Western Church, with its dogma of her glorious assumption into heaven, body and soul, Mary is seen as the realized perfect icon of the heavenly church. She fully shares in her son’s Spirit-filled resurrection, and her manner of existence now will, at the end of time, be the manner of existence of all those who are united to Christ.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

177

made water wine.” 31 At “Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill.” When the official “heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.”32 In response, Jesus curtly says to the official, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” Jesus’ reprimand, on one level, is unexpected, for within John’s Gospel the whole point of Jesus working signs (miracles) is to manifest his glory as the Father’s Son so as to engender belief in him as the Father’s Son. This engendering of faith was already witnessed at the conclusion of his changing water into wine at the first miracle at Cana, where his disciples, having witnessed his glory, came to believe in him (see Jn 2:11). On another level, while Jesus recognizes that unless he does work “signs and wonders,” people will not believe in him, yet it is more meritorious to believe in him even if one does not behold signs and wonders. This more meritorious act of faith is the teaching objective of the ensuing miracle/sign. In response to Jesus’ brusque reply, the official does not waver in his request, but insists, “Sir [Greek kyrie/Lord], come down before my child dies.” Although “sir” is probably the correct translation of the Greek, for the official would not yet believe that Jesus is divine and so “Lord.” Yet, for John, his calling Jesus kyrie/Lord is a prescient act both in that Jesus is the divine Father’s Son and that at the conclusion of this sign/miracle the official will come to believe that he is such. Now, unlike his first terse response to the official’s request, Jesus simply declares, “Go; your son will live.” The official, who is presently at Cana, is to turn around and go back to Capernaum, from whence he came, even though he had twice pleaded with Jesus to “come down” and heal his son. There is no 31.  All passages in this section are taken from Jn 4:43–54 unless otherwise noted. There immediately follows a passage that appears to be unwarranted. “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.” This could be interpreted that, unlike the Samaritans whom he had just visited, the Galileans did not honor him even though Jesus was one of their own. But the very next verse states, “So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had gone to the feast.” So there is no proximate cause for Jesus to be critical of the Galileans, and it would appear, at least at this juncture, they were affirming of him. Within the Synoptics, Jesus has cause to declare that a prophet is not honored in his own country because, being the son of a carpenter, the Galileans were irate that he possessed such wisdom, authority, and power (see Mt 13:53–59, Mk 6:1–6, and Lk 4:20–24). My conjecture is that something here is amiss—these verses and especially the passage critical of the Galileans may have been interpolated at some later date. This assumption is strengthened by the following passage, which basically repeats what immediately went before: “So he came to Cana in Galilee.” 32.  The Greek for “official” is Basilikos, which means courtier and is thus often translated into English as “royal official.” More than likely, John’s account is the third version of this story within the Gospels. In Mt 8:4–13, Jesus heals a centurion’s son. In Lk 7:1–10, Jesus heals the centurion’s slave.

178

Chapter 5

reason to remain or for any further importuning of Jesus to come down for his “son will live.” So the official “believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way.” This about face is literally predicated upon the man’s faith that what Jesus said to him was true and so off he went. Moreover, this initial faith will culminate in a deeper faith. As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was living. So he asked them the hour when he began to mend, and they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live”; and he himself believed, and all his household. Somewhere between Cana and Capernaum, the official encounters his jubilant servants, who tell him that his son was living. While this is good news, the official wants to establish firmly the chronological relationship between Jesus’ words that his son would live and the actual healing of his son. If there is a discrepancy in time between what Jesus said and the healing, then the healing of his son is merely a happy coincidence. But if Jesus’ words and the healing chronologically coincide, then the official can establish a cause/effect relationship. Having been told the time, the father was able to verify the causal relationship between Jesus’ words and the healing. The result of such a confirmation elicited a further act of faith. Not only did the official believe Jesus’ words to him that he should return home since his son would live, but he now also believes in Jesus himself, which means, within the Johannine context, that he believed that Jesus was the divine Son of God—Kyrie/Lord. Moreover, not only did the official believe, but also, because of what he must have told his servants, his entire household believed. As the Samaritan woman became a disciple of the good news to her townsfolk, bringing them to faith, so the official became a disciple to his household, bring them to faith. For John, faith by its very nature engenders faith. Here we must perceive the irony that lies within the entire event. Jesus’ response to the official’s first request was: “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” We must ask, Who is the “you” to whom Jesus is speaking? Introducing what Jesus declares, the Gospel states that Jesus said “to him” (pròs aủtón), thus designating that he is addressing one person—the official. What Jesus says to the official, however, pertains to all, for the verbs are in the second-person plural. Unless “you see” (plural); “you will not believe” (plural). While Jesus is speaking directly to the official, what he says applies to

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

179

all those Jews who are presently gathered around him. They are the ones who are reluctant to believe without signs and wonders. Jesus will reproach the Jews for not believing what he says, unlike the official, and exhorts them to believe because of the works, the signs, he performs, though they (at least the Jewish leadership) will not come to faith even though they have seen and will see them. The irony is that, in the end, no one saw the sign or wonder. The official did not see it, nor did anyone else who was with Jesus at Cana. The official’s servants saw the fever leave his son, but they had no idea as to the cause of why the fever left. Yet the official and his servants came to believe without seeing. The initiating cause of such faith was in the official first believing what Jesus said: “Go; your son will live.” Because he believed Jesus’ word, the official ultimately believed that Jesus was the Word—the incarnate Father’s Son. The official has become the prophetic anticipation of all future believers. He becomes the exemplar of what Jesus will later tell the “unbelieving” Thomas: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).33 Conclusion: From Cana to Cana At this juncture, by way of an interpretive conclusion, we must note what John states at the end of Jesus’ encounter with the official. “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.” The first and second signs both take place at Cana, and thus Cana provides the theological bookends of all that transpired between the two signs. What began at the wedding feast at Cana and progressed at the feast of Passover in Jerusalem and continued to develop within Jesus’ engagement with the Samaritan woman finds its concluding theological completion within the second miraculous sign at Cana. Although more may be gleaned within these 33.  Presuming that this healing story is a Johannine account of the same story that appears in Matthew and Luke, it is significant that in Matthew, Jesus declares to the Jews who were following him: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Mt 8:10). In Luke, Jesus states, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Lk 7:10). These accounts are also similar to Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite or Syrophoenician woman. This woman begged Jesus to cast out a demon from her daughter. Jesus caustically and insultingly reminds her that it is not right to take food from the children (the Jewish people) and cast it to the dogs (the Gentiles). But she humbly reminds Jesus that even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs. Because of her saying this, Jesus tells her to go her way, for the demon has left her daughter. “And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon was gone” (Mk 7:24–30; see also Mt 15:21–28). This woman, like the official, believed Jesus and went on her way assured that what he had said was true. She too believed without seeing.

180

Chapter 5

successive events, I want to focus on the Johannine notion of sacraments, specifically that of the sacrament of baptism.34 Jesus gradually developed his teaching on baptism. At the wedding feast of Cana, we perceived that baptism provides the plentitude of life, symbolized in the abundance of water. This richness of baptismal life allows the faithful to progress to its fullest expression in the Eucharistic blood of Jesus, symbolized in the now changed water into an abundance of wine. His cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem manifested that Jesus will cleanse his people of sin and that he himself, as the new lamb of sacrifice, will become, through his death and resurrection, the new temple in whom the baptized will worship his Father. Within his night encounter with Nicodemus, Jesus further enhanced his baptismal teaching. Human beings must be born anew through water and the Holy Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God, that is, to be in communion with Jesus who embodies that kingdom. Jesus will make this possible because he will be the one who is lifted upon the cross and so lifted up into heavenly glory. Thus those who believe in him and are baptized will also be lifted up into eternal life. God’s love is manifested in his sending his Son into the world so that all who believe in him may not perish but have eternal life. In Jesus’ interchange with the Samaritan woman, John further advances his teaching that baptism concerns the abundance of eternal life on the one born anew into the divine life of the Holy Spirit. Baptism, in its pouring forth living water, is the wellspring of the Holy Spirit, a wellspring that enables one to worship the Father in spirit and truth. This brief and not all-inclusive summary nonetheless finds its culminating event in Jesus’ healing of the official’s son, once again at Cana. The all-but-dead son comes back to life and so becomes the prophetic symbol that, in and through Jesus, there is new life, a life that is not only natural but also the new life of the Holy Spirit. This son, in a sense, is freed from death and born anew. All that has preceded this sign, beginning with the marriage feast at Cana, is thus subsumed within this sign enacted at Cana. It conclusively demonstrates that the Father-commissioned work of Jesus, the Spirit-anointed incarnate Son, is that of re-creating humankind. As the Father created all through his Word, so the Father is re-creating, rebirthing humankind in the Holy Spirit through his incarnate Word. Jesus’ ultimate work of rebirthing is his own death and resurrection, for only then will he 34.  What I am about to state summarily I have similarly stated earlier when treating the ecclesial relationship between Mary and the Samaritan woman, for they too are theological bookends. Nonetheless, I think that such a comparable summary here is necessary in order for the reader to grasp clearly the new point I want to make.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

181

rebirth those whom he baptizes in the Holy Spirit, and only then will those who live in him worship the Father in spirit and truth. As the healing of the official’s son looks back to what transpired previously, so it also looks forward. This sign becomes the harbinger of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead, and so reveals that he is truly the resurrection and the life. The risen Lazarus, in turn, becomes the sign of the abundance of life that resides within those who are born anew in the Spirit-filled waters of baptism. In the light of the above, I want to provide a coherent theological interpretation of what appears to be a Johannine conundrum—that the purpose of Jesus’ miracles is to provoke faith within those who witness these signs, and that Jesus appears to chastise those who will not believe unless they see signs. We saw that Jesus, in his reprimand, was speaking not only to the official but also, and particularly, to the unbelieving Jews. I believe that the Evangelist also has his readers in mind. They, too, along with Jesus’ contemporaries, are summoned to believe without seeing. How is this so, and how does this specifically pertain to the sacraments? Here we must return to the very nature of the Incarnation. John declares that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and in so doing “we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). We have not seen the incarnating act, the incarnational “becoming.” That act is impossible to see or to comprehend. Yet what we see is the resulting glory of that act. We see the glory of the Son through his humanity. The humanity becomes the sacramental means of beholding the glory of the Father’s Son, for through his humanity (sarx), through his human acts, the Son manifests the glory of his filial divinity. The Incarnation, then, is the primordial sacrament, for through the sacramentality of his humanity Jesus manifests the glory of his divinity. Now, Jesus’ humanity and the human acts he performs in, with, and through that humanity both reveal and hide his divinity. The glory that we see is the Son’s divine glory manifested humanly, and so it reveals that he is the Son of God existing as man. Yet this sarx-manifested glory “hides” the Son, for we do not see the Son as Son, apart from his humanity, but we see the Son as incarnate. While we behold the human manifested glory, we are nonetheless called to believe what we do not see, what is beyond our human sight, and what is beyond our human comprehension, that the human-manifested glory we behold is that of the Father’s incarnate Son. For John, while Jesus’ miraculous signs manifest his divine glory as the Father’s Son and so elicit faith in those who behold such glory, ultimately what they must believe is what they do not see, the Son of God existing simply as God. But this revealed hiddenness is not to our detriment, even though it demands that we believe without seeing, for

182

Chapter 5

what has been revealed and what we believe, within the incarnating act and within the Son’s human acts as man, is the truth of the most marvelous mystery—the mystery that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and that we have seen the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father! To behold the man Jesus is to behold the Son of God, for it is he who exists as man. Who we see is the Son of God, and the manner in which we behold him is as a man. The sacramental nature of the Incarnation, the revelation of the Son of God is as man, is then the foundational principle for John of Jesus’ teaching concerning the sacraments. When treating the changing of the water into wine, I emphasized that no one saw the water change into wine. Somewhere along the way, when the servants carried the water to the steward, the water changed into wine, for what the steward tasted was wine. Similarly, what is apparent is that no one saw the healing of the official’s son. The official came to believe even without seeing. Yet as John emphatically states at the conclusion, “This was now the second sign that Jesus did.” While the healing of the official’s son was a sign by which the glory of the Son was revealed—which in turn elicited faith from the official and his household—the sign itself was not seen but only the sign’s glorious effect—the healing of the son. For John, sacraments are also acts that exemplify this believing without seeing, focusing here exclusively on baptism. Baptism is a visible sacramental sign. What we see is a person being immersed in water, but what we believe, though without seeing, is that what is visibly done, and so seen, is what the visible sign signifies—the rebirth in the Spirit of the one baptized. We see the sacramental sign, but we do not see the divine efficacious causality embedded within and so enacted through the sign. The baptized person may experience the sacramental effect—that is, the cleansing of sin and the welling up of the Spirit within oneself—and so the power now to live a holy Spirit-filled life, but the act by which this is accomplished is not seen.35 Moreover, the baptized hold in faith that they have been born anew and so are united to the risen Jesus, empowering them to worship the Father in spirit and truth. They are equally confident that, in Christ through the Spirit, they possess eternal life in communion with their heavenly Father. Thus the baptismal act effects what it symbolizes and so reveals the glory of the sacramental act, yet the reality of the 35. The same is true of the Eucharist, which Jesus will shortly address in John’s Gospel. Believers consume the visible sacramental signs of bread and wine, but what they believe is that they are consuming the unseen risen life-giving body and blood of Jesus. The sacramental act by which this transformation is effected remains unseen and the reality of the actual risen presence of Jesus within the Eucharist is unseen, yet what is believed is the reality of what these sacramental signs, the bread and wine, signify.

The Samaritan Woman and the Healing of the Official’s Son

183

manifested glory remains hidden though acknowledged and known in faith. Again, this is not to our detriment, for in faith we know that the revealedhidden glory is true—that Jesus has wondrously baptized us with the Holy Spirit, and so we are genuinely born anew into eternal life. We may believe without seeing, but we do so in faith’s assurance that the truth and the reality concealed within the sacramental signs are enacted through the visibly enacted signs that we do see. In conclusion, Jesus realizes that only through his miraculous signs will he engender a faith that acknowledges him to be the Father’s incarnate Son, yet he also wants to forewarn his prospective believers that, even though they see the signs, they must nevertheless believe what is not seen—the reality signified, that is, his identity as the Father’s Son. Similarly, for John, the sacraments are visible enacted signs, yet faith is demanded, for one must believe what is not seen—the veiled reality within the visibly enacted sacramental sign. Moreover, what we have discerned is the sacramental incarnational principle founded upon the Incarnation itself. For the Evangelist, Jesus’ humanity holds pride of place, for only as man does the Son of God reveal himself, and only in, with, and through his humanity does he enact the prophetic miraculous signs by which his divine filial glory is revealed. These prophetic signs of Jesus’ divine filial glory will culminate in his definitive human salvific acts—in his human death on the cross and in his human glorious resurrection from the dead. In these acts we will behold the full glory, “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). Moreover, what we grasp within these two Cana miracle signs is Jesus becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Founded upon the Incarnation, and accomplished in his death and resurrection, the manner in which Jesus saves will be through the sacrament of baptism—his baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Only after Jesus is lifted up upon the cross and into his heavenly glory will he be definitively Jesus, and so as the risen Spirit-filled Messiah will he be empowered to baptize all who believe in him as the Father’s Son. Lastly, this “believing without seeing” will terminate when the reality signified by the baptismal sacramental sign is fully realized—that is, when the reality of the sign is eschatologically fulfilled at the coming of Jesus in glory at the end of time. Then the rebirth in the Holy Spirit will reach full maturity—the abundance of eternal life within God’s kingdom, for then all the faithful will fully partake of, in a wholly visible manner, the everlasting wellspring of Jesus’ risen Spirit-filled glory.36 36.  This is in keeping with Paul’s understanding that here on earth we see as in a glass darkly, but in heaven we shall see face-to-face (see 1 Cor 13:12). Also, 1 Jn 3:1 declares, “Beloved, we

184

Chapter 5

As we now proceed to chapter 5 of John’s Gospel, the issue of Jesus’ identity as the Father’s incarnate Son comes to the fore. Jesus will emphatically insist that he is such, for he was sent by his Father to enact the works of his Father. Jesus’ enactment of his Father’s works bears witness that he is the Father’s Son. That Jesus performs his Father’s works on the Sabbath testifies, moreover, that the Father has ceased his Sabbath rest and is now re-creating humankind through the same Word through whom he first created it—the man Jesus, his Spirit-anointed Son.

are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” When Jesus appears at the end of time, we will become fully as he is, and so we will behold clearly, without faith, the fullness of the glorified incarnate Son from the Father, the Spirit-filled Messiah. While we will knowingly behold the full mystery of the Incarnation, and within that mystery behold the mystery of the Trinity and so glory in these known mysteries, we will not fully comprehend either mystery for they are beyond all human understanding. Although our heavenly understanding may continuously deepen for all eternity, only the Trinity of persons can comprehend the mystery that they are as the one God as well as the mystery of the Father’s Spirit-imbued Son existing as man.

6 n

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

F

ollowing upon Jesus’ ministry in Samaria and his healing of the official’s son at Cana, John states, “After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”1 This is Jesus’ second journey to Jerusalem, though the exact nature of the unnamed Jewish feast to which he came is uncertain. Scholars speculate that it was the Feast of Pentecost—the celebration of God giving the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai.2 John continues: “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed.”3 1.  All passages within this and the following section are taken from Jn 5:1–16 unless otherwise noted. 2.  Jesus’ mentioning of Moses in Jn 5:45–46 gives rise to this speculation. 3.  In the Greek text the word “Sheep” stands alone. Translations add the word “Gate.” The rationale for this addition is the presumption that there was a gate near the temple where the animals were brought into the temple area for sacrifice. The Book of Nehemiah states, “Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests and they built the Sheep Gate” (Neh 3:1). Later, Nehemiah also names the various gates and towers surrounding Jerusalem, and within that list is “the Sheep Gate” (Neh 12:38–39). Within the various ancient manuscripts, there are also several renderings for the name of the pool— Bethzatha, Bethsaida, Belsetha, and Bethesda—all of which mean “house of mercy.” Some early manuscripts have included in the above quotation “waiting for the movement of the water.” Scholars speculate that the pool was fed by an underground spring that from time to time bubbled up water. It was during this “movement of the water” that the pool was considered to contain its healing power. In the third century, some Greek manuscripts and the later Western Vulgate added (verse 4): “for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water; whoever stepped in first after the troubling of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.” Because of its un-Johannine nature, scholars hold that this “verse” was not original to the Gospel but added later. The Jewish tradition, in wanting to give a supernatural cause to the healing effects and not simply to the waters naturally being troubled by the bubbling up of a spring, may have spoken of an angel of the Lord entering into the water, thus giving to it divine healing properties.

185

186

Chapter 6

Among all of the sick who were present at the pool, “one man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years.” The extreme length of time that the man laid there waiting to be healed appears strange—an oddity that now becomes evident as Jesus, having come to the pool, sees the man. The Healing of the Man at the Pool “When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there for a long time, he said to him, ‘Do you want to be healed?’ ” Remarkably, the man does not simply say “yes,” but gives instead an improbable excuse as to why he has not been healed over the past thirty-eight years. “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am going down another steps down before me.”4 Never in the history of humankind has there ever been offered an excuse so lame (pun intended). One would think, at some point within the thirty-eight years of waiting, the man would have positioned himself at the very edge of the water so that when the waters became troubled, he would have simply toppled himself into the water and been healed. Does the man’s thirty-eight-year lethargy nonetheless symbolize anything? I wonder, since the Evangelist takes such note of the length of time that the invalid lay languidly by the pool, whether the man does not epitomize sinful and mortal man—men and women who, from the prehistoric time of the fallen race of Adam, have given no thought to or even care for their dire state but simply, in self-pity, have accepted it as a hopeless given.5 My interpretation finds some warrant in that the Gospel employs the term anthropos for “man,” which designates “human beings” or “humankind” in general, rather than the word aner, which specifies a male of the human species. Thus helpless and indigent human beings “have no man to put” them into the healing pool of water wherein they would be healed and made new. If such an interpretation is justified, then Jesus becomes “the man” who has come to the aid of Adam’s fallen race. 4.  Again, the Greek for “sir” is kyrie, which could also mean “Lord.” As in the case of the Samaritan woman, who also called Jesus “sir,” this man does not know or believe that Jesus is “Lord,” and yet, for John, the man has rightly, though unintentionally, designated him as such. 5.  The paralytic could also symbolize “Israel,” who wandered in the desert for forty years, though some scholars calculate that it was actually thirty-eight years. This is based on the notion that Moses and the Israelites came to the borders of the Promised Land after two years of travel from Egypt. Upon their arrival, they sent spies into the land, the result of which was that the Israelites refused to enter into the Promised Land out of fear of the present inhabitants. Because of their lack of faith in God, God punished them by having them wander thirty-eight more years in the desert (see Nm 13–14).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

187

In fulfillment of John the Baptist’s proclamation, Jesus will immerse human beings not in the physical healing waters of the pool of Bethesda, but into the eternally efficacious Spirit-filled waters of baptism and so into the genuine “house of mercy” that is the church. Somewhat surprisingly, Jesus does not respond directly to the man’s feeble excuse. He does not even ask the man if he “believes” that he could be healed. Jesus simply ignores the response and says, “Rise, take up your pallet, and walk.” What is even more surprising is that this listless man, seemingly without any eager desire or firm faith, is healed. “And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked.”6 Jesus’ words alone are the sole cause of the man’s healing. The man himself contributed nothing to the event. The hermeneutical key to interpreting this third miracle sign is found in the Evangelist’s next observation. “Now that day was the Sabbath.” By specifying that this sign was performed on the Sabbath, John is accentuating two immediate relevant points. First, as God created everything through his Word, here particularly human beings, without their contribution, so now, on this Sabbath, God is ending his rest and once again taking up his new work of creation—this time the making anew of humankind without their involvement, and he is doing so through his incarnate Word.7 As natural 6.  As the official no longer needed to remain in Cana once Jesus told him to go, for his son will live, so the paralytic no longer needs to remain, after thirty-eight years, at the pool at Bethesda. He can walk away. Jesus vanquishes evil situations such that one is simply free “to go” and “walk” away from them, for they no longer exist. Of course, the ultimate “going” is the journey into eternal life at the end of time, having through death “walked” away from the sin and evil of this present world. 7.  Genesis states that “on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work he had done,” and yet within the Book of Exodus we find Moses “on the first day of the first month” performing seven complementary actions in erecting the tabernacle, at the end of which it is said, “So Moses finished the work.” Upon completion, “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:1–35). The work of creation finds its culmination in God dwelling among his covenanted people. What is here prophetically prefigured finds its ultimate conclusion in the Word becoming flesh and pitching his tent among us so that we can to see his glory—the glory of the Father’s begotten Son (see Jn 1:14). Moreover, God’s Sabbath rest applies only as long as his creation remained good (Gn 2:2). Once sin and death corrupted his good creation, and so caused estrangement from himself, God continually worked to rectify “the fallen” situation. The whole of salvific history, as found in the Old Testament, is a history of God acting so as to once more make his creation good and humankind holy, beginning with Noah and proceeding through Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. This divine salvific work now finds its culmination in Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son. Jesus’ working miracles on the Sabbath accentuates that God, his Father, is decisively setting aside his rest and once more definitively embarking on his re-creation of Adam’s race—making it once again good and holy and in a manner that far surpasses his first creation.

188

Chapter 6

life is freely given, so salvation into eternal life is God’s free gift.8 Second, the Evangelist straightaway alerts the reader as to why the Jewish leaders will adamantly turn against Jesus—he performed a “work” forbidden on the Sabbath. Similar to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman who did not initially grasp the meaning of Jesus’ words to them, so the Jews do not perceive the meaning of Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath. Unlike Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, however, they will never come to understand that Jesus is about the work of re-creation, the rebirthing of humankind into newness of life. Their enduring lack of faith will lead to their desire to kill Jesus, and so ironically put an end to the author of life. Having encountered the cured man carrying his pallet on the Sabbath, the Jews accosted him, saying, “It is the Sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet.”9 While the cured man tells the truth, he once again does so in a manner of justifying himself by tossing the blame of his Sabbath breaking upon Jesus. As with “not having a man” to put him in the troubled waters, so now “the man who healed me said to me, ‘Take up your pallet and walk.’ ” Tolerating the man’s alibi, they want to know the real culprit of the Sabbath breaking. “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk.’ ” Having performed the sign, Jesus quickly withdrew from the crowd about the pool, and so the cured man tells the Jews that he does not know his identity. Intriguingly, in this exchange between the man and the Jews, both parties employ the phrase “take up your pallet, and walk.” What is missing from what Jesus commanded the man is the word “rise.” The man was first to “rise” and then proceed to “take up his pallet” and “walk.” The miracle sign is neither in “the carrying of the pallet” nor in “the walking” but in “the rising.” That the man could miraculously rise physically is the sign that Jesus could heal and raise the man up unto eternal life. Neither the man nor the Jews comprehended this deeper meaning of the “rising” but were fixated on the Sabbath breaking of “carrying” and “walking.” After this unresolved altercation between the cured man and the Jews, the Evangelist continues his account: “Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, ‘See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall 8.  Here we perceive an allusion to the Prologue by way of Genesis. Similar to God saying, “ ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gn 1:3) and all of God’s other commands for various things to come to be, so Jesus commands the man, “ ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk.’ And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked.” What God speaks through his Word is immediately enacted. 9.  This is in accordance with the third of God’s commandments, that is, as God rested on the seventh day so the Sabbath day is to be kept holy, and therefore no work is to be done (see Ex 20:8–11; see also Jer 17:21–27).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

189

you.’ ” The given impression is that Jesus went in search of the man and found him in the temple, which would not have been far from the pool. The man does not appear to have been on the lookout for Jesus, and what he was doing in the temple or its surrounding precincts is unstated. Having found the man, Jesus’ words to him are nonetheless significant given the present tenor of the unfolding event. Jesus emphatically calls the man’s attention to the fact that, after thirty-eight years, he is now well. This is good, but Jesus adds a somber warning. The man should sin no more, for if he does, something worse could or would come upon him. Three interrelated points are relevant here. First, Jesus does not say that the man’s malady was caused by his sinning—a punishment for his sin.10 Second, however, Jesus does clearly imply that he was a sinner for, having been made well, he should now stop sinning. What his former sins might have been is again unstated, but one could speculate that they bear upon his persistent long-standing apathy (pun intended)—both before and after his being healed, and so the need for Jesus’ exhortation that he should take cognizance that he is well. Third, the worse that could befall the now-cured man exceeds the physical ailment from which he was healed. Given that further sin would be the cause of this possible future calamity, this new tragedy pertains to his eternal salvation. If the physical miracle is a sign of the Spirit-filled eternal life that Jesus can give, so sin is the malady that poisons that divine life and so precipitates an even greater evil—damnation. Strangely, but again in accord with the present mood, the man does not respond to Jesus’ words. He expresses neither joy that he is well nor trepidation at Jesus’ cautioning. He is silent. What he does do is this: “The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who healed him.” Now, it would be harsh to judge his action as traitorous, but by informing the Jews of Jesus’ identity, the cured man is certifying that what he had previously told them was true, for he now knew the name of “the man” who cured him. Moreover, this ever self-excusing man could utterly exempt himself of all blame for Sabbath breaking and convincingly shift such condemnation upon 10.  Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ disciples asked upon seeing a blind man, “who sinned, this man or his parents?” Jesus answered, “It was not that the man sinned or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him” (Jn 9:1–3; see also Ezek 18:20). This understanding is similar to the Synoptic account of Jesus healing the paralytic. There Jesus tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven, but he in no way implies that such sins account for his paralysis. Rather, the healing of the paralytic testifies to Jesus’ ability to forgive sins and so witnesses to his divine authority as God (see Mt 9:2–8, Mk 2:12, and Lk 5:18–26). Another similarity is Jesus saying to the paralytic, “ ‘I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.’ And he rose, and immediately took up his pallet and went out before them all” (Mk 2:11–12; see also Mt 9:6–7 and Lk 24–25).

190

Chapter 6

Jesus. He is successful. “And this is why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the Sabbath.”11 At this junction the event of Jesus’ healing the man at the pool at Bethesda concludes. But if my theological interpretation is correct, it is a disconsolate story. Unlike the account of dark-minded Nicodemus, there is no growth in enlightenment, and unlike Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, there is no excited joy of having found the Messiah who could bestow living water that welled up to eternal life. Nor is there, unlike the official and his household, any expression of faith. The man exudes no joy at being cured. He expresses no excitement that Jesus has found him so that he could know his identity and express his gratitude.12 Absent is any recognition that the miracle was a sign of a profounder healing that Jesus could perform in giving him life beyond what is earthly. Ultimately, faith is absent from this story of the healed man, a rising up of faith that expresses itself in love of Jesus. While the man initially called him “sir” (kyrie), he never came to acknowledge Jesus as “Lord” (kyrie).13 This is the third of Jesus’ signs, yet it concludes on the ominous note that, because of it, the Jews began to persecute Jesus. That it was enacted on the Sabbath, however, attests that Jesus, the Spirit-anointed Son, is truly about his Father’s business—that of re-creating humankind, which will definitely conclude when the Jews have their way, and he is lifted up upon the cross and into the everlasting Sabbath of his Father’s glory. Being about his Father’s work becomes Jesus’ defense, and to that we now turn.

11.  Within the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath is also the cause of the Jews’ condemnation of him (see Mt 12:9–14, Mk 3:1–6, and Lk 6:6–11, 13:10–17, and 14:1–6). 12.  This absence of joy is in stark contrast to the crippled man in the Acts of the Apostles. When Peter heals him in the name of Jesus, “leaping up he stood and walked and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God” (Acts 3:1–10). 13.  My intention is not to turn this healed invalid into a “bad” person. Although we do not know what happened to him in the future, the present assessment does not bode well. We do know, for example, that Nicodemus continued to be a follower of Jesus and assisted at his burial. We have assurance that the Samaritan woman’s encounter with Jesus, whom she believed was the Christ, was a life-changing experience. The official and his household came to believe, and we must presume that they continued to do so. But there is no positive indication that the healed paralytic at the pool of Bethesda came to believe and remained in that faith. Jesus’ own warning may be portentous of a not-so-happy ending. This may be a case of seeing a sign and yet not believing. If so, the healed man may be a prophetic anticipation of the immediately following unbelieving Jews who witness the signs and yet refuse to believe.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

191

Doing the Father’s Work In reaction to the Jews’ condemnation that he worked a miracle on the Sabbath, Jesus rejoins, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” John informs that such a response is “why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”14 Although the Gospel gives the impression that his response comes immediately after the Jewish criticism of his breaking the Sabbath, it does not state how Jesus came to know of such censure nor in what circumstances and setting the two parties engaged one another. Moreover, what Jesus says in his defense seems to be a theological summary of what he will more fully argue in his subsequent lengthy soliloquy. Similarly, John’s comment that the Jews wanted to kill him both because he broke the Sabbath and called God his Father, thus making himself equal to God, also appears to be a concluding Jewish reaction to what Jesus will immediately more fully articulate. It would seem, then, that John has inserted, at this juncture, Jesus’ words and the Jewish reaction to them primarily to alert the reader as to the content and meaning of what is about to be enacted. Most important is the clarity that the unbelieving Jews possess. They grasp, more than others, the implication of Jesus’ words. By calling God his Father and by claiming to be doing his Father’s work, they rightly recognize that Jesus is declaring himself “equal to God.” Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is God as his Father is God.15 This recognition, and the intensity of the Jewish leaders’ desire to kill him, will continue throughout the remainder of John’s Gospel.16 Ironically, the unbelieving Jewish leaders will be the ones who see most clearly the significance of Jesus’ signs and the full revelatory meaning of his words.17 Thus the theological précis “My Father is working still, and I am working” leads into what Jesus next declares. 14.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 5:17–47 unless otherwise noted. 15.  The last clause, “making himself equal to God,” could be, as John states, the conclusion that the Jews drew from Jesus calling God “my Father.” But it could also be John’s added observation voicing the full implications of Jesus calling God “my Father.” In either case, the Jewish leaders consistently grasp clearly the meaning of Jesus’ words even though they do not believe him and so condemn him. 16.  See Jn 7:1, 7:25, 8:37, 8:40, 10:33, and 10:36. 17.  If, as I argue, John is purposely addressing the disbelief of his contemporary and future brethren, the irony that the present Jews recognize clearly the implication of Jesus’ words and miracle signs cannot be lost on them. They too are well aware of what Jesus is revealing, and yet they too continue in disbelief. Their very knowing of what is to be believed should aid them in coming to faith, however, especially in the light of the entire Gospel.

192

Chapter 6

Seeing What the Loving Father Does Precisely because his Father is still working, Jesus himself is still working as the Father’s Son and so: Truly, truly, I say to you [the Jews], the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. Because Jesus is the Father’s Son, he is not the primary initiator of whatever work he does. He does nothing on his own authority or according to his own will. The Father as Father holds primacy of place, and through his will and authority he commences all actions. Yet, significantly, Jesus, as the Son, sees what his Father is doing. There exists between Jesus, the Father’s Son, and the Father, the Son’s Father, an immediate contemporaneous awareness of one another such that what the Father presently does as Father the Son presently does as Son. As the incarnate Son, Jesus possesses a human filial knowledge of his Father such that he humanly enacts what his Father is doing. This unity of action is so close that to behold the works of the Son is to behold the works of the Father, for the Father himself is working through, with, and in the human actions of his Son. The work being enacted is one human act, but it is the perichoretic act enacted by the incarnate Father’s Son and so in communion with the act of the Son’s Father. This communion of contemporaneous “seeing” and this unity of simultaneous “acting” between Jesus and his Father signals an eternal divine ontological bond of being—the Father and the Son “see” and “act” as one within the economy of salvation because they eternally exist as the one and same God.18 Moreover, Jesus’ declaration that “the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing,” while directly bearing upon the Incarnation, also possesses a divine ontological foundation.19 The Father’s love for his incarnate 18.  Later, Jesus will even more clearly express the singular perichoretic working relationship between himself and his Father. “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves” (Jn 14:10–11). Jesus’ works bear witness to his words—that he, as Son, and his Father mutually dwell in one another (see also Jn 10:38). 19.  Earlier, Jesus states, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand” (Jn 3:35). That the Father gives all things to his Son is also found in Matthew. In this “Johannine-

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

193

Son flows from within the ontological divine unity that he shares with his Son. His eternal divine paternal love motivates the Father to keep nothing from his incarnate Son, and so he shows his Son all of his salvific work. Similarly, the reciprocal human filial love of the incarnate Son for his Father provokes him to do no salvific work apart from his Father, and this incarnate filial love for his Father also flows from within the ontological divine unity he shares with his Father—his eternal filial love for the Father who begot him. Thus what is portrayed between the Father and his incarnate Son within the economy of salvation is the living enacted icon of what is eternally enacted between them as the one God. The Father, in eternally speaking his Word, lovingly gives to his Word the totality of the divine truth that he himself is, and thus the totality of all that the Father does. If the eternal Word did not possess the totality of the Father’s truth, and thus the totality of who the Father is, the Word would not be the Father’s Word that enacts all that the Father does.20 Likewise, the Father, in eternally begetting his Son, lovingly gives his Son the divine totality of who he is as Father, and thus the totality of all that the Father does. If the eternal Son did not possess the totality of the Father’s divine being, and thus the totality of who the Father is, the Son would not be the Father’s Son who enacts all that the Father does. Also, the above contains the concomitant reciprocal response of the Word/Son. The Word, having been lovingly given the fullness of truth, lovingly reflects perfectly the being of the Father as the Father’s Son, and so lovingly enacts perfectly all that the Father is and does. Here we must more clearly examine the nature of the love that rises up and reciprocally flows between the Father and the Son as the one God. Now, love, as just articulated, is the impetus or enticement that mutually impels the Father to show his incarnate Son all that he does and for the incarnate Son to do all that the Father shows him that he is doing. From within a finite earthly perspective, love is a virtue that binds together two persons. Within God, however, love cannot be a virtue accidental to his nature but must be constitutive of his very being. Thus the divine foundation for the loving Father to show his earthly incarnate Son all that he does and for the loving Son to enact humanly, in communion with his Father, all that the Father shows him must be ontological in nature. Given that the one God is eternally constituted in the Father and the Son loving one another, the love that they share must sounding” passage, Jesus declares, “All things have been delivered over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). 20.  Because the Father is fatherhood fully in act and the Son is sonship fully in act, who they are and what they do are one and the same singular divine act.

194

Chapter 6

also be ontologically, and not accidentally, constitutive of who they are, and so must possess, like them, an ontological subjective identity. This is obviously the Holy Spirit. As the Father lovingly begets his Son in the love of the Holy Spirit, so the Son, begotten in the paternal love of the Father, filially loves his begetting Father in the same love of the Holy Spirit. The ontological identity of the Holy Spirit is that of being love itself, the absolute paternal love that impels the loving Father to beget his Son—giving to him all that is divinely his to give, his entire divine being, the entire Truth of who he is. Equally, the ontological identity of the Holy Spirit is that of being love itself, the absolute filial love that impels the loving Father’s Son to give himself completely to his begetting Father—the giving of himself as the full true image of the Father’s Truth, all that the Father is. It may appear that we have wildly strayed off into theological speculation, but the above is the Trinitarian foundation for understanding that because the Father loves his incarnate Son in the Holy Spirit, he so shows him everything that he is doing. Only if there is an eternal “begetting” in the love of the Holy Spirit and so an eternally “showing” in love can there be an earthly “love” and “showing” and “doing” in the Holy Spirit. And only if there is an eternal being “begotten” in the love of the Holy Spirit and an eternal being “shown” in love can there be an earthly loving enactment of the Father’s shown works by the Father’s loving incarnate Son. What is eternally enacted within the Trinity is now replicated by the Trinity on earth—for our salvation. The Father performs his saving acts through, with, and in his incarnate Son in communion with their mutually reciprocating love that is the Holy Spirit.21 21. What I have argued in the above also finds its warrant in what John proclaims in his First Letter. “He who does not love does not know God; for God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). God’s very nature is defined by love. “Love” is ontologically constitutive of his very being. Moreover, while John is addressing his human readers, what he says would also apply to the eternal Son—even more so. The Son, as the Father’s Word, completely comprehends his Father and so completely loves his Father. For John, furthermore, to abide in love is to abide in God and he in us, and the cause of this mutual abiding in love is the indwelling Holy Spirit (see 1 Jn 4:13–16). Again, the Father and Son abide in one another because they mutually abide in the love that is the Holy Spirit. The one God is love because the inner life of the Trinity exudes, is defined by, the Holy Spirit love of the Father for his Son and the Holy Spirit love of the Son for his Father. What is then effected within human beings, their lovingly abiding in the Father in union with Jesus his Son through the communion of the Holy Spirit, replicates and is founded upon the ontological constitution of the Trinity—the Father and Son abiding in one another in and through the reciprocal love of the Holy Spirit. This understanding of the Trinity will be further addressed as we examine future passages in John’s Gospel. I also treat the interrelationship of the divine persons in the Trinity from within the Synoptics in JBJ 1, chap. 6. For a fuller argumentation of my understanding of the Trinity, see my The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

195

This Trinitarian intimacy is what is enacted when the man Jesus enacts his name—YHWH-Saves. Jesus concludes his statement on his always doing the works that his Father lovingly shows him by stating, “and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.” We have so far seen three fatherly works, three signs that Jesus has performed, though John has alluded to the fact that there are many others. Greater works, other than these, the Father will show Jesus his Son—works that Jesus will in turn perform. These greater Father-shown works will reveal even more clearly that Jesus is the Father’s Son. Moreover, Jesus will enact these greater paternal works in order that those who see them will marvel even more than they do now. This enhanced “marveling” will elicit profounder faith in some, but because Jesus is now speaking to the recalcitrant “Jews,” they will marvel even more in disbelief. Jesus next states what these more marvelous works will be. Giving Life and Judging For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has eternal life; he does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life. We must first observe what may be most obvious and yet overlooked. Jesus speaks exclusively of “the Father” and “the Son.” He does not speak of “God.” By speaking of “the Father” and “the Son,” Jesus is highlighting their divine perichoretic relationship and so their oneness as God. Second, this mutual divine equality is accentuated by the divine prerogatives that the Father bestows upon the Son. “As the Father raises from the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” The Father is the author of all being and life, and so his only begotten Son, through whom the Father created all, equally gives life (see Jn 1:3–4).22 Within the Old Testament, God alone possesses such divine power. “See now that I, even I, am he, and 22.  Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, referring to what God had said to Abraham, states, “ ‘I have made you the father of many nations’—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom 4:17; see also 2 Cor 1:9).

196

Chapter 6

there is no god besides me; I kill and I make alive” (Dt 32:39).23 The Son now shares in the same divine life-giving power as his Father and so is equal to his Father. Similarly, “the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.” Again, within the Old Testament, ultimate judgment is reserved to God alone, either by way of acquittal or condemnation (see Dt 32:36 and Ps 43:1). Divine judgment resides now not only in the Father but also in the Son, and the reason that the Father has given this divine prerogative to the Son is that “all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.”24 If in the past people honored God, for in him resided the irrevocable authority to judge the deeds of all, so the Father has now bestowed this power to judge upon the Son so that he too might be honored as the Father is honored. Equal judicial honor now belongs both to the Father and to the Son, for both are equally God—“The Lord is just in all his ways” (Ps 146:17). Thus Jesus concludes that “he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” The unbelieving Jews assert that they, as children of Abraham, “honor” the one God who is their father while not accepting Jesus as the Father’s Son (see Jn 8:39–42). Such is no longer acceptable to the Father, for in sending his Son into the world so as to become man, he is revealing the glory of his only begotten Son, and in so doing he is demanding that his Son be honored as he himself is honored. Thus not to honor the Father’s Son is to dishonor the Son’s Father.25 Third, we saw a twofold interrelationship when examining Jesus’ statement that the Father lovingly shows him all that he does—the eternal loving bestowal within the Trinity and the earthly loving bestowal within the economy of salvation. The same is evident now in what Jesus presently states. The Father, in 23.  See also 1 Sm 2:6, 2 Kgs 5:7, Tb 13:2, Is 26:19, and Dn 12:2. 24.  In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter declares that the Apostles are commissioned to preach the Gospel “and to testify that he [Jesus] is the one ordained to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42; see also 17:31). 25.  In his First Letter, John similarly states, “Who is the liar but he who that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 Jn 2:22–23). Because the Father and Son are ontologically related as Father and Son, and so the one God, to deny the Son is to deny the Father who begot him. To confess the Son is to intrinsically confess the Father, for he is the Father’s Son. Moreover, to believe in Jesus is to “abide in the Son and in the Father” and so obtain “eternal life” (1 Jn 2:24–25). Thus, for John, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God” (1 Jn 4:15). To abide in Jesus, the Son, through faith and baptism, is to abide mutually with his Father. For John, the antichrist is ultimately the one who denies the Incarnation of the Father’s Son. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 Jn 7). Anyone who denies the Incarnation “does not abide in the doctrine of Christ” and so does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn 9).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

197

begetting his Son, has eternally bestowed upon his Son the divine ability to give life. If the Son did not have the equal ability to give life as does his Father, he would not be the perfect filial image of his Father. Similarly, if the Son, as the eternal Word of the Father, did not have the equal divine judicial authority to judge as does the Father, he would not be the Father’s Word, for he would not possess the equal righteous judgment as the Father. From within this eternal inner divine relationship the earthly incarnational expression flows. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, possesses the divine ability to give life and to judge, and the divine Son exercises this ability not simply as God but now salvifically as man. It is as man that the Son will give life, and it is as man that the Son will judge, for this man is Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Jesus, in professing his divine ability to give life and to judge, is accentuating his incarnate state as the Father’s Son and the saving significance of his incarnate name. The humanity, the sarx of the Father’s Son, is of ultimate saving value. The Father desires that all honor be given to Jesus his incarnate Son, and this is the greater marvel that all will come to see. Having provided the theological basis for his divine power to give life and to judge, Jesus now emphatically declares. The Father’s Testimony within His Son’s Work Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Here we find a unique (peculiar) causal logic. Hearing the word that Jesus speaks, as the incarnate Word, does not demand that one believe him but requires that one believe the Father who sent him. The word that Jesus presently speaks, as the Word, is that he is doing the works of his Father. The miraculous signs are “the word” that Jesus, as the Word, truly “speaks.” The signs are revelatory words in act. His human words simply point to the real “words” that are the signs, and the signs make present, enact, the works of his Father.26 What they reveal is that he was sent by the Father as the Father’s Son. Thus to acknowledge that Jesus does the works of his Father is not simply to believe that he is the Father’s Son, but ultimately to believe the Father who sent 26.  As seen within John’s Prologue, to be God’s Word is not to be understood as a literal “spoken word” but God’s enactment of the full truth of who he is as God. The Word as Word is the truth of God fully in act, the act that replicates or enacts the full divinity of who God is. Similarly, the Son is Sonship fully in act, for he is the enacted perfect filial image of the Father. Thus Jesus’ signs are human enacted human “words” of the divine Word, which manifest that Jesus is the Father’s Son.

198

Chapter 6

him. The “doing” of the Father’s works is the Father’s testimony that Jesus is the Father’s Son. To disregard Jesus’ works as those of his Father is not to believe the Father, for the works that Jesus does are, in themselves, the Father’s witness that he sent his Son to do his saving works. Jesus’ enactment of the salvific signs is the Father himself professing, testifying, that Jesus is his incarnate Son. Moreover, to believe the Father—that is, to believe the Father’s testimony that Jesus does his works—is to possess “eternal life.” Why? The reason is that Jesus, in performing the Father’s works, is re-creating humankind—he is doing the work of his Father’s forgiveness of sin and his Father’s re-birthing work that will conclude in his baptizing those who believe in the Holy Spirit so as to be reborn anew into eternal life. Because one believes the Father’s testimony that Jesus’ works are truly his works, one does “not come into judgment”—that is, one is not condemned—but rather one “has passed from death to life.” The supreme greater shown work of the Father, a work that will elicit even greater marvel, is Jesus’ own passing over from death to life. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is himself the Father’s new Passover, for he, as the Father’s new high priest, will enact the efficacious saving sacrifice that is the offering of himself to his Father. The effect of this efficacious salvific work is the Father gloriously raising Jesus from the dead. This salvific work, this efficacious dying that literally gives rise to a new creation, a rebirth into eternal life, will be the Father’s consummate testimony that Jesus is his Son. To believe this Fatherly testimony and so to believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son in whom is found the Father’s salvation, is for one to pass over, in union with the Paschal Jesus, from death to life—to pass over from sin into the righteous presence of the Son’s Father.27 Hearing the Voice of the Son of Man Jesus continues to elucidate the greater Fatherly works that he will perform, works that will prompt even greater marvel. Jesus declares:

27.  What must also be kept in mind within the above theological exposition is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, as the incarnate Father’s Son, possesses, as witnessed in his baptism, the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. The Father, in pouring out his Spirit of Sonship, empowered Jesus to do his Fatherly works, and the doing of his Fatherly works is the Father’s reciprocal testimony that Jesus is his Messianic Son, the one upon whom the Spirit remains (see Jn 1:32–34). Having enacted the Father’s supreme salvific work in dying, the Father raises up Jesus into the fullness of new Spirit-filled life. In so doing, the Father empowers the risen Jesus to baptize all who believe in him with the same Spirit that he possessed from all eternity as the Father’s Son and that he likewise possesses as the Father’s risen incarnate Son. For the risen Jesus to baptize in the Holy Spirit is, then, the Father’s perpetual confession that Jesus is his Spirit-filled Son.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

199

Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. Here Jesus provides the practical salvific implications of what he said earlier concerning the greater further works that the Father will give him to do— that as the Father raises the dead so will the Son give life, and that the Father has given the Son authority to judge. The hour of doing these greater works is both coming and present. Jesus’ present Fatherly works both manifest the present eschatological hour that now is and prophetically prelude the future eschatological hour of their fulfillment. What is present and future is that the dead will hear the human voice of the Son of God and so come back to life. (I will develop the theological understanding and significance of this twofold eschatology in due course.) Jesus now states more explicitly why this is the case. The Father is named Father precisely because he has life in himself. He is therefore the source of all life. In begetting his Son, the Father has granted to the Son life in himself. If the Son is not given life in himself as the Father himself has life, the Son would not be the perfect enacted image of the Father—he, as the Father’s Son, would not be God as the Father is God.28 In giving self-possessing life to his Son, the Father, moreover, has bestowed upon his Son the authority to execute judgment “because he is the Son of man.” Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, is the Son of man, and as such he is empowered to judge. The causal logic present here is that, in becoming man, the Son of God will perform those actions by which humankind is re-created and so justified. But this being re-created in holiness only pertains to those who have faith in Jesus as the Father’s messianic Son. Thus judgment rightly accrues to Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son, as the Son of man, for it was as man that the Son achieved salvation, and only through faith in him is salvation obtained. This is why Jesus stated at the onset of his teaching that “the Son gives life to whom he wills.” Jesus wills, and so judges, to give life only to those who have faith in him as the Father’s Son because only those who have faith in him (and are baptized by him in the Holy Spirit) are 28.  In his Prologue, John declares that “in him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men” (Jn 1:4).

200

Chapter 6

re-created unto holiness of life. Those without faith are rightly condemned for they willfully persist in the throes of sin and death.29 Jesus’ giving of life and his ability to judge may appear to be marvelous, yet Jesus, as if contradicting himself, declares, “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” This stress accentuates what was previously implied. All of the tomb-bound dead will hear Jesus’ voice and come forth at his command. Jesus, however, as the divine giver of life, will raise only the good to eternal life. As the divine judge, he will raise the bad to condemnation. Thus these deeds may appear to be marvelous, yet one should not marvel at them because they are done by the Father’s incarnate saving Son and are therefore well within his divine competence. The Hour Is Coming and Now Is: Seeing and Hearing Here we must pause to examine more closely the eschatological meaning of Jesus’ words that “the hour is coming and now is.”30 Jesus initially declares that “the hour is coming and now is” in relation to the dead hearing the voice of the Son of God, and says that those who do hear it “will live.” Shortly thereafter, he again states that “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth.” There resides within this saying both a present and future eschatology. What we perceive in this saying is a twofold hearing that corresponds to the twofold eschatology. This 29.  The above is in keeping with a vision that Daniel narrates. “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there was presented one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Dn 7:13–14; see also 7:22 and 12:2). God the Father has given to the heavenly/ divine son of man all dominion, and within that dominion the son of man has the ruling authority to judge (see Mt 25:31 and Lk 21:36). For a fuller exposition of the title “Son of man,” see JBJ 1:225–27. 30.  Jesus employed this phrase once before. When the Samaritan woman asked where is the proper place to worship, Jesus responded that “the hour is coming and now is, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth for such the Father seeks to worship him” (Jn 4:19–23). In order to worship the Father properly, one needs to possess the Spirit of truth, the Spirit that reveals that Jesus is the Father’s Son. Through faith and baptism, one comes to live in Jesus and so possesses the Spirit that empowers one to worship the Father in Christ—to worship in spirit and truth. This proper understanding of worshipping the Father is in keeping with what Jesus is now teaching—the need to participate in “the hour,” that is, “the hour that is coming and now is”—“the hour” of new life in him.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

201

twofold eschatological hearing is also founded upon the twofold meaning of Jesus’ miraculous signs—the shown works of his Father. This latter twofold meaning demands a further explanation. Thus far within John’s Gospel, Jesus has worked three of his seven signs— the changing of water into wine at Cana, the healing of the official’s son, and the curing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda. The Gospel has emphasized that through these signs the glory of Jesus is “seen,” and this “seeing” elicits faith in those who “saw” them. With regards to his greater work of giving of life, Jesus now emphasizes the importance of “hearing.” The entombed dead will “hear” his voice and rise to life. Such a work will cause greater “marvel” among those who see it. For Jesus, although the sign is “seen” and so his glory is revealed, one must also “hear” what the seen sign is saying and so grasp the meaning of his revealed glory. What the seen sign is saying and what must be heard by those who see the signs is that Jesus, through his signs, is calling all the dead to newness of life and not to judgment.31 Within his present teaching, Jesus is pausing to instruct his listeners (or John is pausing to instruct his readers through Jesus’ teaching) to look back to the signs he has already performed and to be alert 31.  Returning to the healed paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, the occasion from which sprang all that has followed, he “saw” the “sign” (he himself now is the “sign”), for Jesus exhorted him, “See, you are well!” Yet, in accordance with my criticism of him, he did not “hear” what the sign was “saying”—ironically he did not hear what he himself, as the embodied sign, was saying. Jesus, and not the waters of the pool, is the true source of healing and life. The healed man never “marveled” in faith. Thus Jesus’ ill-omened remark: “Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.” The “worse” that could befall the man is Jesus’ condemnatory judgment founded upon his resumption of sin. In addition, within the Synoptics, Jesus emphasizes the need of having ears that hear (see, e.g., Mt 11:15 and 13:9; Mk 4:9 and 4:23; and Lk 8:8). This hearing often has to do with perceiving the truth of what Jesus is saying. At the conclusion of his parable of the sower, Jesus remarks, “He who has ears, let him hear” (Mt 13:9; see also Mk 4:9 and Lk 8:8). To have ears that correctly hear the message of the sower is to hear with committed and firm faith the word Jesus speaks so as to reap the fullness of life—the hundred, the sixtyfold, and the thirtyfold. Thus there is a similarity between what Jesus says in John’s Gospel and what he says within the Synoptics—“hearing” the true meaning of Jesus’ signs and parables and faithfully acting upon the truth that they contain is to obtain eternal life. Interestingly, within the Book of Revelation, the refrain that concludes what is written to the seven churches is often: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (see Rv 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13, and 3:22). Significantly, the Spirit’s word that one is to hear is the words that Jesus is speaking to each of the churches and what he is doing and will do in each of the churches. In other words, just as one must interpret correctly Jesus’ works similar to interpreting correctly his miracle signs within John’s Gospel, so also must one interpret correctly Jesus’ works. Moreover, to hear what Jesus is saying through his Gospel signs is to grasp that he is giving new life, and to hear correctly what the Spirit is saying to the churches is to grasp that Jesus desires to give these churches life, even though they may presently be unfaithful in various ways.

202

Chapter 6

to the greater works he is yet to do. All the previous three signs pertain to the giving of new life—the rebirth into the abundant eternal life of the Holy Spirit given within baptism.32 The remaining four miracle signs will further develop this theme of re-creation and newness of life—the multiplication of the loaves, the stilling of the storm, the healing of the blind man, and the culminating sign of raising the entombed Lazarus, who hears Jesus’ voice and comes forth and lives. The revelatory message of all of these seen signs must be heard. Jesus, as the Father’s messianic incarnate Son, is calling all sinful human beings, who are entombed in death, to the abundant wellspring of eternal life—the Holy Spirit. Only in truly “seeing” the signs and “hearing” their message will one come to faith and so obtain what the signs signify—newness of life in Jesus.33 At this point we are now able to define who are the dead and who are the living, and the manner in which they are dead and alive. In discerning the dead and the living, and the manner of their death and life, we will then be able to define “the hour” that “is coming and now is.” All human beings, because of sin, are dead—they do not share in God’s divine life and so they suffer sin’s consequence, physical death. Within this fallen state, there is now a twofold sequential “hearing” of the Son’s life-giving voice. First, there is an initial “hearing” of Jesus’ voice contained with the miraculous signs. If people see the signs and so behold Jesus’ glory (both Jesus’ contemporaries and most of all future generations), and if they hear the message that the signs proclaim (hear the voice of Jesus) and so come to faith in him as the Father’s Spirit-filled incarnate Son, they will be born anew in the Holy Spirit. In baptism, they will come forth from their death-entombed flesh and rise into the new abundance of eternal life. This faith/baptismal transformation is the “now hour,” the eschatological hour that “is,” when those dead in sin will hear the voice of Jesus and live. Second, having been subsumed, through faith and baptism, into the present eschatological hour that now is, those who physically die and are entombed, having remained faithful, will at the end of time hear the voice of Jesus and come forth from their tombs, rising to share fully in Jesus’ own risen glory. This is the “not yet hour,” the eschatological hour that is still to come. Moreover, those who refuse to believe in Jesus as the Father’s Son, 32. One also needs to include Jesus’ corresponding and related baptismal teaching to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. 33.  As the Son of God incarnate, Jesus performs his Father’s works of re-creation. Also, being the Word of God incarnate, these works speak the meaning, the truth that Jesus is the Father’s Son. Thus, as the Father first created all through his Word, so the Word of God now re-creates all as the Father’s incarnate Son—the Father’s acts of re-creation testify that Jesus is his Son, the Word of God incarnate. The human voice, the words that the dead hear, are therefore spoken by the Father’s eternal Word, his incarnate Son.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

203

having never arisen through baptism into the present eschatological hour, will be judged condemned at the coming of the future final eschatological hour. Thus Jesus’ miraculous signs are a prophetic manifestation of and a prophetic prelude to the present eschatological hour, as well as a signified portending of the culminating eschatological hour. The signs are enacted testimonies to both the hour that “is coming” and the hour that “now is.”34 Moreover, the pivotal “hour” that is both coming and now is, within John’s Gospel, is the “hour” of Jesus’ death and resurrection—the Pascal Mystery. Within this paschal “hour,” sin finds its forgiveness on the cross, and the re-creation of humankind rises up when the entombed Jesus, having shed his sinscarred sarx, is born anew unto eternal life. Although presently, within the Gospel narrative, this “hour” is yet to arrive, that “hour” is nonetheless imminent, and it has been since the miracle sign at the wedding feast of Cana. All that Jesus does from that “hour” on is an extension, a continuous enactment of “the hour” that finds its cumulative and definitive enactment in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Within that conclusive “hour” the eschatological “hour” that “now is” comes to be, and the eschatological “hour” that is yet to “come” finds the enacted pledge of its future arrival. Moreover, if this forgiving and life-giving “hour” is the definitive eschatological “hour” that “is coming and now is,” it is also the decisive eschatological “hour” of judgment, an adjudication that is “coming and now is.” Those who on earth marvel in faith at Jesus’ salvific death and resurrection are judged righteous in the hour that now is, for they presently abide in the all-holy risen Jesus. When in their tombs at the end of time, they “hear his [Jesus’] voice,” and having “done good,” they will rise “to resurrection of life.” To abide in the risen Jesus here on earth through the indwelling Holy Spirit is the warrant and guarantee that one will abide fully with him before his Father’s throne in heaven.35 Those on earth, however, in the hour that now is, who have refused 34.  The raising of Lazarus, as the summary enacted sign of all the previous six, clearly signifies this twofold eschatology. Jesus “cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out’ ” (Jn 11:43). In hearing Jesus’ voice, Lazarus, in his very person, signifies both the initial rebirth, the first calling forth, into newness of life that is found in faith and baptism, the hour that now is, as well as its fulfillment, the final calling forth, at the end of time, the hour that is yet to come. Thus he is literally the living embodiment that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” If one believes in Jesus and is baptized into newness of life (the “hour” that is), that person will live even though he dies (the “hour” that is to come) (see Jn 11:25–26 and also Eph 2:1). 35.  Paul emphatically expresses this same truth. “In him [Jesus] you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Eph 1:13–14; see also 1 Cor 1:22).

204

Chapter 6

to believe are now doomed in their unbelief. So, when in their tombs at the end of time, they too will “hear his voice,” but having “done evil,” they will rise “to the resurrection of judgment.”36 Not to live in communion with the risen Jesus while on earth is itself the irrevocable judgment that one will never live with him in heaven.37 Bearing Witness to Jesus’ Sonship: John the Baptist, the Father’s Works, and Scripture At this juncture in his soliloquy, Jesus recaps what he just said and proceeds to enhance a point that he alluded to in what he has already expounded—the validity of his Father’s testimony. I can do nothing of my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; 36.  Matthew’s Gospel states that “the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Mt 16:27; see also Acts 24:15). Paul assures the Corinthians, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10). 37.  Jesus speaks of this earlier. “He who believes in him [the Son of God] is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (Jn 3:18–19). Later, Jesus will declare that when he sends the Counselor (the Holy Spirit), “he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and of judgment because the ruler of this world is judged” (Jn 16:7–11). In his First Letter, John states that the Father testifies that Jesus is his Son, “and this is the testimony, that God gave us life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” (1 Jn 5:9–11). The Father’s greatest witness that Jesus is truly his Son is that he gives us eternal life through Jesus his Son. If Jesus was not the Father’s Son, the Father could not give eternal life through him. Lastly, in anticipation of what will come, the importance of the “I am” sayings must be noted. Beginning in chapter 6 of the Gospel, Jesus commences his “I am’ sayings, and they all pertain to his giving life—I am the bread of life; I am the light of the world; I am the gate of the sheepfold, I am the good shepherd, and I am the resurrection and the life—all of which are founded upon his being “I AM.” Thus the “I am” sayings corroborate, expand, and intensify the meaning of all of his life-giving works, all of which are prophetic enacted signs of the re-creation of humankind. Jesus will become all that he says he is, all of the “I am’s,” through his death and resurrection. In becoming who he is, Jesus will become Jesus, YHWH-Saves, for he will have enacted all of his Father’s saving works as the Father’s Son.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

205

there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true. Jesus cannot directly bear witness to himself as the Father’s Son. It is metaphysically impossible for Jesus to say, “I am the Father’s Son,” for his very being as Son, as the Father’s Word, is eternally constituted in his saying “Father” in the love that is the Holy Spirit.38 This is why, being the Father’s Son, he “does nothing on his own authority.” He only “judges” what he “hears” from his Father, and therefore his “judgment is just,” for it is not his judgment but that of his Father.39 Such judgment is just, moreover, because, as Son, he does not “seek his own will but the will of him who sent him.” Moreover, his “judging” and “willing” in accordance with him “who sent him” manifest that he is the Father’s Son, for the Father sent him to do his will and to judge in accordance with his will. If Jesus did “bear witness” to himself, that he is the Son of God, his “testimony” could not possibly be true because the true Son of the Father would, and could only, bear witness to his Father. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, reveals the Father by what he wills, through what he does, and in the manner he judges—only in revealing his Father does he reveal himself as the Father’s Son, for only one who is truly the Son is able truly to reveal the Father.40 But “there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears me is true.” Although Jesus does not name here who this is who bears him testimony as “Son,” we will know shortly it is, not surprisingly, his Father. Reciprocally, as the Son can only reveal himself as Son in revealing his Father, so the Father can only reveal himself as Father in revealing his Son. Before making this explicit, Jesus returns to the one who first gave testimony to him—John the Baptist. “You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was 38.  Later, Jesus, in response to the Jews’ accusation that he bears witness to himself, states, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true for I know whence I come or whither I am going” (Jn 8:13–14). This seeming contradiction to Jesus’ above words is reconciled in that, being the Father’s Son, his testimony is in communion with his Father’s testimony (see also verses 15–18). More will be said concerning this at the proper time. 39.  Again, Jesus continues and will continue to make the point. He obediently does only what he hears from his Father and only enacts what he sees the Father doing (see Jn 5:19, 6:38, and 8:16). 40.  This is why those who possess the Spirit of Sonship “cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ ” and do not cry out that they are children of God. “It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of the Father” (Rom 8:15–16; see also Gal 4:5–7). As the Son’s “crying out Father” testifies that he is the Father’s Son, so our crying out “Father” testifies that we are the Father’s children.

206

Chapter 6

a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.” Jesus will immediately assert that he has greater testimony than that of John—that of his works and of his Father, yet he first turns to John’s initial testimony—not for his sake but for the sake of the Jews to whom he is speaking. He reminds the Jews that they “sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem” to ask John who he was. John confessed that he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, but the one who is making a way straight “for the Lord.” John bore witness that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” More importantly at this juncture, John saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus and remain, and thus declared that “he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘he on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:19–34). Jesus recalls John’s witness for the express purpose that the Jews, while they may not believe the witness of his works, may believe John’s testimony and, in so believing his witness, be saved by believing that he is the Father’s Son who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. The Evangelist immediately has Jesus attempting to incite within the Jewish leaders an even greater acceptance of John’s testimony by reminding them as well that “he was a burning and shining lamp”; one in whom they were “willing to rejoice for a while in his light.” Nowhere, however, is it said that the Jewish leaders saw John as “a burning and shining lamp” or that they willingly for a time rejoiced in his presence. Those Jews who came to John for baptism may have seen him as such and so rejoiced, but not their leaders.41 Either Jesus is attempting to instill into the Jewish leaders a proper response to John the Baptist, attributing to them how they should have responded to John and so in turn respond to Jesus. Or the Evangelist has put words into Jesus’ mouth in order to entice his present Jewish readers, and all readers, to believe John’s testimony for the sake of their own salvation. What the Evangelist recognizes, either in Jesus’ own words or in the words that he has given to Jesus, is that what Jesus says about John the Baptist reveals who he is in relation to the Baptist. Ironically and fascinatingly, Jesus (or John through Jesus) is providing a theological commentary on the Evangelist’s Prologue. 41.  Interestingly, within Matthew’s Gospel, when John the Baptist sees the pharisees and the Sadducees coming for baptism, he called them a “brood of vipers” and warned them to “bear the fruit that befits repentance” (Mt 3:7–10). In Luke’s Gospel, John speaks these same words “to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him.” Within his narrative “the multitudes,” “tax collectors,” and “soldiers” ask what they must do to manifest true repentance, but there is no mention of the pharisees or Sadducees asking what they must do (Lk 3:7–15). The reason is that the pharisees and Sadducees are convinced in their self-righteousness that they are in no need of repentance.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

207

The Prologue declares that the Word is he in whom there is “life,” and this “life” was “the light of men.” The Word’s life of light “shines in the darkness,” and “the darkness” has not overcome it. The Baptist came precisely “to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.” But neither “the world” nor “his own people” knew him or received him. Those who did receive him, by believing “in his name,” became “children of God” (Jn 1:5–13). So what Jesus is now declaring is that, since the Jewish leaders themselves recognized the Baptist as “a bright and shining lamp” in whom they rejoiced for a time, they should therefore see him (Jesus) as the source of that lamp’s light, for he is the life of light. By believing in Jesus, the life of light, they can become saved children of God. The Jews may have rejoiced in John “for a while,” but if they believe in Jesus, their joy can be complete, for it is an eternal joy (see Jn 15:11). The Baptist, then, is simply the lamplight that highlights the true light.42 To enjoy truly for a time the light of the lamp is to enjoy eternally the life that is the eternal light. Nonetheless, the testimony that Jesus now possesses “is greater than John’s; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father sent me.”43 The saving works that Jesus performs testify that he is the Father’s Son, for they are the Father’s works that he is doing. Thus the salvific works that Jesus does primarily bear witness to the Father, for they are the Father’s saving works. Since they are the Father’s saving works that Jesus is enacting, they reciprocally bear witness that he is the Father’s Son, he whom the Father sent, for only he who is the Father’s Son could enact the Father’s works. Therefore “the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.” Though the Father, who sent him, has born witness to Jesus as his Son, the Jewish leaders have never heard his voice nor seen his form, and they therefore do not have his word within them because they do not believe in Jesus whom the Father has sent.44 Jesus is here articulating the truth of the Incarnation. Human beings are incapable of hearing God, for God does not possess a human voice such that human beings could hear him. (We will see shortly 42.  Ps 132:17 declares: “I have prepared a lamp for my anointed.” 43.  Jesus will reiterate this same point in Jn 10:25. 44.  In the Book of Deuteronomy, God reminds the Israelites that when they stood before him at Horeb, they heard his voice “but saw no form; there was only a voice” (Dt 4:12; see also Dt 4:15).

208

Chapter 6

that Jesus speaks of the Scriptures that contain God’s word—the history of his revealing acts and the divine word humanly spoken by the prophets.) Moreover, human beings cannot see God’s “form” because, being immaterial, his form, the manner of his existence as He Who Is, cannot be seen. Latent within Jesus’ words, however, is the truth that Jesus has heard God’s “voice” and has seen God’s “form.” As God’s eternal Word, Jesus is the incarnate embodiment of God’s voice. Being God’s incarnate Word, Jesus is the incarnate Voice of God. To hear the human voice of Jesus is to hear the human voice of God. Similarly, while no human being has ever seen God, “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). As the Father’s Son, Jesus is therefore the incarnate embodiment of his Father’s form, that is, who he is as God.45 Being the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus is the incarnate Icon of the Father. To see the human man Jesus is to see the human face of the Father.46 The problem is that the Jewish leaders do not have God’s “word abiding” in them because they “do not believe him [Jesus, the incarnate Word] whom he [the Father] has sent [his Son as incarnate].” Only through faith in Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, does one abide in the Father’s Word—the truth and life that resides in God. This reality is what Jesus next expresses. “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The Old Testament contains the life-giving works and words of God, and so the Jews rightly search them so that they may understand God’s mighty saving deeds and obey his life-giving words. Yet they do not grasp that what God has done and said throughout their covenanted history is a historical preparation for and a prophetic anticipation of Jesus. They refuse to perceive that the Scriptures, upon which they rely for salvation, bear witness to Jesus. In their faithless ignorance the Jews do not come to him who is truly the one who can provide what they seek—eternal life. Seeking the Father’s Glory At this point, Jesus addresses the issue of seeking glory. I do not receive glory from men. But I know that you have not the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you 45.  In the Philippian hymn, Paul declares that though Christ Jesus “was in the form of God,” he “did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:5–7). 46.  Jesus will later tell Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” The reason is that “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (Jn 14:9–10).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

209

do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory of that comes from the only God? Jesus, as the Father’s Son, seeks only to glorify his Father, and in glorifying his Father, he himself is glorified, for the Father reciprocally glorifies him. But the Jewish leaders manifest that they do not love God because, unlike Jesus who loves his Father, they do not seek in love to glorify God nor do they seek God to glorify them. They seek instead to receive glory from one another. Their idolatrized self-seeking glory displays a selfish love rather than a love for “the only God.”47 Thus, even though Jesus has come—not in his own name but in the name of his Father and so seeks not his own glory but the glory of his Father—the Jews do not receive him (see Jn 1:11). They prefer to receive those who like themselves come in their own name in search of their own glory. With this deviant all-consuming mindset of self-seeking glory, it is impossible to believe in Jesus who seeks only the glory of “the only God.”48 Jesus is nonetheless not the one to accuse them. “Do not think I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” It was with Moses that God made a covenant, and it was to Moses that God gave his commands. The salvific hope of the Jews was in keeping God’s covenant and commands, yet they forgot that such a covenant and commands were prophetically provisional. Of this future-projected hope Moses wrote, and if the Jewish leaders believed what he prophetically wrote, they would believe in Jesus, for it was of him that Moses wrote.49 Sadly, the Jews only hoped in the past works and words of God and forgot their future fulfillment. In so doing they are not able to believe Jesus’ words—the future hope made present.50 47.  In his First Letter, John states, “Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him” (1 Jn 2:15). 48.  John later notes that many of the Jewish authorities believed in Jesus, but because of fear of the pharisees, they do not confess it “lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (Jn 12:42–43). 49. God prophesied through Moses that he would raise up a prophet like himself from among Israelites, “and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him” (Dt 18:18–19). 50.  When Moses finished writing the words of the law, he commanded, “Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are” (Dt 31:26–27).

210

Chapter 6

Here Jesus’ lengthy uninterrupted defense of and justification for doing his Father’s works ends abruptly. The Evangelist does not narrate what his Jewish critics thought or how they reacted. What will become evident is that this was only the opening skirmish of what will be an ongoing encounter between the unbelieving Jewish leaders and Jesus—an ensuing confrontation that will lead to his death—a battle lost but a victory won. Conclusion: Reweaving the Theological Threads I have attempted in this chapter to interpret the various theological threads within Jesus’ lengthy soliloquy and the sign that precipitated it. By way of conclusion, I want to reweave these revelatory strands in order to display the theological tapestry in its entirety. Only in reweaving all of the various threads do they display their full theological vibrancy. With the healing of the man at the pool at Bethesda, Jesus performs his final miracle sign that bears upon baptism—at least for the time being. That Jesus worked this sign on the Sabbath triggers what will become an ongoing confrontation with the unbelieving Jews. This Sabbath miracle in turn provides Jesus the opportunity, within his ensuing soliloquy, to defend his action and to offer a theological interpretation of his signs. The works that Jesus enacts are the works that his loving Father has given him to perform. These acts, then, are salvific because they lead to eternal life. Thus far in the Gospel narrative, the obtaining of eternal life has focused on the ever lengthening and thickening of the theological thread of baptism—beginning with the changing of water into wine and progressing through Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, the healing of the official’s son, and presently in healing the paralytic. Jesus provides the healing water of baptism by which one is born anew into the abundant wellspring of eternal life that is the Holy Spirit. These baptismal signs manifested Jesus’ glory as the Father’s Son and so, except for the pool-bound paralytic, elicited faith in those who saw them. Moreover, at this juncture, Jesus emphasizes that the message inherent in these seen signs, and the more marvelous signs yet to be performed, must also be heard. Only in “hearing” in faith the truth contained in the seen signs will one obtain eternal life, for the message of the seen signs is that it is in Jesus himself that one obtains the new eternal life of the Holy Spirit.51 Only those who hear in faith the voice of Jesus, the Father’s 51.  Though baptism is presently emphasized as the means of gaining eternal life, Jesus will shortly speak in terms of the Eucharist as the supreme partaking in eternal life—the consuming of his own risen body and blood.

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

211

incarnate Word, will rise from their tomb-bound death, spiritually and physically, for they will have passed from death to life. Those who hear of Jesus but do not believe will be raised up to encounter his judgment. Woven within Jesus’ miracle signs, seen signs that must be heard, and the theological thread of new life in baptism, which the seen signs signify and of which speak, there is also the theological thread that Jesus’ miracle signs testify to his relationship with his Father. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, only does what he hears from his Father, and he only enacts what he sees his Father doing. Jesus, the Father’s Son, always “sees” and “hears,” and so “does” in a filial manner. But the Father, as the initiatory speaker and doer, testifies, through the works that he has lovingly given to him, that Jesus is his Son. Thus Jesus’ human salvific works manifest the mutual divine oneness between the Father and the Son, since together they enact the same human saving acts. Moreover, in performing together the same saving acts, the Father testifies that he is the Son’s Father, and Jesus simultaneously bears witness that he is the Father’s Son. The three theological threads are now woven together. The heard-seen signs (thread one) that signify and speak of the new and eternal life obtained in baptism (thread two) are true because they testify to the co-inhering Spirit-filled salvific work of the Father and his Son (thread three). Each interwoven thread theologically illumines the brilliancy of the other two and thus enhances not only each strand but also the theological tapestry as a whole. Importantly, what binds all of these threads together is Jesus’ humanity. Because the Son of God exists as man, he is able to enact humanly the seen signs that must be heard concerning the new life obtainable through baptism. For John, the Incarnation is of the utmost salvific importance, and no aspect of that mystery can be undermined—neither Jesus’ humanity nor his divinity, for the personal identity of the man Jesus is that of the Son of God.52 52. Although Jesus’ Transfiguration is absent from John’s Gospel, I have argued that the entirety of the Gospel bears testimony to the Transfiguration, for the whole Gospel is a narrative wherein Jesus displays his glory as the Father’s Son. Moreover, Peter’s profession of faith, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is also lacking even though John professes that he wrote the Gospel expressly to engender that very faith (see Jn 20:31). We now recognize that it is in doing his Father’s works that Jesus manifests his glory as the Father’s Son. Thus, in observing the seen signs with the eyes of faith, we not only observe Jesus’ “transfigured glory,” but also hear with the ears of faith the voice, the meaning, of those seen signs that declares that Jesus is the Father’s Son. To see in faith the signs is to see the gloriously transfigured Jesus, and to hear in faith the message that they proclaim is to hear the voice of Peter—that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. Although all of Jesus’ miracle signs within John’s Gospel manifest this twofold reality, it is within Jesus’ death and resurrection that Jesus manifests the fullness of his glory, and that bountiful glory emphatically voices that Jesus is the Father’s Son. For an examination of the relationship between Peter’s profession of

212

Chapter 6

A fourth thread needs to be woven into this emerging tapestry—that of “the hour that is coming and now is.” The heard-seen signs that the Father and the Son are now working manifest that the hour of salvation is present, for they prophetically anticipate Jesus’ fulfillment of what the signs signify and reveal. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Father’s definitive saving work lovingly given to him, he will be empowered to baptize in the Holy Spirit those who believe that he is the Father’s Son and in so doing elevate them into eternal communion with the Father. Jesus is presently calling all from the tomb of sin’s death so as to live in the Spirit’s life. The heard-seen signs likewise prophetically anticipate that hour that is yet to come. Those who now hear Jesus’ saving voice on earth and are born anew in the Spirit will equally hear his voice when he calls them forth from their death-enclosed tombs at the end of time—the hour of his last coming. This “coming hour” will fully enact the head-seen signs, for those who abide in the Spirit and so live in Jesus, the anointed Messiah, will fully share in his risen Spirit-filled glory—abiding forever with the Son’s Father as the Father’s children. The last thread that is to be rewoven into the tapestry is that of “faith.” As seen in all of the above threads, all of Jesus’ heard-seen signs, signs that prefigure and fulfill humankind’s present and future salvation, are clarion calls to faith—faith in him as the Father’s Spirit-filled incarnate Son. Without faith, the tapestry that depicts Jesus’ works of salvation may be marvelous to behold, as Jesus said they would, but such a depiction would be incomplete. The tapestry of salvation comes to full glory only when the thread containing all of those who believe in Jesus is woven within it. The glory of the Savior resides in the glory of those whom he has saved. The Father glorifies Jesus, his incarnate Son, because he has accomplished his Father’s work—the salvation of those whom his Father has called.53 What we perceive in all of the above is Jesus’ own self-understanding of what it means for him to become Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Jesus does not emphasize his words but his actions. His words merely speak of and so direct the listener (or reader) to the salvific importance of his acts. It is in and through his saving acts that Jesus becomes Jesus. He enacts his name in enacting his Father’s salvific works. Moreover, then, there is a “now hour” to his name, for faith and the Transfiguration within the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1, chap. 7. What I discuss in that chapter provides evidence that John, in his Gospel, is writing a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition. 53.  Later within his high priestly prayer, Jesus states that he has lost none of those whom his Father has given him and prays that they would be with him where he is (see Jn 17:9, 17:12, 18:9, and 18:24).

The Incarnate Works of the Father’s Son

213

Jesus is presently saving all who believe in him and so are baptized in the Spirit by him. There is a “coming hour” to his name, for Jesus will only fully become Jesus when he comes again to save fully those who presently abide with him, the living and the dead. That “coming hour” is the Father’s final work that he has lovingly given to Jesus, his incarnate Son, to enact. Then, all the saved will share fully the Father’s Spirit of Sonship—and Jesus will have finally become Jesus. The tapestry of salvation will then be complete, for the Father will have Spirit woven all of his beloved children into Jesus his beloved Son. Here we recognize the revelatory significance of Jesus working on the Sabbath, his enacting of the seen sign whose message must be heard. By performing his Father’s work on the Sabbath, Jesus is announcing that his Father has once more recommenced his work of creation, and this re-creation is being accomplished by the same Word through whom the Father first created all that is—his now incarnate Son. This is the message that must be heard not only within this Sabbath sign but also within all of Jesus’ works. The Father’s work of re-creation through his Spirit-filled incarnate Son, a regeneration that finds its end in the risen Jesus baptizing the faithful into the reborn life of the Holy Spirit, is the all-embracing theme that holds the whole salvific tapestry together. Only when this rebirth is completed at Jesus’ coming in glory at the end of time will the Father, and all who reside with him as his Spirit-transformed children, recommence the now everlasting Sabbath rest. This Sabbath rest embraces the oneness of the Trinity—abiding in the Father through the fullness of life in Jesus, his Son, and in communion with the full love of the Holy Spirit. What we find in all of the above, in the entire chapter, is the Gospel of John articulating a theology of Jesus’ miracle signs as well as a theology of his salvific works, works prophetically signified in his miracles. In this light the concluding questions that must be asked are these: Is what Jesus says within his lengthy soliloquy his own theology of his miracle signs and so his own theology of his salvific works? Or has John placed in the mouth of Jesus his own theological understanding of Jesus’ miracle signs and so his own theology of Jesus’ salvific works? To answer these questions, I want to place them within the context of my own thesis concerning the nature of John’s Gospel. I maintain that John, within his Gospel, is providing his own theological interpretation of the one Gospel kerygmatic tradition—a tradition that finds a threefold expression within the Synoptic Gospels.54 I would argue, then, that the one Gospel kerygmatic tradition not only supports but also strongly 54.  This does not imply that John knew of or read, though he may have, any of the three other Gospels. They too give expression to the one oral Gospel tradition.

214

Chapter 6

evokes a theological understanding of Jesus’ miracle signs and his saving works as found in John’s Gospel. Thus the words that Jesus speaks within his soliloquy may not be his very own words, but rather the words that John has given to Jesus to speak. Yet John knows, because of his own contemplation of the one Gospel tradition, that the thoughts he has are nonetheless Jesus’ own understanding of his miracle signs and the saving works that he is accomplishing on behalf of his Father. John, then, because he grasps the inner mind of Jesus, allows Jesus himself to articulate the deeper revelatory significance of who he is and of what he says and does, for these are genuinely his own thoughts and understanding and not John’s. Again, while he may have never literally spoken the exact words that John narrates, Jesus did historically provide, through his miracles and saving works, the ipsissima sententia, the authentic understanding and accurate interpretation, that John has Jesus himself express. So, yes, what we have is truly Jesus’ own theology of his miracle signs and so his own theology of his salvific works, but the manner and form in which he expresses his revelatory understanding is that of the Evangelist—the beloved disciple.55 n n n

After finishing his soliloquy, John informs us that “Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased” (Jn 6:1–2). To what took place there we now turn.56

55.  This understanding is corroborated by comparing the theological significance of Jesus’ miracles as narrated in the Synoptics and those narrated within the Gospel of John. While the miracles that John narrates are, on the whole, different from those in the Synoptics, all of Jesus’ miracles, whether found in the Synoptics or in John, pertain to the overcoming of evil and the nurturing of newness of life. What John has done is make explicit within his miracle stories and in Jesus’ own “theological interpretation” of them what is theologically inherent, though latent, within all of Jesus’ miracles. Moreover, the miracles found within the Synoptics, along with their theological interpretation, are then congruent with John’s principal all-embracing theme—that the Father through his Spirit-filled incarnate Son is re-creating humankind. Such a comparison also corroborates my thesis that John, in his Gospel, is authoring his own theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition. 56.  Puzzling though not important, John informs the reader that Jesus crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, when the last the reader knew, Jesus was in Jerusalem for a feast and so nowhere near the Sea of Galilee, neither on one side nor the other. That John narrates that Jesus “went to the other side” nonetheless adds historicity to what is about to take place— John was also a part of the multitude who went to the other side with Jesus. If John had not been a part of the crossing, there would have been no point in mentioning it, for it is of no theological importance.

7 n

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

I

n previous chapters, we have seen that John’s Gospel has focused on the sacrament of baptism. Such emphasis was already intimated in the Prologue where it declared that all “who believed in his name [Jesus], he gave the power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:12–13). John the Baptist specifies that the one upon whom he saw the Spirit descend and remain, “this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit,” for “this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:33–34). For Jesus, as the Father’s Son, to baptize in the Holy Spirit is, for the person baptized, to be born of God. As Jesus later informs Nicodemus, one must be born anew of water and the Holy Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God (see Jn 3:3–7). Moreover, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that he possesses “living water” and that the water he provides “will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (Jn 4:10–14). As the baptizer in the Spirit, Jesus gives the abundance of eternal life when one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that John now turns, in chapter 6 of his Gospel, to Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist is not unanticipated. We noted that in Jesus’ very first miracle sign, the changing of an abundance of water into an abundance of wine, symbolized the seamless proceeding, the integral progression, of those baptized into the new life of the Holy Spirit to the ensuing drinking of the new wine of Jesus’ Eucharistic blood. Having completed, at least for now, his treatment of the sacramental nature of baptism and its salvific effects, John logically advances his narrative to Jesus’ teaching on the sacramental nature of the Eucharist and its salvific effects.

215

216

Chapter 7

This progression carries with it other Johannine themes. Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist will further intensify the truth that in him there is an abundance of life, for to eat his body and drink his blood is to share in his resurrected and eternal life. This in turn heightens the overarching theme that Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is about his Father’s work of re-­creating humankind. This re-creation is not simply an act he performs that brings about an effect apart from himself, but an act whereby those saved are assumed into him by partaking of him—by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The new life of the Holy Spirit that began in baptism, wherein one was born anew, finds its completion and consummate earthly expression and reality in the Eucharist, wherein one literally comes into living communion with Jesus himself, in the full reality of who he is as the resurrected Messianic (Spirit-filled) Father’s Son. Such an understanding also raises, once again, the issue of belief and unbelief—the “hard saying” that unless one eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood, one does not have eternal life. “Who can listen to it?” With the above in mind, we can now turn to the text. Multiplication of the Loaves We saw at the end of chapter 6 that Jesus, having accentuated that he does the works of his Father, “went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberius.” A multitude followed him because of the many signs he performed. Upon arrival, “Jesus went up into the hills, and there sat down with his disciples.”1 John immediately notes, “Now the Passover, the feast 1.  All Scripture passages in this section are from Jn 6:1–15 unless otherwise noted. That Jesus “went up the hill” is similar to what we find in Matthew. “Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them” (Mt 5:1–2). In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus goes up the mountain and proceeds to give “the sermon on the mount,” and in so doing he becomes the new Moses. As Moses went up the mountain to obtain the commandments of the old covenantal law, so Jesus ascended a mountain to promulgate the new covenantal law. Within John’s Gospel, Jesus went up the mountain not to give a new law, but to perform a sign that would signify that he is the new bread of life. Thus, as God gave to Moses and the people the manna from heaven, so the Father now gives us his incarnate Son as the true bread from heaven. We will see further allusions to Moses as the narrative progresses. Although Jesus may be perceived as the new Moses, it must be understood that he is so in a singular manner. As the Word incarnate, Jesus differs from Moses not simply in degree but in kind. In the Prologue the law was given through Moses, but “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Moreover, unlike Moses, only the Son has fully seen God, “who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:17–18). As we will see Moses write of Jesus, and so it is Jesus who fulfills that of which Moses wrote (see Jn 5:45–46). Also, Moses lifted up the serpent, but Jesus will actually fulfill this sign by being lifted up on the cross and so dispel all

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

217

of the Jews, was at hand.” This referencing of the Passover alerts the reader that all that will now take place must be interpreted in its light. The Passover becomes the interpretive key to who Jesus now reveals himself to be, and this revelation is located in what he does and teaches.2 Having set the scene, John informs the reader of Jesus’ initial action. “Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, ‘How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?’ This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.” Within the Synoptic accounts of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, Jesus does not “lift up” his eyes until the actual blessing of the loaves and fishes, and there the lifting up of his eyes is “to heaven” (see Mt 14:19 and parallels).3 Within John, Jesus, in lifting up his eyes, beholds the advancing multitude. In one sense, Jesus is not focusing upon his heavenly Father but upon the earthly multitude. But Jesus possesses the eyes of his Father, and so, in knowing what he was going to do, he knew that he was going to do his Father’s work. He would work his fourth miracle sign—the multiplication of the loaves and fish.4 Moreover, this paternal work will manifest the abundance of life that his heavenly Father is giving to his earthly children—the life-giving gift of Jesus himself, his incarnated Spirit-filled Son. By concentrating on the multitude, Jesus is attentive to his Father’s will—the giving of himself for the life, the re-creation, of the world.5 Within the Synoptic accounts, the disciples (in Luke, “the twelve”) alert Jesus to the present conundrum. It is evening; they are in a lonely place and there is no food. The people must therefore be sent away so that they can buy something to eat. In John, having beheld the onslaught of the multitude, Jesus poses the dilemma and, given the dire situation, asks Philip, “How are we to evil and death. Those who believe in him will gain eternal life (see Jn 3:14). Similarly, Moses is the mediator through whom God gives the bread of life, but Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, is himself the true living bread that comes down from heaven (see Jn 6:32). 2.  John consistently specifies that the Passover is a feast of the Jews as if the Gentiles also have their own Passover. Of course they do not. But Jesus himself will become the new Passover, and in so becoming, he will be the new priest and lamb of sacrifice by which all, Jews and Gentiles alike, pass over from sin and death to the newness of life, a newness that he himself will literally embody and give within his Eucharistic flesh and blood. 3.  For my theological interpretation of Synoptic accounts of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, see JBJ 1:133–39. 4.  The multiplication of the loaves and fish is the only miracle that is in all four Gospels. Within Matthew and Mark, there are two multiplications (see Mt 14:13–21 and 15:32–39; Mk 6:32–44 and 8:1–10; Lk 9:10–17). 5.  This life-giving gift of Jesus giving himself is in keeping with the Prologue—“In him was life” (Jn 1:4).

218

Chapter 7

buy bread, so that these may eat?” Again, which is historically accurate? I would think that the Synoptics are telling the story as it actually unfolded. But John’s account provides both historical detail that is absent in the Synoptics as well as the theological significance contained within the historical event as narrated by the Synoptics. Being present at the event, John informs us of Philip’s “role,” but he does so in a “non-historical” manner. Historically, it was Philip, and not the disciples (Matthew and Mark) or the twelve (Luke), who approaches Jesus and expresses his concern. Yet in forewarning Jesus of the pressing predicament, John now perceives Philip’s lack of faith in Jesus—that he could miraculously resolve it. Moreover, John himself, who also may have lacked such faith at the time, now realizes that Jesus was cognizant all along as to what he was going to do. Thus John, in order to convey both Philip’s lack of faith (and that of the disciples) and Jesus’ awareness of always doing his Father’s will, narrates the scene so as to accentuate both. To disclose Philip’s lack of faith, Jesus “tests” him by asking, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” Philip fails the “test,” for he proposes a nonmiraculous solution that is impossible to realize: “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” The “food” quandary, for Philip, is unsolvable. Moreover, the “testing” nature of the question also allows John to insert his theological interpretation—that Jesus “himself knew what he would do.” Within John’s Gospel, Jesus always knows what he is about and so is always proactive. For John, the reason for this assured assertiveness is Jesus’ ever conscious awareness of his Father’s will.6 The question remains as to why John wants to highlight Philip’s (and the disciples’) falling short because of his lack of faith in Jesus’ ability to resolve the problem at hand. As we will see throughout John 6, to believe or not to believe is the question that demands an answer. Here Philip personifies unbelief, and many will remain unbelieving at the conclusion. Yet Jesus will again, at the very end, question (test) the Apostles’ faith, to which Peter will affirm, on behalf of them all (including Philip), that they do believe (see Jn 6:67–69). While unbelief marks the opening of John 6, belief marks its closure. What is to be believed is gradually enacted and taught as the narrative progresses. Another Apostle now enters into the discussion with a seemingly unlikely solution to the absence of food. “One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, ‘There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?’ ” While Andrew wanted to be helpful, even he thought the information he had was useless. That John incorporates 6. In Gethsemane, “Jesus, knowing all that would befall him, came forward” (Jn 18:4). Equally, Jesus “went out bearing his own cross” (Jn 19:17).

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

219

Andrew’s intervention is not without historical and theological significance. First, that John, as with Philip, identifies Andrew testifies to his being present at the event. Second, that he also mentions that Andrew is Peter’s brother, something the reader already knows (see Jn 1:40), draws Peter into the event and so prepares the reader for Peter’s profession of faith at the chapter’s conclusion. Third, unlike the Synoptics, which recount in an unspecific manner that the disciples know of the presence of five loaves and two fish, Andrew tells of “a lad” who has “five barley loaves and two fish.” This specific information, given by an identified person, again adds to the historicity of the event—John is narrating what he saw and heard.7 Fourth and more importantly, that the “lad’s” loaves were made of barley is, for John, theologically telling. Second Kings speaks of a famine in the land, and Elisha the prophet came to the aid of “the sons of the prophets.” In the course of feeding them, a man came to him bringing “twenty loaves of barley.” Elisha told the man to give the loaves to the hungry men. But the man replied, “How am I to set this before a hundred men?” (Andrew’s “what are they [the barley loaves] among so many” echoes the man’s expressed skepticism.) But Elisha insisted, saying, “Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the Lord, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’ So he set it before them. And they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the Lord” (2 Kgs 4:42–44). As God, by means of a miracle, multiplied the twenty barley loaves so as to feed one hundred men, so now Jesus is about to feed thousands by multiplying five barley loaves with more left over than what was present at the onset. This multiplication in turn prophetically prefigures the abundant life contained in eating the “miraculous” bread that is the risen body of Jesus. Jesus, ignoring the unhelpful observations of Philip and Andrew, since he knew what he would do, instructs his disciples, “Make the people sit down.” This is followed by John noting that “there was much grass in that place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.”8 That there was “much grass” is not simply John’s attempt at assuring the reader that this was a great place to have a picnic. Rather, it alerts the reader that it is springtime, a time of new life, as well as reinforcing his previous comment that the Passover was approaching.9 Thus what is about to take place pertains to a fresh and ever7.  Loaves made of barley rather than of wheat were the staple of the poor. One could perceive here Jesus giving to the poor, those subjected to sin and death, the barley bread of life—his feeble, though now resurrected, flesh. 8.  The Synoptics also note that there were five thousand men, though Matthew adds that this did not include women and children (see Mt 14:21, Mk 6:44, and Lk 9:14). 9.  Mark emphasizes that the grass was “green” (see Mk 6:39).

220

Chapter 7

lasting springtime, a new age that springs forth new and eternal life. This new springtime will sprout forth because Jesus will enact the new Passover, and in so doing, he will himself become the new Passover, the new springtime (re-creation) of life. Those who participate in this new Passover—in, with, and through Jesus—will pass over from the sin and death of this world into the heavenly Spirit-filled green pastures of eternal life. Everyone having been settled upon the grass, “Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, ‘Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.’ ” John’s depiction of what Jesus said and did is very much a truncated version of what is narrated in the Synoptics. Within them, Jesus “taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied” (Mt 14:19–20; see also parallels). In the light of the later Synoptic narratives where Jesus institutes the Eucharist at the Last Supper, we find him performing the exact same actions he performed at the multiplication of the loaves. There, as in the multiplication, Jesus “took,” “blessed,” “broke,” and “gave” the bread to “the disciples” (see Mt 26:26; see also parallels). Within John’s account, Jesus only “takes” the loaves, and after he “had given thanks, he distributed them.” Why, once again, is there this discrepancy? I believe such differences reside in what the Synoptics and John each wanted theologically to achieve. The Synoptics wanted to align closely the multiplication with the Eucharistic liturgy of the Last Supper. The multiplication of the loaves is a prophetic liturgical anticipation of the Last Supper, and so a prophetic enactment of its meaning. The taken, blessed, broken, and given bread of the multiplication prefigured the taken, blessed, broken, and given body of Jesus—the blessed but broken body that Jesus would offer, give up, on the cross for the salvation of the world. Thus the multiplication for the Synoptics prefigured the Passover Last Supper, which in turn was to be the ever present liturgical enactment of Jesus’ new and everlasting covenantal Passover saving sacrifice, and so a death that would bring forth an abundance of life in his resurrection. While John must surely have been aware of this historical theological tradition as narrated within the Synoptics since he was present at the multiplication and the Last Supper, he wanted to deepen a theological truth embedded within that event, that is, that the multiplication of the loaves manifests that he is himself the abundant bread of life. Thus, for John, the multiplication prophetically anticipates and so is in preparation for Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching found later in chapter 6.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

221

Moreover, two exclusive aspects of John’s account are significant. First, unlike the accounts given in the Synoptics, Jesus here “gives thanks” (in Greek, eucharistesas). As the Father’s Son, Jesus is presently giving thanks to his Father for the miraculous multiplication. But he is also, because the multiplication prefigures the Eucharist, thanking the Father in advance for the gift of the Eucharist, that is, the gift that he himself is. When the future church celebrates the Eucharist, it is then, in union with Jesus, giving thanks to the Father for his incarnate Son, for his Son’s saving death and life-giving resurrection, and for the actual presence of his risen incarnate Son in the Eucharist itself because in him the faithful are united to the Father as his Spirit-filled children. Second, again unlike the Synoptics, Jesus, and not his disciples, distributes the bread. Historically, Jesus probably did have his disciples distribute the bread.10 (How could he alone distribute it to more than five thousand people? That in itself would require a miracle!) By having Jesus distribute the bread, John is not only manifesting that Jesus is the primary active agent, but also that the gift that he is giving, in giving the bread, is the gift of himself. Thus, within the Eucharist, Jesus completely gives himself, the total reality of who he is as the Father’s incarnate Son, under the form of bread. There is, then, no ontological distinction between the giver (Jesus) and the given (Jesus), for the bread has been ontologically transformed into Jesus himself. What we perceive here in the multiplication of the loaves is the prelude, the preparing of the reader, for Jesus’ later teaching on the Eucharist. The people were permitted to eat as much as they wanted, and when they were full, Jesus told the disciples, “ ‘Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.’ So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.”11 What John narrates here is similar to what is given in the Synoptics (see Mt 14:19–21 and parallels). While he again specifies that the loaves were made of barely, the significant phrase that is peculiar to John is “that nothing may be lost.” The collecting of the fragments was not simply an ecological cleaning up, keeping the hill tidy, but for the sake of not losing anything. But what would for Jesus, or more likely for John, be lost—the half-eaten pieces of bread tossed about by the children? While the Synoptics also tell of the clean-up, John grasps that the bread that was 10.  That Jesus has his disciples distribute the bread in the Synoptic accounts prefigures the church, which would continue to “distribute” the Eucharist to all peoples for all ages. 11.  As Jesus turned abundance of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana, so now there are twelve baskets of fragments of bread left over. As the abundance of water signified the abundant eternal life of the Holy Spirit, so the abundance of bread symbolizes the eternal abundant life within Jesus’ risen body.

222

Chapter 7

multiplied and given was sacred, for it prefigured the Eucharistic bread of Jesus’ body, and none of Jesus’ body must be lost because every fragment of his body possesses an abundance of life. Moreover, since the multiplication prefigures the church’s later Eucharistic liturgy, nothing of what prefigures that liturgy must be lost, for in a sense, what is left over is the abundant fragments that will continue to be multiplied and given until Jesus returns in glory. Again, John, through the words of Jesus, is anticipating the importance of Jesus’ forthcoming Eucharistic teaching—that Jesus is himself the bread of life and that none of the life that is eternal, none of Jesus, must be lost.12 All four Gospel accounts note that twelve baskets of fragments were collected by the disciples. While the significance of the number twelve is more evident in the Synoptics, since the twelve disciples were both “the givers” and “the collectors” of the bread, even in John’s account the twelve baskets of fragments correspond to the twelve Apostles.13 Similar to what was stated above, each Apostle is to continue to nourish the church on Jesus, who is the bread of life, and this bountiful nurturing of God’s people would continue throughout the apostolic life of the church. Within Matthew and Mark, immediately after the collection of the leftover bread, Jesus instructed his disciples to get into the boat and to proceed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, while he remained to dismiss the crowd, and then he goes up the mountain by himself to pray (see Mt 14:22–23 and Mk 6:45–46). While John does have Jesus withdraw again to the mountain by himself—and “when evening came,” his disciples go down to the sea, get into a boat and “start across the sea to Capernaum”—prior to all of this John first informs us: “When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!’ Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” This is a significant and fascinating Johannine aside. First, because the people saw the sign, they concluded that Jesus must be the promised messianic prophet whom God would send. Moses informs 12.  It is probably an exegetical stretch, but the conserving of the fragments, which prophetically symbolizes the Eucharist so “that nothing may be lost,” might be construed as an argument that the Eucharistic “bread” is truly the body of Jesus. Thus the Eucharistic “bread” that is left over from the church’s later liturgical Eucharistic celebrations needs to be preserved and consumed. One does not throw “Jesus” into the dumpster. That Jesus wants all of the fragments to be gathered lest they be “lost” may also refer to all whom Jesus saves. While on earth, Jesus guarded his disciples lest they be lost (see Jn 17:12 and 18:9). Also, Jesus wants to gather to himself not only Israel, but also peoples from every nation (see Jn 11:52 and 12:32). 13.  The twelve Apostles can also be seen as representing the twelve tribes of Israel, all of which Jesus is gathering to himself.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

223

the Israelites: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from among your brethren—him you shall heed—just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb . . . I will raise up for them [the Israelites] a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Dt 18:15–16 and 18:18). Unlike John the Baptist, who the people thought may be the prophet (see Jn 1:21), Jesus is now recognized to be the foretold prophet.14 As we have seen and will see later concerning Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching, however, many refuse or will refuse to heed his words, the very words that his Father has and will put into his mouth as the Father’s Son, for he only speaks what his Father tells him.15 Many of the Jews may recognize the meaning of the signs, but they will ultimately refuse to accept what the signs genuinely signify. Thus they will reject Jesus as the messianic foretold prophet. Second, flowing from the above, for the people, “to be the prophet” translates into being an “earthly king.” This is why they want to take Jesus away forcibly and make him king. And this is why Jesus “withdrew again to the mountain by himself,” for he knew that was not the king he was commissioned by his Father to be.16 He will become a king but not after the manner the people desire.17 Third, in typical Johannine irony, the people will ultimately take Jesus by force in the Garden of Gethsemane and will forcibly make him king—by crucifying him—“Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’ ” (Jn 19:19). But the king that they forcibly made him to be was not an earthly one but the king of a kingdom that is not of this world—a universal heavenly kingdom wherein there is an abundance of life, the very life signified in the enacted sign of the multiplication of the loaves (see Jn 18:36). 14.  Jesus will also be proclaimed “the prophet” in Jn 7:40. See also Mt 21:11, Mk 6:15, Lk 13:33, and Acts 3:22. 15.  See Jn 5:19, 5:30, 8:28, 12:49–50, and 14:10. 16.  Here Jesus simply eludes his would-be kingmakers by going up to the mountain. But this is the first intimation of Jesus’ need to escape those who would want to arrest him, for his hour had not yet come (see Jn 7:30, 7:44, 8:59, and 10:39). Again, ironically, when his hour does come, he is arrested and enthroned upon the cross and so does become, by force, the King of the Jews—what was originally intended by those who first wanted to crown him. 17.  The people, in a way, replicate Nicodemus and the woman at the well. They first misconceived what Jesus was trying to teach them—Nicodemus on what it means to be “born anew” and the woman on what it means to possess “living water.” Here the people misconceive what it means for Jesus to be “the prophet,” giving to it an earthly meaning—that of being an earthly king. Jesus will point out this false interpretation when he later reprimands the ever pursuant multitude: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (Jn 6:26).

224

Chapter 7

Jesus went up the mountain to escape the crowd and, during the same interval, the disciples set off by boat across the sea to Capernaum. This takes the reader to the fifth miracle sign, the calming of the sea, as well as provides the destination where Jesus will give his discourse on the Eucharist—the theological significance of the multiplication of the loaves. It Is I, Do Not Be Afraid The Evangelist proceeds to situate the scene for the next miracle sign. “It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them [the disciples]. The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.”18 Again, Matthew and Mark are more descriptive than John in portraying the setting, but the basic facts are the same—it was night, there was a blustery wind with swelling waves, and the disciples were in a boat far from shore (see Mt 14:22–25 and Mk 6:45–48).19 In this anxious situation, John continues, “When they had rowed about four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened.” Both Matthew and Mark narrate that, upon seeing Jesus, the disciples were terrified and exclaimed, “It is a ghost!” (see Mt 14:26 and Mk 6:49). Now, although all three accounts gloss “the fear” of the disciples, John gives no indication that such fear was the result of their supposed sighting of a ghost. Once more, I think that Matthew and Mark are presenting a more historical account. But why, then, would John, as an eyewitness, delete “the ghost” bit? John, following upon his Prologue, wants to emphasize Jesus’ flesh (sarx)—he is a real man and not a ghost. The disciples’ fear arose because, within Johannine theology, while they saw Jesus in the flesh, who it was they beheld, is God (YHWH), for only God can walk upon the seas (see Ps 29:3–4 and 77:19). God “alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea” (Jb 9:8). The Lord “makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters” (Is 43:16). Moreover, YHWH promises that “when you [Israel] pass through the waters I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overwhelm you; . . . For I am the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior” (Is 43:2–3). Thus Jesus “said to them, ‘It is 18.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 6:16–21 unless otherwise noted. In keeping with John’s theme of light versus darkness, one might perceive here that Jesus will literally step into the darkness of his disciples’ distress and so bring them the light—the revelation of who he is as God, the life of light. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:4–5). 19.  Theologically significant, the Synoptic portrayal of this event is very much in keeping with what is described in Ps 107:23–32. See JBJ 1:133–39. Obviously, John’s account alludes to this depiction as well, but not in such a graphic manner.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

225

I (ego eimi), do not be afraid.’ ”20 More than Matthew and Mark, John wants to accentuate, with striking brevity, that this event is an incarnational revelation. Although the disciples rightly behold in awesome fear the walking-on-water Jesus, they need not be alarmed, for Jesus is “I Am” (ego eimi)—He Who Is. For John, the man Jesus, who humanly says “I Am,” is none other than the Word of God, and because he is I Am incarnate, one like them in the weakness of human flesh, they need not fear.21 That Jesus identifies himself as “I Am” also reveals that he, as the Father’s Son, is humanly self-conscious that he is divine. The “I Am” is spoken from within a human self-consciousness and so in a human self-conscious manner, as man, but who it is who humanly identifies himself is “I Am”—YHWH. Jesus says “I” in a human manner, but the identity of that human “I,” the “who” who is saying “I,” the subject, is “I Am”—he who is God. Thus there is a human “I” of a divine “who.”22 Being told that the person drawing near their boat is “I Am,” the disciples “then were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.” The “then” denotes the disciples’ previous frightened reluctance, but Jesus, having revealed his divine identity, is readily accepted on board. The causal effect of Jesus’ onboard presence was their “uneventful” secure immediate arrival at their destination—Capernaum. Significantly, in identifying himself as “I Am” in the midst of a storm-tossed sea, and in bringing his disciples safely to land, Jesus revealed himself as YHWH-Saves.23 The entire miracle sign, the glory that is seen in the midst of darkness and travail, is that of Jesus, the Father’s messianic incarnate Son, becoming Jesus. 20.  Jesus previously also identified himself as “I Am” (ego eimi) to the Samaritan woman (see Jn 4:26). In both instances, Jesus is appropriating the name that God revealed to Moses (see Ex 3:14–14). Jesus’ employment of “I Am” will become dominant as the Gospel progresses (see Jn 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5–6). 21.  In Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts, Jesus says, “Take heart, it is I (ego eimi), have no fear” (Mt 14:27 and Mk 6:50). Matthew, at this point, tells of Peter addressing Jesus: “Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water.” Jesus beckons him to come, only for Peter then to become frightened by the windswept waves. After crying out for help, Jesus rescues him with a rebuke: “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?” After Jesus gets into the boat and the wind ceases, the disciples worship him, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God” (Mt 14:27–33). Jesus is truly “I Am” (ego eimi), for he is the Father’s Son. For my theological interpretation of this miracle within the Synoptics, see JBJ 1:129–31. 22.  For a fuller exposition of this understanding, see my Jesus the Christ (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2003) [reprint, Ex Fontibus, 2017, 94–95]; T. G. Weinandy, “The Human ‘I’ of Jesus,” in Jesus: Essays in Christology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2014), 266– 78, originally published in the Irish Theological Quarterly 62, no. 4 (1996/1997): 259–68; and JBJ 1:205–6, and 1:212–13. 23.  Psalm 107 says that the Lord, having calmed the sea, “brought them to their desired haven” (Ps 107:30).

226

Chapter 7

A question here arises. Why did John sandwich this miracle sign of the calming of the sea with its immediate effect of a safe arrival between the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and his lengthy Eucharistic discourse? Would it not have been better to move immediately from the multiplication of the loaves into the discourse, since the multiplication prophetically anticipates the Eucharistic discourse—Jesus as the source of abundant eternal life? For John, is it merely a matter of being historical as in the case of Matthew and Mark— historically, one follows the other? While the calming of the storm probably did historically follow upon the multiplication of the loaves, I think that John, again, grasped the hidden theological relationship that tied the multiplication and the calming of the sea together. Together they are integral to what John will now present as Jesus’ theological discourse on the Eucharist. Here I will simply say that Jesus is, as the incarnate “I Am,” the heavenly bread who gives the abundance of eternal life, prefigured in the multiplication. Moreover, because Jesus is the incarnate “I Am,” the eternal author of all life, he will inaugurate, as intimated at the onset, the new Passover, the passing over from the darkened sin tossed sea of death to the safe haven of the Father’s heavenly kingdom. There the faith-filled multitude will be nourished on the risen Jesus, the risen incarnate “I Am”—the bread of life. Both the miracle sign of the multiplication and the miracle sign of the walking on water and the stilling of the storm prophetically manifest Jesus becoming Jesus—the incarnate He Who Is who will offer himself, on the cross and in the Eucharist, as the food for eternal life.24 The Eucharistic Discourse Seeking Jesus John continues his narrative by focusing on the people left behind when the boat arrived safely at Capernaum. “On the next day the people who 24.  Mark’s account of Jesus walking on water and calming the sea concludes with a rather puzzling ending. After Jesus got into the boat with the effect of the wind ceasing, Mark states that the disciples “were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (Mk 6:51–52). What is the connection between the present walking on the sea-calming miracle and the previous miraculous multiplication? What connection did the disciples not make? I think Mark, as seen more clearly in John, is insinuating that the disciples were presently “astounded” because they did not recognize that Jesus, in the multiplication, was “I Am” (ego eimi), that he is He Who Is. If they had appreciated that Jesus is truly divine in the multiplication, they would not have been astonished that he could walk on water and calm the storm. This lack of comprehension arose from the hardness of their hearts, and so their ensuing lack of faith. Thus, as in John, the revelation of Jesus as “I Am” in his walking on the water becomes the hermeneutical key for grasping the inherent truth revealed in the multiplication—that Jesus is divine.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

227

remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.”25 So we have a mystery. The people remembered that there had only been one boat in which Jesus’ disciples left, leaving Jesus behind, for he stayed to dismiss them. Yet Jesus is nowhere to be found. When and where did he go? The people decided to search for Jesus. “However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.” While the Evangelist is merely providing the enigmatic circumstances that gave rise to the peoples’ search, he does impart one theologically significant aside: the boats “came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.” The boats were just offshore from where the people ate the bread, but not just any bread but the bread that “the Lord” gave them having “given thanks.” This is the second instance where John attributes to Jesus the divine title “Lord” (Kyrie).26 This attribution is not by happenstance. Jesus is the Lord precisely because he just revealed himself to be “I Am” (He Who Is)—YHWH. Thus, for John, that it was “the Lord” who “gave thanks” over the loaves provides the causal explanation as to why the bread multiplied. Jesus’ revelation of himself as “I Am” within the miracle sign of walking on water becomes, for John, the interpretative key to the previous miracle sign of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus, as the incarnate Son I Am, “gives thanks” to his Father I Am, and within this thanksgiving, a divine thanks given humanly, the loaves are multiplied. The problem is that the multitude did not grasp the meaning of the miraculous sign—that the sign manifested Jesus as the Lord.27 “When 25.  All Scripture passages in this section are from Jn 6:22–25 unless otherwise noted. 26.  The first instance is Jn 4:1, where John notes that “The Lord” knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was baptizing and making disciples. The Samaritan woman calls him Kyrie three times. While she no doubt used it in the sense of “sir,” she unknowingly was addressing him rightly as the divine “Lord” (see Jn 4:11, 4:15, and 4:19). The official who asked Jesus to heal his son as well as the paralytic at the pool also address him as Kyrie, but they probably do so in the sense of “sir,” though again unknowingly rightly designating him “Lord” (see Jn 4:49 and 5:17). John the Baptist identifies himself as the one who is crying and so fulfilling the Scripture, however: “Make straight the way of the Lord” (Jn 1:23). Here Isaiah is referring to God (YHWH), and so the reference is now being applied to the coming of Jesus, who is “Lord” in the divine sense of the term (see Is 40:3). Kyrie is the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Adonai, which is the term used to indicate God’s sacred unspeakable name, YHWH. 27.  Shortly, the people will call Jesus “Lord,” but their designating him as such is ambiguous at best. More theologically significant is Peter addressing Jesus as “Lord” at the very end of the Eucharistic discourse. When many disassociated themselves from Jesus because of

228

Chapter 7

they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, ‘Rabbi, when did you come here?’ ” The people are obsessed with wanting to solve “the mystery” of how he, the Rabbi and not the Lord, crossed the sea. “The Mystery” that he is “the Lord” never entered their minds. Thus the reason for Jesus’ answer—an answer that does not address their question but addresses the greater question of who he is and the kind of bread he can give them. Bread from Heaven Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.28 Jesus first makes transparent the real reason for the peoples’ resolute search. They did not track him down because they grasped in faith the revelational significance of his miracle signs—that he is the Lord. No, it was their stomachs that goaded them on. They were in search of a “king” who would provide for their earthly needs. Thus Jesus warns them against toiling for food that, like themselves, will perish. They should instead search for imperishable food that “endures to eternal life,” and such food “the Son of man” is able to give them because “on him God the Father set his seal.” While Jesus designates himself as “the Son of man,” such a man God the Father has sealed with the Holy Spirit. This divine paternal “sealing” with the Spirit, for John, manifests, as declared by the Baptist, that Jesus is “the Son of God” (see Jn 1:33–34). Thus Jesus, the Son of man, can provide heavenly life-giving food because he, as the Father’s anointed Son, uniquely possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship.29 Here there is a coalescence or a conjoining of Jesus’ previous teaching on baptism with his present instruction concerning the Eucharist. Although he references “food” that perishes verses “food” for “eternal life,” Jesus similarly exhorted the Samaritan woman to desire not ordinary water for which one will thirst again, but the water that he will give, for the water he will give “will become in him a spring of his teaching, Peter will profess, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68). 28.  All Scripture passages in this shorter segment are taken from Jn 6:22–34 unless otherwise noted. Scholars often divide Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse into three sections: Jn 6:22–34 being the introduction, Jn 6:35–59 being the discourse itself, and Jn 6:60–71 being the various “unbelieving” and “believing” responses to it. I will follow these divisions. 29.  The eating of Jesus’ body and blood gives eternal life because it is the risen body of the Son of God, a body that is suffused with the Holy Spirit.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

229

water welling up to eternal life (Jn 4:13–14).30 The Holy Spirit is what conjoins the two. The life-giving water of the Holy Spirit wells up to eternal life and the food/bread (Jesus’ risen body) that the sealed-with-Spirit Jesus will give also “endures to eternal life.”31 In response to his reproach and exhortation, the people ask Jesus a question that does not appear to follow logically. It may be that the people wanted to change the topic after Jesus’ chiding, and pose instead a question that would allow them to reclaim their genuineness and at least the appearance of sincerity. Nonetheless, they ask, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Now, we must recall that Jesus has emphatically avowed that he is doing the works of his Father with the implication that he is the Father’s Son. In this light, Jesus responded, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” The people ask what “works” they must do, but Jesus answers them by prescribing only one work—that of belief in the one the Father sent. Thus, while Jesus does the many works of God, for those who behold these works, the miracle signs that prophetically prefigure his ultimate saving work, their one work is to believe in the one whom the Father sent to do his works, that is, the Father’s Son.32 The people grasp that Jesus is speaking of himself—it 30.  Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist initially follows a template similar to what we have found in his meeting with Nicodemus and his encounter with the Samaritan woman. In his present interlocution with the people, the people, similar to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, interpret Jesus’ teaching in an earthly and misconstrued fashion, whereupon he further attempts to give greater clarity and deeper meaning. Of course this similarity once again raises the issue of historicity. How much of Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse contains his actual words, and how much of it is John placing words in Jesus’ mouth? This issue will be discussed in due course. 31.  This “coalescence” or “conjoining” is similar to what we found in the miracle at Cana. There the abundance of water symbolized the abundant Spirit-filled life of baptism and the abundance of wine symbolized the abundant Spirit-filled life of the Eucharist—Jesus’ risen blood. There is a salvific Spirit-filled progression from baptism to the Eucharist, a deeper entering into the Spirit-filled life that is Jesus himself. 32.  Here we find an intrinsic relationship between Jesus’ saving works and the work of faith— the act whereby the faithful believe. Jesus reveals who he is as the Father’s Son through his doing his Father’s works. Revelation, as we already discussed, is not simply a matter of “speaking” but primarily a matter of “acting.” The revelatory “words” provide the meaning of the revelatory “acts.” When a person comes to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that person does so because Jesus’ saving actions have revealed him to be so. Thus Jesus’ actions, his works, and the believer’s act of faith, his or her work, conjoin. This is why the act of faith is salvific, because it conjoins the person to Jesus and so to his saving acts that he embodies as the incarnate Son of God. By being conjoined to Jesus, in communion with the Holy Spirit, the person is cleansed of sin and made holy. This understanding of faith is in keeping with what John states in his First Letter: “And this is his [the Father’s] commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he commanded us. All who

230

Chapter 7

is in him, the Father’s Son, in whom they must believe, for they respond, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”33 The irony of the peoples’ question is incredible, for they not only ask Jesus for a sign when they have already seen many signs, and thus the many works that God has given him to perform, but they also actually recall as an example an ancient miracle sign that mirrors the one Jesus performed just the previous day.34 Nonetheless, their question is the catalyst that allows Jesus to approach his Eucharistic discourse. Jesus responds, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” Jesus implies that the people said that Moses gave them bread from heaven, but that is not what they declared. They clearly quoted the Scriptures, which said “He [God] gave them bread from heaven to eat.” So why did Jesus misspeak what they said? First, Jesus did not want the people to presume that the heavenly bread given at the time of Moses was adequate for true life or that the sign that God gave to their fathers was an end in itself. Second, he wanted the people to recognize that it was not Moses but God who freely gave them the heavenly bread. Moses did not even intercede on their behalf. Nor, third, keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us” (1 Jn 3:23–24). Within the Protestant tradition, revelation is frequently understood within the rubric of “words”—what God has revealed through his “word” as contained in Scripture. Thus faith is seen as an act of believing the revelatory “word,” what is contained in Scripture. Such an understanding undermines both the primary significance of God’s saving acts, and the essential reality of faith as a work/act whereby one is drawn into saving acts of Jesus, the Father’ Son. It also undercuts the sacraments as the making present of Jesus’ saving acts. They merely become “word” symbols of Jesus’ saving acts, but not the actual enactment of and participation in Jesus’ redeeming acts, and so not the real reaping of the benefits of his salvific acts. 33.  The people are quoting Ex 16:4, where the Lord tells Moses, “Behold, I will rain down bread from heaven for you” (see also Ex 16:15; Dt 8:2–3, 8:16). In the Book of Nehemiah the prophet Ezra addresses the Lord, saying, “You did give them bread from heaven for their hunger and bring forth water for them from the rock for their thirst” (Neh 9:15). In Ps 78:23–26 the psalmist prays that, despite Israel’s lack of trust in God, “Yet he commanded the skies to open, and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down upon them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven. Man ate the bread of angels; he sent them food in abundance” (see also Ps 105:40). 34.  The people recall that their fathers ate manna “in the wilderness,” while Jesus gave the bread on a lush green hillside. The wilderness was a prelude to the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey. In Jesus the Promised Land is at hand, wherein he will provide the true heavenly bread that is himself as the incarnate Father’s Son.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

231

did Jesus want them then to assume that there could not be someone greater than Moses, someone at whose coming an even greater sign of God’s benevolent love could not be given. For Jesus, neither is Moses to be construed as the greatest of all prophetic leaders nor is the past sign to be considered God’s greatest work. Rather, the relevance of Moses and the manna resides in their being a prophetic foreshadowing of the future—a future that is now present. The future is present because “my Father gives you the bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” Jesus’ words here are in contrast to what he just articulated. God may have given their fathers bread, yet it is now “my Father,” and not simply Moses’ God or even Moses himself, who “gives you the true bread from heaven.” The “God” who gave them heavenly bread in the past is the same God who is presently giving the true bread from heaven, and that God is none other than Jesus’ Father, which clearly implies that he is the Father’s Son. Furthermore, as the Father’s Son, he is eternally such, and thus existed at the time God gave their fathers manna in the desert. Thus the sign of God giving them bread at the time of Moses signifies the bread that God is presently giving, for the fulfillment of that sign already existed with God at the time of its giving—the Father’s Son, for “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). God’s past giving of bread portended the Father’s future sending his eternal Son. God gave their fathers heavenly bread in the past only in the light of his future giving them the true heavenly bread in the present, that is, his incarnate Son, Jesus the Messiah.35 In this light we perceive the full significance of Jesus’ words. Jesus first states that his Father gives “the true bread from heaven.” The Father is the heavenly transcendent God, and so from him comes the true heavenly divine bread. Jesus then declares that “the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” So the true bread is that which comes down from heaven, and because it is God’s bread that comes down from heaven, it gives life to the world. God’s bread gives life to the world because God’s bread that comes down from heaven is the Father’s Son. Only because God the Father gives his divine Son is the Son truly God’s bread, and only because he is the Father’s Son, and so God as the Father is divine, does he give divine life to the world. If God the Father 35.  Old Testament events, such as God giving manna to the Israelites at the time of Moses, provides the interpretive key to the meaning of New Testament events, such as God giving the new heavenly bread of eternal life. Likewise, the fulfillment of the Old Testament events manifests their real hidden purpose, their ultimate end, and so the full richness of their significance. In their completion, ancient events realize their true enhanced meaning.

232

Chapter 7

gave anything less than God the Son, he would not truly be giving “God’s bread,” and thus he would not be giving the world authentic divine life. God’s given bread is God giving himself—the Father giving his Son. The Father I Am gives the Son I Am, and because both are “He Who Is,” they together give eternal life, the divine life of the Holy Spirit, first given in baptism and into which one now will be subsumed fully when one partakes of the risen Jesus in the Eucharist. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3:16). Moreover, as God freely gave his unrequested heavenly bread to Moses and the Israelites, so now the Father freely gives the unrequested bread of his only Son. Likewise, Jesus is the new and so greater Moses, the promised messianic prophet, for he does not give heavenly bread that differs from himself. Rather, he is the fulfillment of what Moses and God’s first gift of bread signified because he himself, as the incarnate Son, gives himself as the true life-giving bread. This is why the people should not “labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.” Lastly, while God gave the Israelites, his covenanted chosen people, heavenly bread, so Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, will give “life to the world,” for he, in his very person, will become the new covenant and so the new and living Passover bread by which all peoples can pass from death to eternal life. In response to Jesus’ proclamation that his Father gives them the true heavenly bread that gives life to the world, the people now hungrily declare, “Lord, give us this bread always.” One would like to give the people the benefit of the doubt and interpret their exclamation as a profession of faith in Jesus’ divine lordship and so a desire for the living bread that he himself is. But as we will see shortly in Jesus’ response, such a generous interpretation cannot be given. What we hear instead is the echo of the Samaritan woman who declared upon hearing Jesus affirm that he could give water such that one will never thirst again, “Sir/Lord (Kyrie), give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw” (Jn 4:14–15). The people still long for a Lord, an earthly king, who will satisfy their bodily needs—this is the bread that they want “always,” a bread they never need to go daily to the baker to buy again. So, as with the Samaritan woman, Jesus is back to where he started. The people still do not grasp the truth that Jesus is attempting to convey. But such incomprehension allows (forces) Jesus to articulate more clearly and profoundly the heart of his Eucharistic teaching.36 36.  This “incomprehension” is again similar to what Jesus encountered with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. Their lack of understanding (the need to be born anew of water and the Holy Spirit, and of the water that wells up to eternal life) compelled Jesus to provide a further

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

233

I Am the Bread of Life Jesus responded to the people’s misunderstanding by unambiguously stating, “I am (ego eimi) the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.”37 Jesus’ declaration testifies to the Incarnation—that he is the Word become flesh. Jesus is the bread of life both as God (I am), and equally as man (bread of life). If Jesus was not man, he would not be “bread” because human beings cannot eat God (I Am) as God—there would literally be nothing in which to bite, upon which to chew, and so nothing to consume. Moreover, if Jesus is not God (I Am), he would not be the bread “of life,” for if the bread that is eaten is not the risen incarnate Father’s Son, there would then be no “I-Am-ness” about it—no risen divine life. Moreover, only if the Son of God actually exists as man, that is, only if one and the same Son ontologically exists as God and as man is it possible, in consuming his life-giving flesh, that one is consuming the life-giving Father’s Son—he who is I Am. This incarnational understanding is why those who come to Jesus “shall not hunger,” for they will continually be nourished upon the incarnate Son—fed with the Father’s Spirit-filled Christ. Although I have emphasized in the above the Eucharistic nature of Jesus’ declaration that he is the bread of life, there resides within his assertion the notion and deeper explanation. I am convinced that this Johannine dialogical pattern is not simply for the benefit of Nicodemus or the Samaritan woman or for the present people, but primarily for the sake of the reader, and especially for the sake of the Jewish reader. 37.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 6:35–59 unless otherwise noted. “I am the bread of life” is the first of seven Johannine “I am” sayings. The others are: “I am the light of the world” (Jn 8:12); “I am and the door” (Jn 10:9); “I am the good shepherd” (Jn 10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life”(Jn 11:25–26); “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); and “I am the vine” (Jn 15:1). That there are seven “I am” sayings is significant, for they denote divine perfection. This perfection is founded upon the truth that Jesus is simply “I Am”—He Who Is, YHWH. The “stand alone” “I Am” is the eighth. Thus there are, within John’s Gospel, seven miracle signs and seven “I am” sayings. The signs bear witness to Jesus, as the Word incarnate, re-creating humankind, and they prophetically anticipate the eighth fulfillment sign, Jesus’ death and resurrection, wherein this re-creation is fulfilled, for Jesus will then be empowered to baptize in the Holy Spirit through whom human beings will be reborn into the eternal life of the Spirit. The seven “I am” sayings also denote that Jesus is the one in whom there is new life, and the fullest revelation of this is again in his death and resurrection. When Jesus is lifted up, “then you will know that I Am (ego eimi) (Jn 8:28), for “I will draw all men to myself ” (Jn 12:32), that whoever “believes in him [the Son of man] may have eternal life” (Jn 3:14). Jesus’ death and resurrection, the eighth miracle sign, also demonstrates that he is “I Am,” “the eighth I Am,” for as the dead and risen He Who Is, Jesus, the Father’s Son, has accomplished his Father’s work of re-creation—the sending forth of the life-giving Spirit.

234

Chapter 7

that as the Father’s incarnate Word, Jesus also nourishes through his teaching, his spoken word. Within the Old Testament the prophets fed the Israelites on God’s word so that they might live holy lives. Jesus, being himself the incarnated divine Word who has come down from heaven, now speaks his Father’s word perfectly and in so doing nourishes those who believe in him on the life-giving word of God. This is in keeping with Jesus’ response to Satan in his first temptation. There Satan tempted him, if he truly is the Son of God, to turn stones into bread, but Jesus rebukes him by saying, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt 4:3–4; Jesus is quoting Dt 8:3). Jesus is, as the Father’s Son, the Word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and it is upon his word that human beings are to live. Since Jesus is the bread of life as Word incarnate who speaks his Father’s word and as the Eucharistic bread of life, what we perceive here is a complete teaching concerning a Eucharistic liturgy. Jesus’ spoken bread-given word prepares for and ushers one toward his bread-given flesh. Those who believe the bread-given words of the Word are able to partake of the bread-given flesh of the Word. Given that the whole emphasis has been on “bread,” it is somewhat odd for Jesus also to declare, “and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” While this is a Eucharistic discourse, this statement references Jesus’ teaching on baptism (see Jn 4:14). It would appear that those who believe in him, and are first baptized in the Holy Spirit, the ever indwelling wellspring of eternal life, are then able to partake of Jesus as the bread of life and so will no longer hunger as well. For the Evangelist, baptism and the Eucharist are inseparable—baptism by its very nature empowers one in the Spirit and so escorts one in the Spirit to an even more intimate communion with Jesus in the Eucharist. Moreover, as Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, so he is the one who gives himself as the bread of life. In both, Jesus is becoming Jesus—the re-creator in whom one is reborn in the Spirit and the bread of life in whom one continually thrives. Jesus concludes his thought by reminding the people that he has already told them that while they have seen him, they “do not believe.” The people may see Jesus with their physical eyes, but they have yet to behold him with the eyes of faith, and so they remain in their unbelief. Here Jesus is also anticipating what he will say next, as well as forecasting the expressions of unbelief that are on the immediate horizon. The people may not believe, but Jesus next assures them: All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

235

of him who sent me, that I lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. The people, in their disbelief, may have not yet come to Jesus, but all those that the Father has given to him, hopefully including those present, will ultimately make their way to him. Those who believe in Jesus are gifts from his Father. The Father’s gift to his Son, then, is not something apart from those he saves, but rather those who believe in him and so are saved.38 Jesus will not reject his by casting them out of his presence.39 The reason that Jesus will not cast out those who come to him in faith is that he has “come down from heaven” not to do his own will, but to do the will of his Father who sent him. There is a twofold “coming down” here, an incarnational coming down and a Eucharistic coming down. The Father sent his Son into the world, and so the Son “came down” from heaven by becoming man. Since the Father is the author of “the sending,” the Son, in coming down by becoming man, is obliged to do what his Father sent him to do. Within this incarnational coming down from heaven resides the Eucharistic coming down from heaven, for Jesus, the incarnate Son, is the Father’s true gift of bread that has come down from heaven (see Jn 6:32–33). Thus, as the incarnate Son, Jesus does his Father’s will not only by giving himself in becoming man, but also in offering himself as “the bread of life.” For what purpose did the Father send his Son, and for which Jesus will now do his Father’s will? Jesus continues, “and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.” Jesus will not cast out any of those whom his Father has given him because his Father’s will is that he should lose no one whom the Father has given him. Rather than casting out those whom his Father has given him and so losing them, Jesus is to raise them up “on the last day.” Thus 38.  That the Father gives to his Son all who believe in him will be a major portion of Jesus’ high priestly prayer (see Jn 17). 39.  Theologically significant, the Jews later will decide that “if anyone should confess him [Jesus] to be the Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue,” and so they “cast out” from the synagogue the healed blind man who believed Jesus to be the Messiah (see Jn 9:22 and 9:34–35; see also 12:42 and 16:2). To be cast out of the synagogue is to be excommunicated from God’s people and so cast out from God’s presence. Ironically, however, to believe in Jesus as the Messiah is to be cast into the new covenanted people of God and so cast into the presence of God, for as the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus is the new and living presence of God in whom one finds entrance to his Father.

236

Chapter 7

the goal of the Father’s twofold sending down—the incarnational sending down of his Son so as to become man with its inherent Eucharistic sending down of his Son as the heavenly bread—is eschatological. “On the last day” the Father will send down from heaven his glorious incarnate Son, and on that day Jesus will raise up all whom his Father has given him and of which he has lost none. “This is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Father’s will, in sending down his Son in the Incarnation and as the heavenly bread of life, is that all who behold Jesus will believe that Jesus truly is his Son. This beholding of Jesus in faith results in eternal life, for Jesus himself will raise up the faithful on the last day. Thus those who believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son sent down from heaven so as to become man, and who partake of him as the Father’s heaven-sent bread of life, will, at the eschatological coming down of Jesus on the last day, be raised up to heaven with him and so obtain eternal life with the Father. Inherent within this eschatological “coming down” and this eschatological “being raised up” is the supposition that one is in communion with Jesus here on earth. Jesus will shortly make this truth explicit. In response: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” How does he say, “I have come down from heaven?” That the Jews “murmured” refers back to the Israelites in the desert. Having arrived in the wilderness, “the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron.” They would have rather died “by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt,” where they had “fleshpots and ate bread to the full” (Ex 16:2–3). In response to such murmuring, the Lord said to Moses that he would “rain bread from heaven” (Ex 16:4). Moses and Aaron told the people that “in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your murmuring against the Lord. For what are we, that you murmur against us?” While the people murmured against Moses and Aaron, they are not the ones responsible for the present lack of food. The people were actually murmuring against the Lord himself, for he, and not Moses and Aaron, brought them out of Egypt into the wilderness. “Your murmurings are not against us but against the Lord” (Ex 16:7–8).40 40.  See also Nm 14:26–27.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

237

In the light of the Israelites’ past murmuring, the present murmuring of the people is ironic. Their forefathers murmured against the Lord because of their lack of bread. Now that Jesus informs them that he is the true bread that comes down from heaven who will give them eternal life, they murmur instead of beholding the glory of the Lord, the glory of Jesus being the true heavenly bread sent down by the heavenly Lord. They murmur against Jesus because they know him to be the son of Joseph, and they know his mother as well, so he could not possibly have come down from heaven. Like their forebears, however, the people are actually murmuring against the Lord—he who is the true Father of Jesus, his Son, for he is the one who sent his Son down from heaven so as to become man and in so doing become the bread of eternal life.41 In response to their murmuring, Jesus states: Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes 41.  Such disparagement against Jesus’ pedigree is also found within the Synoptics. In Matthew, Jesus came “to his own country and taught them [the people] in their synagogue.” While the people were astonished at his teaching and mighty works, they exclaimed, “ ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brethren James, Joseph and Simon and Judas?’ And they took offense at him.” In response, Jesus notes that a prophet is honored except in his own country and house (Mt 13:55–57). Mark’s Gospel narrates the same exact scenario (see Mk 6:1–5). The only difference is that Mark does not designate Jesus as “the carpenter’s son” but simply as “the carpenter,” thus implying that his parentage is not only nondescript but that he also is himself pedestrian. Luke’s account has Jesus reading and commenting on the prophet Isaiah in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. Having read that “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” and proclaiming that this Scripture is fulfilled in their very hearing, the people asked, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Lk 4:14–22). The Spirit could not have anointed Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. This same prejudicial attitude is exemplified in John’s Gospel when Nathaniel responds to Philip’s declaration that they have found the prophet of whom Moses spoke, Jesus of Nazareth: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (Jn 1:45–46). Interestingly, while Jesus says that no prophet is accepted by his own people, Philip (with a Gentile name and so likely a Gentile) declares him to be the prophesied messianic prophet. By not accepting Jesus as a prophet, they were not accepting him as “the prophet.” That the people in John’s Gospel know that Joseph is Jesus’ “father” shows that the Evangelist, while not incorporating an infancy narrative, was aware that Joseph was Jesus’ “father.” Moreover, by highlighting the irony of the people thinking that Jesus was the son of Joseph when in actuality he was the Son of the Father, John is also implying that Jesus’ conception was not by natural means—he was not conceived by Joseph and Mary. Thus John is confirming Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narrative accounts, even if only by knowing the tradition, that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit within the womb of Mary. In keeping with his omission of Mary’s name, John has the people only speak of Jesus being the son of Joseph, and while they do know who his mother is, they do not name her. The Synoptic accounts do name her.

238

Chapter 7

to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. For Jesus, the people’s huddled murmuring is useless, for in one sense, they are not the ones who will decide their ultimate fate. Only those whom the Father draws to him (Jesus) will come to believe that he was sent by his Father, and they alone will he raise up at the end of time.42 Yet, in another sense, they are responsible for their ultimate fate, for they could have been taught by God as Isaiah said. “All your sons shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the prosperity of your sons” (Is 54:13; see also Jer 31:34). Those who have heard the Lord and have been taught by him—that is, by the Father—will come to Jesus. The reason is that the Lord, being the Son’s Father, will teach them about his Son, and he has done so, as Jesus has already asserted. In an earlier confrontation with the Jews, Jesus declares that he has three witnesses. John the Baptist, the one sent by God, has borne witness to him, and such testimony is not for Jesus’ sake but “that you might be saved” (Jn 5:34). Jesus has even greater testimony than that of John. The works that his Father has given him bear even greater witness that the Father sent him, and so they are the Father’s testimony on his behalf (see Jn 5:36–38). Only the Father’s Son could enact such definitive saving acts. Lastly, while the Jews search the Scriptures because they believe that in them is found eternal life, “yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” If the Jews truly knew the Scriptures, they would come to him, for the Scriptures bear him witness. Jesus will not accuse them of unbelief; “it is Moses” who will indict them. “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:45–47). Thus the murmuring crowd has no excuse for their unbelief, for they have been “taught by God.” However, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father” will come to Jesus. While the people are able to be taught by God, even though they have not availed themselves of such teaching, no one “has seen the Father except 42.  The notion of “drawing” is theologically significant. Here Jesus says that only those whom his Father “draws” will come to him. Later, Jesus will declare, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself ” (Jn 12:32). The Father will draw people to Jesus through Jesus’ death and resurrection, his twofold simultaneous “lifting up,” for through his death and resurrection, Jesus himself draws all to salvation—into the presence of the Father. By drawing people to Jesus, the Father is then drawing them to himself through his Son, Jesus. Moreover, Jesus implies that his Father will not draw “all” to him, yet Jesus later states that in being lifted up, he will draw “all” to himself. The Father may not draw everyone to Jesus, but Jesus will draw people from “all” nations, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

239

him who is from God; he has seen the Father.” Only one person has seen the Father, and so only one person can truly make the Father known, that is, Jesus, the Father’s Son, for he is the only one “who is from God.” The word “from” possesses a twofold meaning. John’s Prologue declares that the Father’s eternal Word is God and was with God before the beginning. This eternal divine Word is “the only Son from the Father.” As the Father’s Word, the only Son is eternally begotten from his Father, and this same Word, moreover, comes from the Father in that he was sent by the Father into the world so as to become flesh. While Moses gave the law, the law in which the present people place their eternal hope, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Thus “no one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:1, 1:14–18). The divine Word is with God because he is the Father’s Son who dwells within his Father’s heart. Thus Jesus is presently affirming what was first declared in the Prologue—only he has seen God, for only he is from God as the Father’s Son, and therefore only he can, as the incarnate Son sent from the Father, make the Father known. In a singular manner that differs in kind and not simply in degree, Jesus, in his person as the Father’s incarnate Son, supersedes what was taught through Moses and the scriptures, for he reveals the Father as the Father’s Son.43 Jesus therefore concludes: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” Jesus’ words again reference back to the Prologue. God created all things through his Word, for “in him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:3–5). Moreover, Jesus has already professed on a number of occasions that all who believe in him will possess “eternal life,” and it is for this reason that God, out of love for the world, sent his Son.44 As the one through whom God first created, he in whom is life, so now the Father is re-creating humankind through his Word incarnate, Jesus. Thus to believe in Jesus as the Father’s Son, and so be united to him, is to receive and share in his eternal divine life. At this juncture, Jesus arrives at the cumulative heart of his Eucharistic discourse. All that he has said immediately prior is now taken into and finds its comprehensive expression and efficacious consequence in what Jesus asserts now. 43.  This understanding is also found in the Letter to the Hebrews. “In many and various ways God spoke of old to your fathers, by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son” (Heb 1:1). Because Jesus is the Father’s Son, he is greater than the angels (see Heb 1:4) and greater than Moses (see Heb 3:1–6). 44.  See Jn 3:15–16, 3:36, 5:24; see also 1 Jn 4:9.

240

Chapter 7

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. Jesus first avows what he declared at the onset when the people asked him to provide them always the heavenly bread that gives life to the world—“I am the bread of life.” Again, he reminds the people that their forefathers died in the wilderness even though they ate the bread that came down from heaven. That heavenly bread was a prophetic anticipation of the true heavenly bread, for those who eat the bread that Jesus will now give will not die. Jesus alone is the bread of life because he alone is himself the living bread, and so he who eats of him will live forever. To accentuate that he is the bread of life as the living bread, Jesus makes emphatically clear that the bread he will give for the life of the world is his very own flesh.45 Here we perceive a threefold inter-conjoined meaning of what I term the “bread-given flesh.” First, the incarnating act, the act of becoming “flesh,” is itself the initial foundational “bread giving.” Only in the Son of God giving himself, in coming down out of heaven, so as to become “flesh” (sarx), is he able to give his flesh as the bread of life (see Jn 1:14). This primary preparatory “giving” of himself in becoming “flesh” is, in itself, the Son’s becoming bread-given flesh, for the “becoming flesh” literally embodies, by way of anticipatory inclusion, the other two ways he is bread-given flesh. Second, having become bread-given flesh in becoming man, Jesus on the cross will give himself as bread-given flesh. The cross is thus enclosed or en-sarxed within the Incarnation itself, for the Son became sarx that he might give his flesh for the life of the world. This bread-given flesh of himself on the cross is then a sacrificial giving—an offering of himself to his Father for the life of the world. Remember, all that has taken place from the multiplication onward is enacted in the context of the Jewish Passover being “at hand” (Jn 6:4). Thus the sacrificial bread-given flesh of himself is a Passover sacrifice wherein Jesus will pass over from death to his life-giving Father, and in so doing he will pass over from the sin-induced death of this life to the re-created life of the resurrection. The Passover that Jesus will be, in his death and resurrection, 45.  Jesus himself, and not his disciples, distributed the multiplied bread to the multitude. I remarked then that in doing so, Jesus was prophetically enacting the truth that in the Eucharist he would give himself as the bread of life. Jesus’ present declaration makes that clear—the bread he gives is his flesh.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

241

is then the freeing, the passing over, of humankind from sin and the wilderness of death, and, for those who believe in him, the lifting up, the passing over, of humankind into the new springtime of eternal life that he himself is.46 Third, the bread-given flesh within the Incarnation and in Jesus’ giving up of his life for the world are conjoined to his Eucharistic bread-given flesh. This Eucharistic bread-given flesh is also enclosed or en-sarxed within the Incarnation. The Son became man that he might not only give himself on the cross, but also that he might give himself, completely and consummately, as breadgiven flesh within the Eucharist. Although Jesus gives his life for the salvation of the world in his sacrificial Passover death on the cross, a death that gives rise to his resurrected life-giving glory, the all-inclusive purpose of this breadgiven flesh on the cross is for the sake of his life-giving, bread-given flesh in the Eucharist—the giving of his resurrected flesh for the life of the world. Without the bread-given flesh in the Eucharist, the bread-given flesh of the Incarnation and the bread-given flesh on the cross would lose their efficaciousness, for only by being united to the Passover Jesus within the Eucharist does one pass over, in communion with him, from earthly death to heavenly eternal life.47 Although the above will become clearer in what Jesus will subsequently teach, we already observe here in this conjoined threefold bread-given flesh, that of the Incarnation, the cross, and of the Eucharist, the coalescing sacrificial nature of the Incarnation, the cross, and of the Eucharist. The Incarnation, with the ensuing Passover nature of the cross and resurrection, is life giving, and the Incarnation, with the ensuing Passover nature of the Eucharist, is life giving, for both are conjoined in Jesus’ threefold giving of himself as bread-given flesh for the world.48 46.  Paul speaks of Jesus’ death on the cross as a sacrificial giving up of himself (see Gal 1:4 and 2:20; Eph 5:2; 1 Tim 2:6). 47.  Matthew and Luke, in their Last Passover Supper narratives, speak both of Jesus giving himself up on the cross and in the Eucharist (see Mt 26:26–28, Lk 22:19–20, and 1 Cor 11:24). 48.  To state this understanding in later theological concepts and language, the end or purpose of the Son of God becoming man and offering himself on the cross, which gives rise to Jesus’ resurrection, is for the sake of the sacraments, particularly in John, for the sake of the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Only in becoming man and dying and rising is Jesus able to baptize in the Holy Spirit by whom believers are able to be born anew into his eternal life and so able to be in full communion with him within the Eucharist. The saving mysteries only achieve their end, the purpose for which they were enacted, within the sacramental economy. This sacramental end finds its eschatological fulfillment when Jesus returns in glory at the end of time, for the sacramental signs cease, having obtained the full reality they signified. Then all the faithful will be fully united to Jesus, in communion with the Holy Spirit, and so be completely transformed into the Father’s children.

242

Chapter 7

Once more “the Jews” are befuddled, for they “disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ ” This is not an insignificant question. Someone who is a mere man cannot give his flesh to eat unless he cuts off bits and pieces of himself and gives it to others to eat. Besides being a bizarre form of cannibalism, it would be of no spiritual value. The eating of such human flesh would not give eternal life. The Jews’ bafflement nonetheless allows Jesus to express more forcefully, without apology for their misunderstanding, the cumulative climax of his Eucharistic teaching. In response to their internecine debate, Jesus asserts: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink of his blood, you will have no life within you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever. Jesus is emphatic. Without eating the flesh of the Son of man and without drinking his blood, one will have “no life” within oneself. But if one does eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, one “has eternal life,” and because one has eternal life within oneself, Jesus “will raise him up at the last day.” That one is eating the flesh and drinking the blood of “the Son of man” implies that one is eating and drinking what is truly human—the real flesh and blood of a genuine man.49 Again, how can such “eating” and “drinking” procure “eternal life”? The answer lies in Jesus’ statement that on the last day he will raise up such a person who has eaten and drunk. Jesus’ statement implies that he himself has been raised, for if he was not raised up, he would not be able to raise up on the last day someone who has eaten his body and drunk his blood. The flesh that one is eating and the blood that one is drinking is therefore the risen flesh and risen blood of the Son of man. The flesh and blood may be the genuine flesh and blood of a real human being, but it is the risen flesh 49.  Scripture Scholars note that the Greek word that is used here for “eat” traditionally was used in reference to animals eating—to “munch,” “gnaw,” or “masticate.” It later became the ordinary word for eating. Thus Jesus, in employing this particular word for “eat,” could be accentuating the physical eating of his material “flesh.”

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

243

and blood of a risen man, and as such the flesh and blood are imbued with eternal life. Because the flesh and blood are that of a genuine risen man, Jesus can next say, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” His flesh and blood are indeed food for eternal life, for they are the flesh and blood of the risen Jesus, and to consume them is to be nurtured on his own risen eternal life. So Jesus can then state, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” This inter-abiding, this intercommunion through the eating of Jesus’ risen flesh and blood is to possess, to abide in, eternal life. Such an abiding in the risen Jesus here on earth is the causal prelude for why Jesus will raise one up “at the last day,” for one has already abided with him in the earthly days that preceded the last. The resurrection, the raising up, is simply the logical causal consequence of what has previously been the case. Moreover, contained within the eating of Jesus’ risen flesh and blood is not only the revelation that Jesus himself will be raised up bodily, but also that those who eat his risen body and drink his blood will be raised up bodily at the last day. The resurrected Jesus is a complete glorious human being, and so will those be who presently abide in him within the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a prophetic anticipation, an actual being taken up into, Jesus’ risen glory already here on earth. Jesus deepens further why it is that one who eats his risen body and drinks his risen blood, and so abides in him, possesses eternal life. “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” The foundational source of eternal life is the Father, and Jesus, as the Father’s Son, possesses the same eternal life as that of his Father. Moreover, it is the living Father who sent his Son into the world for the very reason that he might give eternal life to all through his incarnate Son, Jesus. Thus to eat Jesus (“he who eats me”), the Father’s incarnate Son, is to be in communion with the source of eternal life—the Son’s Father, and so live, as does Jesus, “because of the Father.” Likewise, then, for Jesus to say “I am (ego eimi) the bread of life” means that to partake of the risen Jesus in the Eucharist is to share, as human beings, in his divine “I am-ness,” the same “I am-ness,” the same eternal life that he receives as the eternally begotten Father’s Son. In his above statement, Jesus speaks of eating “me.” Prior to this, he consistently spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (verses 52–56). Moreover, in the earlier segment of his Eucharistic teaching, Jesus only spoke of himself as the bread of life that must be eaten in order to possess eternal life (verses 35–51). Why is such the case? The answer is found in Jesus’ statement that “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (verse 51), from which I formulated the phrase that Jesus is the “bread-given flesh.”

244

Chapter 7

We have already seen in our earlier examination that the word “given” implied the Passover sacrificial nature of the “bread-given flesh.” Jesus will give himself for the life of the world by offering himself as sacrifice so that he and those united to him would be able to pass over from sin and death into the eternal glory of his risen life. What was implicit previously Jesus now makes explicit. By distinguishing “the eating of his flesh” from that of “drinking his blood,” Jesus accentuates the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The “flesh” that is eaten is the flesh that Jesus offers on the cross, and the “blood” that is drunk is the blood that he pours out on the cross. Thus Jesus gives his “flesh” and “blood” for the life of the world—his entire holy and innocent life. Moreover, within the Eucharist, what is eaten is the sacrificial and now risen flesh of Jesus and what is drunk is the sacrificial and now risen blood of Jesus. To eat and drink the sacrificial risen body and blood of Jesus is to consume the whole of Jesus—the “me,” and to partake of the whole once-for-all sacrificed and risen Jesus is to be in communion with the once-for-all whole saving event that he enacted through his cross and resurrection. Because one partakes of the entire saving Paschal Mystery, the whole of the crucified and risen Jesus, one reaps the benefits of the entire mystery that it literally embodies—eternal life. What we recognize here is that the Eucharist enacts and so makes present the definitive salvific acts by which human beings are re-created. We are re-­ created in him because Jesus himself, through his sacrificial death and resurrection, embodies this re-creation. The sinful and death-prone flesh (sarx) that the Son of God assumed in becoming man has been transformed into, has passed over into the glorious risen humanity that he now enjoys, and it is within this re-created humanity of the Father’s divine Son that human beings now abide within the Eucharist. So Jesus concludes his Eucharistic discourse by affirming, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” Note that Jesus twice accentuates “this bread.” Within the Eucharist the faithful receive “bread,” and this is the bread that “came down from heaven.” It came down from heaven when the Father’s Son became man, for, the Son having become man, human beings are now able to eat this bread that is Jesus. Unlike the bread that came down from heaven and was consumed by the Israelites, who nonetheless died, those who eat this bread will live forever, for he of whom they eat lives forever. Thus the emphasis on “this bread”—that is, the “bread” that one receives in the Eucharist—underscores the reality what this bread is: the risen incarnate Son of God. If this bread (this Eucharist) is not the full human reality of the risen Son of God, if it is not truly his risen body and his risen blood, if it is not truly “me,” then

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

245

the consuming of it would not ensure eternal life, for one would not be in full communion with him who literally embodies eternal life. Likewise, if the bread is not the risen humanity of the Son of God, then one would not be, literally, in touch with the Son as He Who is and so would not be in communion with his Father as He Who is, and thus one would not dwell within their eternal divine I Am-ness. This bread has to be Jesus, the risen incarnate Son, if he is to be the bread of life. Here we perceive the full meaning of Jesus being the bread-given flesh. In the Incarnation, Jesus is the bread-given flesh because the divine Son of God actually came to exist as a true man. This is the ontology of the Incarnation. Similarly, there is Eucharistic ontology founded upon this incarnational ontology. As the Son of God exists as a man, so, within the Eucharist, the bread must be the risen Son of God existing as man, for if “the bread” is not the risen Son of God existing as man, then one would not be in communion with the risen Son of God, and so one would not reap the eternal benefits of abiding in him. What is given in the Eucharist is bread, but what is given in the given bread is the given flesh of Jesus. The bread is Jesus, and as such the bread is bread only in the sense that it has become and so is Jesus because he is the bread of life. The bread becomes and is then the sign of what it symbolizes—the given risen humanity of Jesus Christ, the Father’s incarnate Son.50 50.  Within Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse, we have emphasized the integral conjoining of the Incarnation, the cross, and resurrection, and the Eucharist, which all pertain to the Son of God existing as man. Moreover, by receiving the sacrificed and risen Son of God, Jesus, in the Eucharist, one is taken up into eternal life, for one is in communion with his risen body and blood—Jesus abides in one and one abides in Jesus. All of the above demands a certain manner in which human beings are ontologically constituted and so exist. Western philosophical thought traditionally has spoken of the human being composed of a “body” and a “soul.” While the Bible does not speak in such a philosophical manner, it is obvious that human beings, within Scripture, possess rationality, and so what pertains to the soul, and are corporal, and so what pertains to the body. From an incarnational Eucharistic perspective, the body and soul must be so united that they together ontologically constitute the one reality that is a human being. Moreover, Jesus’ own humanity is equally so constituted. Such a philosophical anthropology is found within Aristotle and later within Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians. This is theologically important because, in the Eucharist, Jesus gives his complete risen humanity to human beings, and in receiving his humanity, one’s own humanity is in communion with his humanity and with who he is as the Son of God. Without this constitutive ontological union between body and soul, the Eucharistic communion of the two humanities would not be possible. Thus those philosophical anthropologies that argue that the soul and body are ontologically separate and distinct entities, whereby the soul or the intellectual principle dwells in or resides in a body, and so abides or occupies a body, such as in various forms of Platonic, Gnostic, or Cartesian philosophical dualism, would completely undermine the entire Gospel. The Son of God, while possessing a soul, would merely reside in a body and so would not truly exist as man in the scriptural sense. Moreover, in offering his

246

Chapter 7

In accord with my premise that John’s Gospel is offering a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition as found within the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse can then be understood as John’s theological commentary on the Last Supper wherein Jesus instituted the Eucharist. In the Synoptic accounts, Jesus takes the bread, blesses and breaks it, and gives it to his disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt 26:26); “Take; this is my body” (Mk 14:22); “This is my body, which is given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19).51 Jesus gives the bread to his disciples and directs them to take it and eat it, for what he is giving them is his body—his bread-given flesh. What Jesus first holds in his hand is blessed and broken bread, but what he then gives to his disciples is his body. There is a change of “what-ness.” What the disciples take from the giving hand of Jesus maintains its appearance as bread, but what they are in actuality receiving from Jesus and what they are then eating is his body— bread-given flesh. Similarly, Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:27–28); “This is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk 14:24); “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20). Again, what Jesus took and gave thanks for is a cup filled with wine, but what he gives to his disciples to drink is his poured-out blood of the new covenant. There is again a change of “what-ness.” What Jesus takes is a cup of wine. What he gives to his disciples is a cup containing his poured-out covenantal blood. body and blood on the cross, Jesus would not truly be giving himself completely for our salvation, for his body and blood, his corporal humanity, would not truly be who he is. Likewise, there would be no point in Jesus’ bodily resurrection, since his body, again, has nothing to do with who he truly is. Lastly, then, for Jesus to declare that one must eat his body and drink his blood in order to have eternal life would be meaningless, for bodily immortality has nothing to do with being human. There would also be, then, no communion of his humanity, his risen body and blood, with the humanity of those who receive it, for they are themselves not bodily creatures either. What is said here about having a proper anthropology is also relevant as we examine the Last Supper as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. 51.  In his First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul states, “For I have received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night before he was betrayed took bread, and when he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’ ” (1 Cor 11:23–25). Interestingly, although Paul never knew the “earthly” Jesus, it was “from the Lord” that he “received” his knowledge of the Last Supper and so the institution of the Eucharist; it is this revelation that he “delivered” to Corinthians who now enact the Eucharist in memory of Jesus the Lord.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

247

The wine may maintain its appearance and taste, but what the disciples drink is Jesus’ blood—wine-given blood. Moreover, that Jesus distinguishes the bread-body and the wine-blood, and that he designates that the bread is his given-up body and that the wine is his poured-out blood of the new covenant establishes the Eucharist as the new Passover Liturgy—the sacrificial given-up body on the cross and the poured-out blood on the cross. Moreover, Jesus, as the new Passover, is himself the one who passes over from his death on the cross into the resurrected life of the new covenant that he himself now embodies. For his disciples to participate in the new Passover sacrifice and for them to eat his given-up resurrected body and drink his poured-out resurrected blood is, for them, in communion with Jesus, to pass over from sin and death into the new eternal covenantal life of his resurrected glory.52 Thus Jesus’ Johannine discourse is clearly his revelatory reflective elucidation of what he enacts both on the cross and in his resurrection, and which he makes present when instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper—that in the Eucharist he is the living bread that has come down out of heaven, and that he who eats his flesh and drinks his blood, and so unites oneself to his one saving sacrifice, has eternal life. Moreover, this Eucharist will be enacted by his disciples in memory of him, until he raises them up at the last day. 52.  For a full theological interpretation of the Last Supper within the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1:297–318. As in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, so here in my theological interpretation of Jesus’ Johannine Eucharistic discourse, I have attempted to interpret theologically the biblical text in accord with how it was written, and so how Jesus would want his discourse to be understood. For this reason, I did not employ theological or philosophical concepts and terms that would later be used within patristic or medieval theology. Nonetheless, I have obviously interpreted Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church, which was canonized at the Council of Trent and continues to be the doctrinal teaching of the church to the present. The Council declared that the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus can “fittingly and properly be called transubstantiation,” that is, that the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine are changed into the substance of Jesus’ body and the substance of his blood (Trent’s “Decree on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” chap. 4 [Denzinger-Schönmetzer XXXVI (DS), 1642]. See also chap. 1 [DS, 1636]). My expression “change of what-ness” attempts to capture this biblical teaching in a less technical fashion. Both the terms “substance” and “what-ness” express the notion that, after the change, Jesus is present in the Eucharist in the manner that he actually now exists, though under the appearances of bread and wine and not in some lesser manner, such as in a symbolic or spiritual manner or through the exercise of his power. Moreover, I have also argued, again in accordance with, I believe, the biblical text, that the Eucharist is sacrificial in nature, as is Jesus’ death. This understanding is also in accord with the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Eucharist makes present Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice. Thus to participate in the Eucharistic liturgy is to unite oneself to Jesus’ one sacrifice and so reap the benefits of that sole sacrifice—forgiveness of sins and eternal life (see the Council of Trent’s “Decree on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,” chap. 1 [DS, 1740]).

248

Chapter 7

Within the totality of his Eucharistic discourse, Jesus strikingly reveals the manner in which here on earth he most fully enacts his name, Jesus— YHWH-Saves. In becoming man, the Son of God is the heavenly bread that has come down to earth, and in so doing Jesus initiates his saving work. In sacrificing himself, giving his body and blood on the cross and in rising from the dead, Jesus definitively becomes Jesus, for he has freed us from sin and death and offers to humankind new and eternal life. This re-creation is first initiated when Jesus, the Spirit-filled Christ, baptizes the believer into the wellsprings of the Holy Spirit by which the baptized is born anew into the kingdom of God. Yet this very baptismal initiation into the Spirit-filled life points to and finds its fulfillment only within the Eucharist. Only in the Eucharist is Jesus’ saving mystery fully enacted within time and history, for the faithful are taken up into Jesus’ salvific death and resurrection, and believers come into full communion with the heavenly bread that Jesus is by eating his risen body and drinking his risen blood. In the Eucharist, Jesus becomes fully Jesus here on earth, for Christians become fully one with him in the entirety of who he is as their risen heavenly Savior. The Eucharist then anticipates and finds it completion when, at the last day, Jesus raises up into eternal life those who abided in him here on earth. On this first everlasting day, in communion with all the saints, Jesus will have enacted his name fully and so will have fully become Jesus. At this juncture, Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse appears to come to a close. John states, “This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.” An epilogue immediately follows, however, one that details the aftermath of Jesus’ discourse—the issue of belief and unbelief. You Have the Words of Eternal Life In the light of what Jesus taught concerning the necessity of eating his body and drinking his blood, “many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it.’ ”53 So incredible is Jesus’ teaching that it not only cannot be believed, but also even to listen to it cannot be tolerated. The entire idea of eating flesh and drinking blood is simply repulsive. But “Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, ‘Do you take offense at this? Then what if you see the Son of man ascending where he was before?’ ”54 John’s use of the word “murmured” recalls again the murmuring 53.  All passages in this shorter section are taken from Jn 6:60–70 unless otherwise noted. 54.  That Jesus knew “in himself ” that his followers were murmuring implies that he did not actually hear them but could nonetheless tell what they were thinking and saying among

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

249

of the Israelites in the desert. The present Israelites are not happy even though Jesus promises them bread from heaven, bread by which they, unlike their deceased fathers, obtain eternal life. So Jesus retorts with a question: “Do you take offense at this?” If the murmuring crowd is offended by what Jesus lately taught, what would be their reaction if they saw the Son of man, this Jesus who just spoke such offensive notions, “ascend where he was before?” Jesus, the Son of God, came down from heaven as the Son of man, and the vindication of his Eucharistic teaching would be in his ascending back into heaven, that is, an ascending into the glorious presence of his Father who first sent him down to earth as the bread of life. Such a heavenly ascending would express God’s definitive endorsement of what Jesus taught. Such a divine confirmation would be in accord with Daniel’s vision. I saw a vision, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dn 7:13–14) Moreover, Jesus earlier told Nicodemus that he speaks of what he has seen and knows, and yet he is not believed. “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man” (Jn 3:11–13). Nicodemus found it difficult to believe that someone could be born anew. Presently, the Jews respond negatively to Jesus’ teaching that he is the bread of life come down from heaven and that the bread that he, as the descended Son of man, will give is his very own flesh and blood. The proof that Jesus is the descended Son of man, and so that what he teaches on earth is true, resides in the fact that he will ascend as the Son of man from where he came, and in so doing the Ancient of Days, his Father, will give him the dominion and power of an everlasting and universal kingdom.55 What would be the reaction of the themselves. Thus nothing is hidden from Jesus as the Father’s Son. See also Jn 2:25, where Jesus knows what is in men. 55.  Jesus’ observations about his descending and ascending might also refer back to what he told Nathanael. When Nathanael marveled that Jesus saw him under the fig tree, he tells Nathanael that he will see greater things than these. “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (Jn 1:48–51). Here Jesus is alluding to Jacob’s dream: “And he dreamed that there was a ladder

250

Chapter 7

present unbelieving Jews if they saw that? Such a rhetorical question only finds its answer when Jesus, as the Son of man, ascends to his Father. The problem is that some of his disciples possess a fleshly mind. “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” Given Jesus’ teaching that in baptism one is born anew in the life-giving Spirit, it is questionable whether “spirit,” at least in the first instance, should be rendered in the lower case, especially as it is contrasted with the “flesh” (sarx). By thinking in a fleshly manner—that is, corresponding to one’s weakened sinful nature—one will never grasp the truth of which Jesus speaks, for his words, as the Christ, are of the Spirit and so convey spirit and life. Thus one can only grasp the true meaning of Jesus’ life-giving words if one does so in the life-giving Spirit. In their fleshly unbelief, some are incapable of perceiving the spiritual truth that Jesus is attempting to express. John at this point interjects his own brief editorial comment: “For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was who should betray him.” Jesus knows the hearts of men and so he was aware, from the time of the multiplication of the loaves, who would not believe in him. What is startling is that John, seemingly without any reason, adds “and who it was that should betray him.” Shortly, Jesus will allude to Judas, whom John will then identify, but why do Judas and his betrayal enter into the narrative at this juncture—at the end of Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse? I offer this interpretation. Within his Eucharistic discourse, Jesus, as the Son of God incarnate, articulated the central mystery as to why he came down from heaven as man and why, then, he offers himself on the cross, his giving up of his body and the pouring out his blood—it was in order for him to be the Eucharistic risen bread-given flesh and risen wine-given blood for the life of the world. It was so that the faithful could abide in him and he could abide in them, and therefore raise them up at the last day. This central revealed salvific mystery is what could not be believed. And Judas, one of the twelve, would be the nonbeliever who set up on the earth, and the top reached to heaven; and behold angels of God were ascending and descending on it! And behold, the Lord stood above it.” When Jacob awakes, he declares, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gn 28:12–17). As the Son of God and Son of man, Jesus is the ladder or stairway that reaches from earth to heaven, and thus the one who descends and ascends to his heavenly Father. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus has opened heaven, and thus those who abide in him through faith and baptism, and especially in the Eucharist, have access to his heavenly Father. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, is, then, the dwelling place of God upon earth and so the gate of heaven. Later, Jesus will declare: “I am (ego eime) the door/gate; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture” (Jn 10:9).

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

251

would betray Jesus because he himself found this mystery to be repugnant. It was not in accord with what he expected God’s Messiah to be. He availed himself of the flesh, and in him there was no spirit and life. In rejecting the Eucharist, Judas rejected Jesus. This understanding will soon intensify. After this brief explanatory interlude, John states, “And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’ ” Jesus first said this after the first murmuring disgruntlement to his assertion that he is the bread of life come down from heaven. Those known to Jesus to be unbelieving murmurers will remain so unless the Father grants that they come to Jesus. It would seem that Jesus, in this reminder, is counseling the nonbelievers that they ought to ask his Father to be granted access to Jesus in the hope that they could truly see him with the eyes of faith. Nonetheless, John concludes Jesus’ interaction with the crowd on a sobering note, an interface that began when “the multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased” (Jn 6:2). “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” They may have seen the signs and may have even eaten of multiplied bread, but they refused to hear what the signs were saying—Jesus is the Father’s Son who has come down as the bread from heaven to give eternal life. With many of his disenchanted disciples wandering off into the distance, the “multitude” numbering “about five thousand” (Jn 6:10), the disheartened Jesus turns to his twelve Apostles and asks, “Will you also go away?” To this despondent question, asked in hope, Peter replies, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” John’s Gospel does not contain Peter’s profession of faith as found in the Synoptic Gospels. What Peter declares here is the closest to what is found in them. Nonetheless, there are similarities both as to the context and to the declaration. Within the Synoptic accounts, Peter’s profession takes place immediately after Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes. Within Matthew and Mark, it takes place after the second multiplication for four thousand (see Mt 15:32–39 and Mk 8:1–10). In Luke, it takes place after his only multiplication account for five thousand (see Lk 9:10–17). In all four Gospels, there appears to be a historical chronological connection between Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and a profession of faith made by Peter. Although it does not seem to be evident within the Synoptic accounts, John’s account does appear to provide as well a theological link between the multiplication and Peter’s profession, since his profession is within the very context of the unbelieving aftermath of the multiplication and Jesus’ subsequent Eucharistic discourse. Thus John’s account

252

Chapter 7

makes theologically evident what was intrinsically present but hidden within the Synoptic Tradition. Moreover, is John providing not only a theological link between the multiplication and Peter’s profession, but also a theological interpretation of Peter’s profession of faith as contained within the Synoptics and what Peter professes in his (John’s) Gospel? I believe John does. First, we must review the Synoptic narratives. Within the Synoptics, Jesus initially asks his disciples who other people claim him to be. They respond by saying that some think he is John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. All such designations represent those who would come to prepare for the Messiah, and so Jesus would not be the Lord’s Messiah. Jesus proceeds to ask his disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter responds by declaring, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew); “You are the Christ” (Mark); “The Christ of God” (Luke). Thus Jesus is not someone who is preparing for the Messiah but is the Messiah himself. Now Mark’s account, in all likelihood, is the most historically accurate, not simply because it is the shortest, but because Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts appear to articulate more fully what it means for Jesus to be “the Christ.” To be “the Christ” is to be “the Son of the living God” or to be “of God.” In all renditions, nonetheless, it is evident that for Jesus to be the Christ is for him to be the one who is singularly anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and so he is “of God” as the living Father’s “Son.”56 Now, within John’s Gospel, although Jesus asks “the twelve” if they also wish to leave, it is Peter who responds just as he does within the Synoptic accounts when asked who do the disciples say he is. In Matthew’s Gospel, immediately upon Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus declares him to be a happy man, for it was his Father who revealed such truth to him.57 Also, Jesus designates Simon son of John as “Peter” (Rock), “for on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:17–18).58 Jesus will build his demon-impermeable church on the 56.  See Mt 16:13–20, Mk 8:27–30, and Lk 9:18–21. For a fuller theological interpretation of Peter’s profession of faith as found in the Synoptic Gospels, see JBJ 1:209–42. 57.  Within the Johannine context, the Father “drew” Peter to his Son Jesus in order that Peter might believe in him. 58.  Within Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus names Simon son of John “Peter” upon his profession of faith, while within John’s Gospel, Jesus already names him such upon their first meeting when Andrew brings his brother Simon to Jesus (see Jn 1:40:-42). Jesus’ renaming of Simon as Peter has traditionally been interpreted as Jesus appointing him to be the head of the twelve Apostles. He is always listed first when the twelve are named (see Mt 10:2–4, Mk 3:16–19, and Lk 6:14–18). Thus, as the head of the Apostles, Peter authoritatively speaks on their behalf both in the Synoptics and in John.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

253

rock of Rock’s faith, for the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of the Gospel of salvation. Within John, in response to Jesus’ query as to whether the twelve will also leave, Peter (Rock) responds, and he does so by addressing Jesus as “Lord” (Kyrie). For John, this designation is not simply the courteous title “Sir.” Rather, it is an address that bespeaks the divine name “YHWH”—He who is. Being “Lord,” there is no one else whom the disciples may follow. Moreover, in knowing that Jesus, as Lord, speaks words that lead to eternal life, the twelve “have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Here we may perceive the incipient expression of the ancient patristic formula of “faith seeking understanding.” Having come to believe that Jesus is the Lord, the twelve have come to know that he is “the Holy One of God.” Now, if Jesus is the “Lord” and so “the Holy One of God,” given the whole of the Johannine theological context, he must be the Father’s incarnate Son, for only the Son of God could truly be the Holy One of God. And to be the Father’s holy Son would, ipso facto, demand that Jesus be God’s Spirit-anointed Christ. Interwoven within Peter’s “Johannine profession” is his “Synoptic profession”—to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God” and so “the Christ of God” is for him to be the “Lord” (He Who Is) and so “the Holy One of God.” Such an understanding is congruent with the end for which John wrote his Gospel—that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31). What is to be believed from reading John’s Gospel is exactly what Peter declares in the Synoptic account, and so the one common Gospel tradition. Peter’s Johannine profession brings further depth and clarity to that one traditional creed—Jesus, as the living Father’s Son, is the Lord (YHWH), and therefore none other than the Christ, the Spirit-filled Holy One of God.59 59.  Within the Synoptics, immediately following upon Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus begins to foretell his passion and death, whereupon, in Matthew and Mark, Peter remonstrates with Jesus that such should never happen to him. To which Jesus responds, “Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mt 16:21–23, Mk 8:31–33, and Lk 9:22). Although Peter was correct in professing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he failed to comprehend that to be such demanded that Jesus die on the cross and rise from the dead. Peter’s lack of understanding is reminiscent of Satan’s temptations. Peter wanted Jesus to be a Messiah other than the one his Father designated him to be at his Spirit-anointed baptism. John, obviously, does not narrate Jesus’ prophetic declaration of his future passion. Jesus, however, within John’s Eucharistic discourse, subsumes the truth that for him to be the bread of life means that he will give up his flesh upon the cross and pour out his blood upon the cross, and therefore what he gives in the Eucharist is his bread-given flesh and his blood-given

254

Chapter 7

Here we must examine more fully Peter’s claim that because Jesus is the “Lord” he possesses “the words of eternal life.”60 Peter speaks of “words of eternal life”; although unremarkable at first sight, his use of the word “words” is, on further thought, rather peculiar. If Peter had said this within the Synoptic Gospels, the reader would have immediately called to mind Jesus’ parables and the Sermon on the Mount, but John’s Gospel contains none of these. Well, one may object that Jesus just delivered a lengthy teaching on the Eucharist, and he previously spoke at length to Nicodemus and Samaritan woman concerning baptism, both of which pertain to eternal life— how many words does Jesus need to speak to speak words of eternal life? Moreover, the above does not take into account Jesus’ later extensive high priestly prayer. But this very objection illustrates the point at hand. It is Jesus’ actions, and not his words, that give eternal life. All of the miracle signs are actions that prophetically prefigure the supreme acts of the Paschal Mystery—Jesus’ death and resurrection—and so enact the acts by which Jesus re-creates humankind. By baptizing in the Spirit, Jesus gives the one reborn in the Holy Spirit the indwelling wellspring of eternal life. Jesus is the living bread come down from heaven, and by giving his sacrificed and risen flesh and blood, by giving himself, those who abide in him, through communion with him in the Eucharist, possess eternal life. Abiding in the risen Jesus here on earth ensures that Jesus will raise the faithful up at the last day. Moreover, wine. Thus, unlike in Matthew and Mark, when Peter professes in John’s Gospel that Jesus is Lord, the Holy One of God, he is affirming, at least implicitly though probably unreflectively, Jesus’ sacrificial death as well as his subsequent resurrection. Peter’s Johannine profession thus contains within it belief in Jesus’ thrice-told prophetic teaching concerning his passion as found within the Synoptics (see also Mt 17:22–23, 20:17–19; Mk 9:30–32, 10:33–34; and Lk 9:43–45, 18:31–34). This Synoptic thrice-told prophetic anticipation of Jesus’ death and resurrection is nonetheless found in John’s Gospel, where Jesus speaks three times of his being lifted up, whereupon he will be recognized as He Who Is and so draw all to himself in order to give eternal life (see Jn 3:14–15, 8:28, and 12:32). All four Gospel accounts of the multiplication of the loaves, then, prefigure the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist as fulfilled within Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Last Supper narratives, within the Synoptics, tell of Jesus giving himself as the body given up (bread) and the blood poured out (wine). While the Synoptic Gospels narrate these three related events separately, in John’s Gospel, Jesus interweaves their revelatory meaning, and so his own deeper theological interpretation, within his one Eucharistic discourse—the intrinsic interconjoined and interilluminating salvific significance of the multiplication of the loaves, his passion and death, and the Last Supper. Peter, in his Johannine declaration, implicitly professes his and the Apostles’ belief in the totality of what is contained in Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse. 60.  There is here a reciprocal-causal expression of faith. As “Lord,” Jesus has “the words of eternal life,” and because he has “the words of eternal life,” he is the “Lord,” for only one who is divine can speak “words” whereby one who believes such “words” obtains “eternal life.”

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

255

Jesus constantly declares to his Jewish skeptics that the greatest witness that God is his Father, and thus that he is the Father’s Son, is found not in his words but in the Father’s works that he enacts (see chap. 6 in this volume). Thus Jesus words do not possess eternal life in themselves, but because his words tell of the saving significance and meaning of the actions he enacts on behalf of his Father, they are “words of eternal life.” The enacting of his Father’s works manifest that he is the Father’s Son—for we behold “his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, but he is the Word-of-God-in-act in that as man he enacts the works of salvation. As God performed the act of creation through the creative act of his Word, so now the Father performs the act of re-creation through the re-creative acts of his incarnate Son. Thus Jesus becomes Jesus (YHWH-Saves) not by speaking saving words but by enacting saving deeds, for these saving deeds allow those who believe in him, as the Father’s Son, to come into the presence of his Father through the indwelling communion of the Holy Spirit.61 Jesus addressed his question concerning their remaining with him to all twelve Apostles. Peter responded on behalf of them all—where else will we go, for we have believed and we have come to know—Jesus responds to Peter’s profession by first rhetorically asking, “Did I not choose you the twelve,” but then declaring, “and one of you is a devil?” John then identifies who the “devil” is: “He spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.” Jesus chose the twelve, they did not choose him, and yet one of those chosen is the devil for he has not consummated the relationship by subscribing to Peter’s act of faith (see Jn 15:16 and 15:19). To dissent from Peter’s faith is to excommunicate oneself from and so no longer in Eucharistic communion with Jesus. Thus, unlike in Matthew and Mark, Peter is not the one whom Jesus calls “Satan,” but Judas. Because Peter’s profession of faith includes his belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection as contained within Jesus’ 61.  Significantly, Jesus, in John’s Gospel, speaks far more often, both in length and consistency, than he does in the Synoptic Gospels. This “wordiness” once again raises the question: Are the words that Jesus speaks in John’s Gospel historically his words? Or are they John’s words placed in the mouth of Jesus? I would hold that there is an historical basis for what Jesus says. I would also hold, however, as I have said previously, that John often puts his words in Jesus’ mouth because he is providing the fuller revelatory meaning of what Jesus said, and so those words in accord with Jesus’ own thought. Because John is providing his own theological interpretation of Jesus’ thought, particularly concerning the Paschal Mystery and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist that flow from that mystery, he is properly allowing Jesus to speak, in a sense, for himself. To read the words of John is to hear the voice of Jesus. Thus there is an inerrant Spirit-inspired communion, a mystical perichoresis of thought, between John’s theological interpretation of Jesus and Jesus himself.

256

Chapter 7

Eucharistic discourse, he is exonerated within John’s Gospel. Judas, on the contrary, in rejecting Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching and Peter’s profession of faith, becomes the devil who will betray him. Ironically, Judas, as the betraying devil, will commence the condemnatory process that will lead to Jesus’ passion and death, the condemnation wherein Jesus becomes bread-given flesh and winegiven blood.62 n n n

After this lengthy theologically intricate chapter fashioned upon John’s multilayered and ever intertwining theological presentation of Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves, his calming the storm, and his ensuing Eucharistic teaching, I do not think anything new or significant can be said by way of summary. But I would like to make one concluding observation. Within John’s Gospel the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves is Jesus’ fourth sign of seven. It not only stands at the center of Jesus’ miracle signs but also appears to me to be at the heart of the Book of Signs. All that has gone before it, especially concerning baptism, leads to this miracle sign and Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse that follows upon it. For John, then, the Eucharist is not only the summit of his Gospel, but it also embodies the entirety of the Gospel message. All that will come after Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, the remaining two signs of healing the blind man and the raising of Lazarus, will further this understanding of who Jesus is and what he has come to do; namely, that as the Father’s Son incarnate, he has been sent to re-create humankind by uniting all to himself. Moreover, I will argue in the third volume in this series that the Book of Glory is Jesus’ theological commentary, primarily in the form of his high priestly prayer, on the Book of Signs and so emphasizes that, as Jesus and his Father are one, so all who believe in him are to be one in him—an eternal life-giving unity that is most fully expressed within the Eucharist. With the completion of Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse at Capernaum, John next tells of his going again to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles. This chapter will focus on where Jesus is from, and so upon his identity as the Father’s Messianic Son. Moreover, now that Judas, the betrayer, has entered into the scene, the intensity of the Jews’ hatred of Jesus comes to 62.  That Jesus identifies Judas as a devil is not simply because he will betray him, but also because the last thing that the devil would want is for Jesus to give his body and blood to those who believe in him so that they may have eternal life. Satan’s misconceived strategy would be to have Jesus killed, thus putting an end to his being the bread of life. Ultimately, Satan did not grasp the meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse—that through the sacrificial offering of himself on the cross, Jesus would become the resurrected bread of life.

Unless You Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

257

the fore—their desire to arrest and kill him. Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse emerges, then, as the critical narrative turning point in John’s Gospel, for it has provoked obstinate disbelief and in turn irreversibly positioned Jesus on the road to the cross. Thus his Eucharistic discourse becomes the catalyst for Jesus definitively becoming Jesus—the bread-given body and the wine-given blood of the divine life-giving Savior.

8 n

Who Is Jesus?

F

ollowing upon Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse, John’s Gospel, in chapters 7 and 8, takes up the issue as to who Jesus is. The question of Jesus’ identity takes place within seven confrontations with the Jewish authorities and the people. Within each altercation the protagonists offer evidence as to why Jesus cannot be the Christ or the Father’s Son. Jesus not only responds to the allegations leveled against him, but he also positively provides, in an ever advancing revelatory manner, reasons why his opponents should believe in him. Because these two chapters form one continuous sequence of issues that concern who Jesus is, I will examine both of these chapters in this present chapter of our theological interpretation of John’s Gospel. Introduction: Jesus’ Unbelieving Relatives

Chapter 7 begins, “After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”1 Presumably, Jesus continued to teach as he went about in his native Galilee. More importantly, he would not go to Judea for fear of the Jews. At the end of chapter 6, John tells of Judas, and Jesus confirms that it would be he who would betray him. This entrance of Judas upon the scene portended and commenced Jesus’ future doom. Immediately here, at the onset of chapter 7, the animosity against Jesus has risen to such a degree that the Jews want to kill him. Being aware of their murderous intent, Jesus remains within the safe haven of Galilee far from Judea and Jerusalem. 1.  All Scripture quotations within this section are taken from Jn 7:1–9 unless otherwise noted.

258

Who Is Jesus?

259

There is an imminent event, however, that may require Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem. “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” This seven-day Feast of Tabernacles or Booths/Tents (Sukkoth) celebrated the ingathering of the harvest.2 The title comes from the booths that were built to shelter the harvesters from the elements. According to the Talmudic tradition, the participants dwelt in booths for seven days, and on the first night of the feast the area surrounding the temple was lit with torches amid dancing and the blowing of trumpets. On the last day of the celebration, water from the pool of Siloam was poured upon the altar in preparation for a sacrifice. Within this setting, Tabernacles was also seen as a feast that celebrated God’s anticipated messianic reign (see Zec 4:1–9 and 4:16–19). Similarly, Nehemiah sets the feast of Tabernacles within the context of the renewal of the covenant with the reading of the Mosaic Law. The people were to build booths out of branches in reminiscence of their sojourn in the desert (see Neh 8:13–18; see also Dt 31:10–13). By Jesus’ time, it had developed into a feast that rivaled Passover in importance. Jesus, as with the feasts of Passover (Jn 2:13) and Pentecost (Jn 5:1), will embody and so become the new Feast of Tabernacles, thus making it not simply a sectarian Jewish feast but a universal feast for all.3 Jesus will provide, through his sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, the living water of the Holy Spirit, for all who believe in him will be the light of the world.4 Moreover, since it is a harvest feast, Jesus, as the universal harvester, will gather in people from every nation—the fruit of the new covenant’s salvation.5 With the approach of this feast, Jesus’ relatives offer him some advice. “So his brethren said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ ” John here inserts: “For even his brethren did not believe in him.” In the light of John’s comment, Jesus’ own family members, because of their disbelief in him, and so their discomfort of having him ambling about Galilee, wanted to usher him off to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. He should perform his works for his believing disciples in Jerusalem, but not here in Galilee to the embarrassment of his family. Their crafty logic was that going to Jerusalem would be for 2.  See Ex 23:16, Lv 23:34, Nm 29:12, Dt 16:13–15, and Zec 14:16–19. 3.  The Prologue already alluded to this when it stated that “The Word became flesh and dwelt [tabernacled or pitched his tent] among us” (Jn 1:14). 4.  See Jn 7:37–39, 8:12, 9:5, and 12:35. 5.  Interestingly, this feast of tabernacles follows upon Jesus’ teaching that he is the living bread come down from heaven. As the new and universal harvester, who pitches his tent within the world, Jesus will feed all who believe in him with his newly harvested bread-given body and wine-given blood.

260

Chapter 8

Jesus’ own good. In other words, “Leave here, leave this no-account place of Galilee and go big-time. Go to Jerusalem where huge gawking crowds can see your miraculous works. Don’t hide yourself, man; show yourself openly to the world!”6 Jesus responds to this devious counsel by saying, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” Thus John concludes, “So saying, he remained in Galilee.” In the Gospel, Jesus employs the Greek word kairos for “time,” which contains the connotation of “opportune time.” Thus this is not the opportune time for Jesus to go to Jerusalem because his hour, while in the process of being fulfilled, is yet to arrive fully—the hour of his death and resurrection. His relatives’ “time,” however, is always opportune, for they only consider what is timely in the ways of this sinful world, and so the world does not hate them. Conversely, the world does hate Jesus precisely because he, as the Father’s anointed Son, testifies that the world’s works are, unlike his own, evil.7 At the opportune time, at the coming of his hour, Jesus will convict the world of sin and offer it new life through his own death and resurrection. So Jesus bluntly tells his relatives: “Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time (kairos) has not yet fully come.” John then informs the reader that he did remain in Galilee. Where Did He Get This Learning? At this juncture a problem arises, for John immediately narrates, “But after his brethren had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”8 Jesus told his brethren that he is not going up to the feast “but” then he does go up to the feast. Did Jesus change his mind? Has his hour actually arrived? Did it become opportune for him to go to Jerusalem? One early manuscript has Jesus saying that he will “not yet” go up because 6.  John does not name Jesus’ relatives (see also Jn 2:12). But the Gospels of Matthew and Mark provide the names of four (see Mt 13:55–56 and Mk 6:3). Mark’s Gospel narrates a scene where Jesus went home and a crowd gathered around him. Upon hearing of this, Jesus’ relatives “went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is beside himself ’ ” (Mk 3:19–21). The Revised New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible translate it: “He is out of his mind.” Such a scene would corroborate the relatives’ unbelieving discomfort as found here in John’s Gospel. 7.  Jesus will also speak of the world hating his disciples because the world first hated him (see Jn 15:18–21). 8.  All Scripture quotations in this section are taken from Jn 7:10–31 unless otherwise noted.

Who Is Jesus?

261

his time has “not yet fully come,” thus seemingly reconciling the discrepancy, for after his brethren went up, after the “yet” was over, then he went up. Scholars believe that such a “not yet” was inserted into this manuscript to overcome this dilemma, but it does not really work because it deprives the word “but” of its marked significance as well as John’s comment that Jesus remained in Galilee. The straightforward answer to this quandary would be simply to hold that Jesus changed his mind, which is possible, but that would be unusual for Jesus, to say the least. Jesus, not to mention John, is careful about his use of words. More may be involved here that would disallow such an easy interpretation. Is there a veiled meaning within the “not going up to this feast”? To this Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus is not going up, meaning he is not going to attend this feast. And so he remains behind in Galilee, while his brethren set off for Jerusalem. Because it is the Feast of Tabernacles, however, he is not going up in the sense that this is not the feast wherein he will be raised up, go up, upon the cross and enter into (go up) into the glory of his resurrection, for his hour, the opportune hour of his death and resurrection, has not yet fully come. That he remained in Galilee but then goes up, not openly with his brethren publicly but later privately or secretly, accentuates that his journey to Jerusalem for this feast is not the hour of going up to Jerusalem to be lifted up upon the cross and into the glory of his resurrection. When that feast comes, the feast of Passover, then he will publicly enter Jerusalem triumphantly, for his hour of glory will have come for him to be lifted up (see Jn 12:12–16 and 13:1).9 Thus, although Jesus does not yet openly go up to Jerusalem to be lifted up so as to show himself “to all the world,” since his “time has not yet come,” he does later go up secretly. Because of Jesus’ tardy going up, “the Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying ‘Where is he?’ And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, ‘He is a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray.’ Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him.” Here John explicitly makes a significant distinction between “the Jews” and “the people.” While both parties are ethnically Jews, “the Jews” are those in authority who want to kill Jesus (see Jn 7:1). “The people” are simply those ordinary Jews who are muttering among themselves about whether Jesus is good or leading others like themselves into evil. Either way, “the people” kept their mutterings to themselves for fear of their Jewish leaders. Moreover, John 9.  This interpretation is obviously in accord with Jesus’ prophetic thrice-told utterance about his future being lifted up (see Jn 3:14–15, 8:28, and 12:32, as well as 6:62 and 20:17, where Jesus speaks of his return ascension to his Father).

262

Chapter 8

here has set the stage as to who Jesus is—is he a good man or not? In so doing we immediately enter into the first confrontation. Having now arrived late, “about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. The Jews marveled at it, saying, ‘How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?’ ”10 The passage contains two theological points, one that is evident and the other less apparent. I will treat the latter first since it is the background setting that pervades the whole of chapters 7 and 8 of the Gospel. Throughout these two chapters, which encompass the entire Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus teaches in the temple and its surrounding precincts (see also Jn 7:37, 8:2; Jesus makes his final exit from the temple at the end of chapter 8—Jn 8:59). This may simply be because this was the sacred space where the people congregated to celebrate the feast. But it is also theologically important, for both chapters concern Jesus’ identity as the foretold prophet and as the anticipated Messiah, and so his singular relationship with God. Now, for Jesus to teach in the temple is for him to teach in the abode of his Father, the earthly place where God tabernacles. Furthermore, God’s Word has become flesh and so now tabernacles among us as man (see Jn 1:14). Jesus, within the temple-tabernacle in which his Father dwells, will profess, in the course of these chapters, that he is from the Father and knows the Father and therefore abides with his Father as the Father’s Son. In so doing the man Jesus depicts himself, as the Father’s Son, as the new and living temple-tabernacle. Thus we continually perceive within these chapters a theological tableau—the stone tabernacle in which the Father dwells, and within that stone temple is the fleshly Jesus in whom the Father’s Son now tabernacles among us as man. There is here a coalescing of tabernacles, a making of one new temple. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, makes present his Father. To be in communion with Jesus, the Father’s Son, is, then, to be in communion with the Son’s Father. For this reason, Jesus is the Spirit-filled Christ, for he will, as the baptizer in the Spirit and in the Eucharist, establish this communion with all who believe in him. All of the above reaches its climax when, at the end of chapter 8, Jesus declares that, as the Father’s Son, he is He Who Is—the in-fleshed divine “I Am” who tabernacles among us as the Father’s Messiah (see Jn 8:28 and 8:58). Ultimately, Jesus is revealing that, as the Father’s Spirit-filled Messianic Son, he is simply Jesus—YHWH-Saves. What Jesus is doing, then, throughout chapters 7 and 8, in the midst of all of 10.  This marveling at Jesus’ knowledge and understanding is first narrated in Luke where he, as a boy of twelve, is speaking with the teachers who were “amazed at his understanding and answers” (Lk 2:47). Normally, however, as here, it is in the form of disdain and sarcasm (see Lk 4:16–30 and Jn 6:42).

Who Is Jesus?

263

his various confrontations with the Jews, is reconfiguring, through his teaching concerning himself, the Feast of Tabernacles. No longer will it be a Jewish feast celebrating an abundant harvest owing to God’s benevolent presence, but a universal feast celebrating the new manner in which God the Father will be present in the world through the salvific work, the divine harvesting, of his Messianic incarnate Son, Jesus—he who now tabernacles among us. The second theological point concerns the identity, and ultimately the denial, of who Jesus is as the Christ. Jesus, through his teaching in the temple, is attempting to affirm that he is the Father’s incarnate Son and so the Christ. The Jewish authorities, in the same temple, are attempting to prove that such cannot be the case. Their first attempt is to question Jesus’ competence to teach. Jesus underwent no formal training as a rabbi, and so his teaching, while causing amazement, was rendered suspect. Here begins, then, the ongoing issue of who Jesus truly is and where he is really from. Because the Jews are assured of his human origins and history, Jesus, they conclude, cannot be the heavenly Messiah. Within this negative atmosphere Jesus makes his first response: My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man’s will is to do his own will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me? To the question of how Jesus obtained his learning without having studied, Jesus admits that what he says is not his own, thus admitting that he possesses no educational expertise nor is he relying on his own professional personal authority. Rather, his teaching belongs to the one who sent him. One is able to discern whether Jesus is teaching on his own authority or teaching what he has received from the one who sent him by examining the manner in which one uses one’s own will. A man who wills to do his own will will recognize whether Jesus’ teaching is from the God who sent him or from himself. The man who wills to do his own will realizes that he speaks on his own authority, his own will, and in so doing seeks his own glory—the glory manifested in the authority with which he speaks. Yet such a man will recognize that, as in the case of Jesus, he is not teaching by his own authority, for he is not seeking his own glory but that of the one who sent him—his Father. Since Jesus seeks the glory of the one who sent him, and not his own, one can be assured that what

264

Chapter 8

he says “is true, and in him there is no falsehood.” Those who seek their own glory by drawing attention to their own authority may lie in order to enhance the glory they seek, but one never lies when one speaks what is from another in order to enhance the glory of the one on whose authority one speaks. Thus Jesus speaks not from within his own human pedigree or academic training but from within his relation to his Father as the Father’s Son and in so doing gives glory to his Father.11 11.  Interestingly, within the Gospels, the transliterated term “rabbi” is rarely employed, except in John’s Gospel, where it is found nine times. Matthew has two instances of it, but both are by Jesus and are used by way of correction. Jesus castigates the pharisees who love to be “called rabbi by men,” but Jesus states that “you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher” (Mt 23:7–8). Their one authoritative rabbi is God himself, who is the source of all truth. In Mark’s Gospel the blind man, when asked by Jesus what he wants, states, “Master [Rabboni], let me receive my sight” (Mk 10:51). The title does not appear in Luke. The use of this transliterated term places Jesus’ ministry in the context of the teachers of Israel. The first instance in John’s Gospel appears when Jesus turns to two of the Baptist’s disciples who are following and asks what they seek. One replies, “Rabbi [which means Teacher], where are you staying?” (Jn 1:38). In response to Jesus having said that he saw him under the fig tree, Nathanael declares, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (Jn 1:49). Nicodemus begins his conversation with Jesus by addressing him as Rabbi. “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him” (Jn 3:2). Jesus will go on to upbraid Nicodemus for his failure to comprehend, despite being a teacher of Israel, Jesus’ exposition on the new birth by water and the Spirit. When a discussion arose between the Baptist’s disciples and a Jew over purification, they came to John and addressed him as “Rabbi.” Their concern was that Jesus was baptizing and everyone was going to him. John left no doubt that Jesus is more important than him, and therefore Jesus must increase and John must decrease (see Jn 3:25–30). When the disciples return to Jacob’s well with food, they encourage Jesus to eat. “Rabbi, eat.” In response, Jesus tells them that he has food of which they do not know. “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (Jn 4: 31–34). When the crowd finally found Jesus after he multiplied the loaves, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” (Jn 6:25). Upon seeing the man born blind, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents?” Jesus says that neither were responsible; rather, this blindness was “that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is still day . . . As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:1–5). When Jesus informs his disciples that he is going to Judea to heal Lazarus, they remind him, “Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you.” In response, Jesus reminds them that there twelve hours in the day, and they must walk while it is still light (Jn 11:8–10). Lastly, when Mary Magdalene recognized the supposed gardener to be Jesus, she declared, “Rabboni!” (Rabboni means Teacher). To which Jesus responds by telling her not to hold on to him, but to tell the brethren that he is ascending “to his Father” and that she is to say to them that he is “ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:16–17).  The Johannine irony is that the true Rabbi, Jesus, has no earthly teacher, and it is the teachers in Israel who, above all, should recognize his teaching, having the witness of the Scriptures, and of Moses, whose disciples they claim to be (Jn 1:45; 5:39, 5:45–46, 7:38). The rabbi, who teaches Jesus is his Father, the “one teacher” (as in Matthew). The Father teaches Jesus, for

Who Is Jesus?

265

Jesus now abruptly speaks of Moses. He rhetorically asks whether Moses did not give them the Law (see Jn 1:17). Even so, none of them keep the law. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus references Moses as the authoritative figure whom the Jews must listen to and follow, for they themselves claim him as the supreme authority. But Jesus invariably refers to Moses as a counter-witness against them, for, in not believing in him, they do not believe Moses who testifies on his behalf (see Jn 5:39 and 5:45, 6:32, 7:22–23, 9:28–29). Thus, in not keeping the Mosaic Law, the Jews refuse to accept Jesus, and instead they desire to kill him. Jesus’ last accusation provokes a vehement rejoinder-indictment from the people: “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” To accuse Jesus of being possessed by a demon is to designate him as one who is the exact opposite of who he really is as the Father’s Son. It is a fundamental attack on his divine identity. Moreover, it is a direct assault on his being the Christ. If Jesus possesses a demon, then he cannot possess the Holy Spirit and so cannot possibly be the Christ.12 Ironically, in denying that anyone is trying to kill Jesus, Jesus abides with his Father—that is where he stays, for he is the Father’s Son. Jesus is therefore the teacher come from God who works his Father’s signs because he is the Father’s very Word who has become flesh. He is thus the Father’s anointed supreme Rabbi, the Father’s singular sent-forth Teacher. Because Jesus is the Word incarnate, the “rabbi” John must decrease, and Jesus, the “rabbi,” must increase. Moreover, as the Father’s Word, the rabbi Jesus is nourished in doing his Father’s will—the works that his Father shows him. Likewise, where did Jesus come from? Again, the irony is that he has come to earth from the Father, and that is why he, as the Father’s Word, is the Rabbi, the Word of Truth, sent by God, the author of all truth. Similarly, Jesus is the unique Rabbi, for, as the Father’s Word of truth, he is the life of light in the midst of world’s darkness of death. Last, the beloved “Rabboni,” the risen Jesus, is ascending not only to his Father, but also to the Father of all who believe in him. By ascending with Jesus into his Father’s presence, his disciples will obtain in him, in communion with the Spirit of Truth, a full knowledge of the Father. The Son of God incarnate will then have become the supreme Rabbi, the supreme Word, for he will have made fully known his Father (see Jn 1:18). Up to this point, John’s Gospel has emphasized the glory of Jesus as the Father’s Son through the miracle signs that he performs (see Jn 1:15 and 2:11). These glory-displaying signs are the works that the Father gives him to do and so bear testimony that he is the Father’s Son (see Jn 5:19–20). In working such signs, Jesus is not seeking the glory of men but the glory that comes from his Father (see Jn 5:41–44). Here there is a shift to that of Jesus seeking to glorify his Father and not himself. As the Gospel progresses, we will perceive ever more clearly that Jesus, through his salvific works, glorifies his Father and, within the same salvific works, the Father glorifies his Son. There is an earthly mutual inter-relational glorification that mirrors the Father’s eternal glorification of his Son and the Son’s eternal glorification of his Father. 12.  Such an accusation will also be leveled against Jesus in Jn 8:48 and 10:20, though some will attempt to refute this by noting that anyone who speaks as Jesus does and opens the eyes of the blind cannot have a demon (see Jn 10:21). Within the Synoptics, Jesus is also accused of being Beelzebub, the prince of demons (see Mt 9:34, 10:25, and 12:24; Mk 3:22; and Lk 11:19). Significantly, Jesus counters the accusation that it is by the power of Beelzebub that

266

Chapter 8

the Jews have leagued themselves with the father of lies, for they are well aware of their murderous plotting.13 To this accusation Jesus responds: I did one deed, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision [not that it was from Moses, but from the fathers], and you circumcise a man upon the sabbath. If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. The one deed that Jesus performed was the healing of the man at the pool of Bethsaida during the feast of Pentecost. Jesus healed the man on the Sabbath, and for this reason “the Jews sought all the more to kill him” (see Jn 5:9 and 5:16–18). Although the Jews marveled at such a healing, they were more distraught that Jesus broke the Sabbath (see Jn 5:10–15). Jesus next attempts to demonstrate the illogic of their condemnation. In order to keep the Mosaic Law, which originates from the time of Abraham, the Jews circumcise infant males on the eighth day after their births even when this day falls on the Sabbath (see Gn 17:10–14 and Lv 12:3). Circumcision was an act that signified that a man was cut off, freed, or healed from the evil of the world by entering into the covenantal holy relationship with the Lord God. Now if such an act can be performed on merely one member, the penis, of a man in order to incorporate him into God’s covenanted people as prescribed by Moses, why should the Jews be angry when Jesus heals an entire man, his “whole body,” on the he casts out demons by stating, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28). Jesus casts out demons by the Holy Spirit because he is the Spirit-anointed Christ. Moreover, to accuse Jesus of having a demon rather than acting by the Holy Spirit is to commit the unforgiveable sin. “I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” Sinning against “the Son of man” will be forgiven, “but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come” (Mt 12:31–32; see also Mk 3:28–30 and Lk 12:10). To accuse Jesus of having an “unclean spirit” is to be “guilty of an eternal sin,” for such an indictment directly impugns the holiness of the Holy Spirit, the very Spirit by which one is forgiven and cleansed of sin, and so made holy (Mk 3:28–30). 13.  The Greek of Jn 7:20 is consistently translated as an accusation and a question. If one were to understand it as one sentence, however, it would read, “You have a demon, who is seeking to kill you.” Such a translation would contain the ironic meaning that Jesus is associated with a demon, and this demon is out to kill him. In the light of what Jesus said previously about the betrayer Judas, his chosen Apostle, such an ironic understanding may not be unwarranted. “Did I not choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Jn 6:70). That devil, Judas, is out to kill him.

Who Is Jesus?

267

Sabbath? Although Jesus may be referring to this one instance of his healing the entire human being, within this miracle sign there resides a deeper meaning. Jesus, through his own death and resurrection, a death and resurrection that occurs over the course of the Sabbath, will truly heal humankind of, cut it free from, sin and death, and so establish the new covenant. It may appear that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath, but the Jews ought to judge rightly—that his apparent breaking of the Sabbath actually portends the new and everlasting Sabbath, for the Father has once more undertaken, through his incarnate Son, the new creation whereby all men and women can share in the eternal covenantal wellspring of the Holy Spirit.14 Jesus’ rebuttal to the accusation that he has a demon and the insinuation that no one is out to kill him provokes further muttering among the people in Jerusalem. “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is speaking openly, and they say nothing! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?” Despite the denial of the Jewish authorities that they are out to kill Jesus, the people are well aware that such is not the case. Yet, surprisingly to the people, not only is Jesus speaking openly and so could easily be arrested, but the authorities are also curiously silent. This inexplicable situation causes the people to conjecture whether the authorities themselves know that Jesus is the Christ, and thus the reason for their puzzling inaction. They nonetheless attempt to answer their own quandary: “Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.” Of all the ironic statements within John’s Gospel, this one may be the most ironic. The people know that his father is Joseph, and they know his mother (see Jn 6:42). Shortly, they will insist that the Christ cannot come from Galilee, but rather he must be of David’s lineage and so be from Bethlehem, the city of David.15 The people are absolutely convinced that they know all of the facts about where Jesus is from, and yet not only do they not know that Jesus is from his heavenly Father as the Father’s Son, but they also do not even know that he is of David’s lineage and so was born in Bethlehem. And their complete ignorance, both as to his divine identity and as to his human ancestry and birthplace, ironically for John, proves Jesus to be the Christ because “when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.” Unbeknownst to them, the people’s own ignorance proves the point they so confidently think they have disproved. What we perceive here then is a twofold intertwined question. First, who is Jesus’ Father? Second, where is Jesus from? If Jesus is Joseph’s son, then he 14.  The role of the Holy Spirt will become explicit shortly. 15.  See Jn 7:41–43 and 7:52 and Mi 5:1–2.

268

Chapter 8

is from Nazareth in Galilee and therefore cannot be the Father’s Son or the Messiah. If Jesus is the Father’s Son, then he is from heaven. Moreover, this twofold issue concerns not simply Jesus’ divine origin as the Father’s Son but also the Incarnation. To know both that Jesus is the Father’s Son as well as that he was born in Bethlehem is to know the truth of the Incarnation. Only if the Word became flesh could the Father’s Son be born in Bethlehem.16 Thus the very evidence that the people put forth to deny that Jesus is the Christ is the very evidence that confirms the Incarnation and in so doing attests that Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, is the foretold Spirit-filled Messiah—he who as God and as man possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. So, “as he taught in the temple,” Jesus responded by proclaiming, “You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.” Jesus on one level sarcastically queries the people’s assured but false understanding of who he is and where he is from. But by immediately stating that he did not come of his own accord, the “but,” Jesus implies that the people unknowingly did acknowledge who he is and where he is from, and he simply wants to clarify that he, as the Father’s Son, did not come as man on his own authority but was sent by his Father. His Father is true in that he testifies that Jesus is his sent Son. The real problem, therefore, lies not simply in the people’s erroneous belief that Jesus is the son of Joseph, and thus from Nazareth in Galilee, but more so in their not knowing the Father. If they truly knew the Father, they would recognize the Father’s incarnate Son—Jesus. To deny that Jesus is the Father’s Son inherently bears witness, within the denial itself, that one does not know the Father. Jesus closes with three interconnecting staccato declarations: “I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.” Unlike the people, Jesus knows the Father because he is the Father’s Son, and the reason he knows the Father as the Father’s Son is because he comes from the Father. He comes from the Father as “the only Son 16.  We find in the above an instance of what, in Christology, is known as the communication of idioms, that is, the predicating divine and human attributes to the one and same Son. The eternally begotten Son of the Father can properly be said to be born in Bethlehem because one and the same Son eternally exists as the Father’s Son and, in coming to exist as man, is born of Mary as man. Equally also, this is why Mary can be called the Mother of God (Theotokos), for he who was humanly born of her is the Father’s Son. Also significant is that John, within the people’s denial, demonstrates that he is well aware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and so from the tribe of David. Such knowledge demonstrates that John knew of the Lukan Infancy Narrative tradition, even if he did not know the Gospel itself. Actually, more than likely, the Lukan narrative tradition came from John since he cared for Mary after Jesus’ death. Mary would have informed John of the nature and whereabouts of Jesus’ conception and birth.

Who Is Jesus?

269

from the Father” (Jn 1:14). And, being eternally begotten of the Father, the Father sent him into the world as his incarnate Son. As the sent Son of the Father, this implies that Jesus is doing the work of his Father. “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known” (Jn 1:17–18). While the people do not know the Father, they could come to know him if only they would recognize that Jesus is the Father’s Son. Even though I have extensively treated this issue in volume 1 of Jesus Becoming Jesus, it would be good to pause here in order to address briefly the manner of Jesus’ knowledge of his Father. In claiming that he knows the Father, as opposed to others who lack of such knowledge, Jesus implicitly is affirming that his knowledge of the Father is unique to himself as the Father’s Son. This singular knowledge, in turn, is founded upon Jesus’ specific relationship to his Father as the Father’s Son. That is, because Jesus is ontologically from the Father as the Father’s Son, and so equally God as the Father is God, his knowledge of the Father differs in kind and not in degree, from everyone else’s knowledge of the Father. Eternally, the Son knows the Father perfectly and as God’s Word possesses the complete truth that the Father himself is. If he did not possess the fullness of divine truth, the Son, as the divine Word, would not be truly God. Thus the Son eternally enjoys an unqualified filial vision of his Father founded upon his ontological oneness with his Father. As the incarnate Father’s Son, Jesus likewise, in a human manner, experiences a singular filial vision of his Father. In coming to know his Father through his human filial vision, the incarnate Son, Jesus comes to know himself as the Father’s Son. As the Father and Son eternally know one another fully in relation to one another and in so doing know their own distinct divine identities, so the incarnate Son humanly comes to know himself as Son, his singular divine identity, in humanly coming to know his Father. This mutual knowing of one another is facilitated by the Holy Spirit. Eternally, the Father, in the love of the Holy Spirit, gives himself entirely in begetting his Son and simultaneously, in that same Spirit-filled act of begetting, gives his Son perfect knowledge of himself. The Son, in knowing perfectly his Father in the same love of the Spirit in which he is begotten, gives himself entirely, in that loving Spirit, to his Father as the Father’s loving Son. Similarly, within his incarnate state, the Son, through his human filial vision of the Father, experiences his Father’s Spirit-filled paternal love and so knows himself as the Father’s beloved Son. In turn, Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son, filially loves his Father in the same Spirit in which he himself is loved. All of the above is contained in Jesus’ simple threefold statement, “I know him, for I

270

Chapter 8

come from him, and he sent me.”17 Jesus knows his Father as his incarnate Son, for, as Son, he has eternally come from his Father, and he has presently been sent into the world by his Father so that, as man, he would make his Father known. With this in mind, we can return to the Gospel narrative. Having proclaimed his knowledge of the Father, John concludes this confrontational exchange by saying, “So they sought to arrest him; but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. Yet many people believed in him; they said, ‘When the Christ appears, will he do more signs that this man has done?’ ” As Jesus had informed his relatives that he was not going to the feast for his “time has not yet come” (see Jn 7:8), so now, having come to the feast, those who wanted to arrest him could not lay hands on him, for “his hour had not yet come.” In the attempt to arrest Jesus, one perceives the “hour” swiftly approaching, but it has yet to arrive. Nonetheless, despite all of the seeming evidence that he could not be the Christ, many believe in him, for would someone who is “the Christ” perform “more signs than this man has done?”18 Jesus’ miracle signs offer the greatest testimony to his being the Christ, the Spirit-anointed Father’s Son. If the people do not believe his words, they should believe on account of his works.19 Thirsting for the Holy Spirit The Pharisees are distraught by such talk, for they “heard the crowd thus muttering about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him.”20 Having failed to arrest him in a previous attempt, the Jewish authorities now enhance their determination to kill Jesus by sending “officers.” They cannot chance the destabilizing mutterings of the unreliable rabble. Here we have the second skirmish between Jesus and his Jewish skeptics. 17.  For fuller treatments of the above theological understanding with related issues, see JBJ 1:179–206. Here I particularly examine Mt 11:27 and Lk 10:22. “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” See also my Jesus: Essays in Christology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2014), chaps. 17, 18, and 19, 266–301. This passage from Matthew and Luke is obviously Johannine in nature. What is fascinating is that Jesus, in John’s Gospel, never speaks of “of the Son” knowing the Father, but in terms of “I” knowing the Father without referring to himself as “Son.” While his divine Sonship is implied, it is never explicitly stated. Thus Jesus’ declaration in Matthew and Luke, surprisingly, is more “Johannine” than what is found in John. 18.  Interestingly, although John’s Gospel appears to stress the disbelief of the Jews, it consistently notes that many did believe in Jesus (see Jn 8:30, 10:42, and 11:45). 19.  See Jn 5:36, 10:37–38, and 14:11. 20.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 7:32–39 unless otherwise noted.

Who Is Jesus?

271

In response, Jesus returns to the topic of his relationship to his Father. “I shall be with you a little longer, and then I go to him who sent me; you will seek me and not find me; where I am going you cannot come.” With the hour close at hand, Jesus will remain on earth for only a little while longer. Having finished the salvific work his Father sent him to do as the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus will return from whence he came—back to his Father as the Father’s gloriously risen incarnate Son. The Jewish leaders and people may look for him, but they will not find him, not simply because he has ascended to his Father, but more so because they do not believe in him. Because of their lack of faith, their not abiding in him who is the Father’s Son, they cannot come where Jesus will be—in the presence of his Father. Jesus’ statement throws the Jews into an unresolved dither. “Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks? What does he mean by saying, ‘You will seek me and you will not find me?’ and, ‘Where I am you cannot come?’ ”21 The Jews are completely baffled, but in their inability to resolve the muddle, they do strike upon a truth. The Gospel will be preached to the Greeks, and so, through the teaching of his Apostles, Jesus will go among them. Leaving the Jews to their own bewilderment, the Gospel moves to the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, “the great day.” On this final day, cleansing water from the pool of Siloam was poured upon the altar in preparation for a sacrifice (see Lv 23:36). In the midst of this closing liturgical celebration, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Jesus’ proclamation here echoes what he said to the Samaritan woman at the well. There he told the woman that if she knew who it was who was asking her for a drink, “he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10). The living water that Jesus will give “will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (Jn 4:14). Here Jesus speaks to those who are thirsting, but 21.  That Jesus will return to his Father alludes to what he had already said. In Jn 3:13, Jesus states, “No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” In Jn 6:62, he says, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascend where he was before?” That the Jews will seek Jesus and not find him is also found in Jn 8:21, 13:33, 14:19, and 16:16–19.

272

Chapter 8

again not to those who are thirsting for natural water. Rather, he is speaking to those who are spiritually thirsting for God, for according to Scripture, from within such a person “shall flow rivers of living water.”22 Moreover, as with the Samaritan woman, faith in Jesus as the Christ is a prerequisite for receiving this ever flowing river of living water from within one’s heart (see Jn 4:25–26). Once more, we perceive the inherent relationship between faith and baptism. Through faith and baptism, one is born anew into the eternal life, the living waters of the Spirit (see Jn 3:5–6). John’s postscript makes this clear. Jesus was speaking of “the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.” But John specifies that “the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Only when Jesus reconciles humankind to his Father through his sacrificial death, and only when he is gloriously raised up, is he then empowered to send forth his Spirit upon those who believe in him, for only then will he have established God’s kingdom into which believers are born anew through baptism in the Spirit.23 The above is in keeping with what God revealed to John the Baptist. “ ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:33–34). 22.  There is no exact scriptural quotation that Jesus is reciting. The closest is a collation of passages from Isaiah: “For I [God] will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring” (Is 44:3). “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters” (Is 55:1). God will guide his people so that “you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters fail not” (Is 58:11). Although the present translation of the Greek, which is the better rendering, specifies that it is from within the believer’s heart that living waters will flow, it could also be translated that it is from within Jesus’ heart that living waters will flow. Thus, when one believes in Jesus, the living waters of the Holy Spirit will flow out from his heart upon the faithful. This would be in keeping with the Spirit-filled water that flows from Jesus’ pierced side (see Jn 19:34). Jesus (John) could have had both understandings in mind. Jesus, who possesses the fullness of the Holy Spirit, will, as the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, pour out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe so that they too share in the ever flowing Spirit’s life-giving water. 23.  Does what John states mean that the Spirit was never active prior to Jesus’ glorification? In one sense the Spirit was active throughout the history of God’s chosen people—in the Patriarchs; in Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; in David and Solomon; in the Prophets; and within the faithful Israelites. Yet this activity of God’s Spirit was in anticipation of and dependent upon what Jesus would later accomplish through his death and resurrection. In another sense, however, the fullness of the Spirit’s activity, an activity that differs not simply in degree but in kind, only begins when Jesus is glorified, for only then can believers be fully cleansed of sin and re-created as children of the Father in Christ Jesus, because only then has God’s kingdom come to full birth, a kingdom that the risen Spirit-filled Jesus himself embodies. This fulfillment will be enacted in John’s Gospel when the resurrected Jesus breathes forth his Spirit upon his disciples on the first Easter evening (see Jn 20:22).

Who Is Jesus?

273

Is Jesus the Prophet and the Christ? Jesus’ summoning to himself those who thirst once more prompts among his listeners further debate as to who he is. Some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there was a division among the people over him. Some wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.24 Even though Jesus does not respond to these questions, the text from here to the beginning of chapter 8 provides a summary of the Jews’ concerns and their various responses to it. For this reason, it can be seen as the fourth investigation as to who Jesus is. For Jesus to be “the prophet” is for him to be the one whom God foretold to Moses.25 To be the anticipated prophet is, then, to be the expected Spirit-anointed Messiah who would bring salvation to God’s people. Although some believed that such was the case, others argue that such could not be so, since the Christ is of King David’s lineage and so would come from Bethlehem and not from Nazareth in Galilee. We have treated the irony that Jesus is actually from Bethlehem and so of David’s ancestry. The one point to be accentuated here is the relationship between being the Christ and being of David’s line. The Davidic reference subsumes within the Messianic understanding the notion of royal kingship. To fulfill the Messianic mission is for the Messiah to become a Messianic king, and thus to initiate the everlasting divine salvific kingdom that God had promised to David (see 2 Sm 7:11–14 and Ps 89:27–37). After Jesus multiplied the loaves, the people, believing him to be the prophet, wanted to force him to be their king, but he withdrew into the hills (see Jn 6:14–15). This notion that Jesus is a king only comes fully into play during Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection, for only then does Jesus establish the everlasting divine Davidic kingdom of salvation.26 The people are nonethe24.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 7:40–8:1 unless otherwise noted. 25.  See Jn 1:21 and 1:45; Dt 18:15 and 18:18. 26.  See Jn 12:13–15, 18:33–38, 19:12–15, and 19:19–22. The referencing of Bethlehem and David’s everlasting kingdom in relationship to Jesus being the Christ is in keeping with Luke’s Infancy Narrative. There the angel Gabriel proclaims that the Lord God will give to the son born of Mary “the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:31–33). Being conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, Jesus will be holy (see Lk 1:35). To the shepherds the angel

274

Chapter 8

less ironically correct. Jesus will be the Messianic king, for he does come from Bethlehem and so of the royal lineage of David. Having summarized the debate among the people, John again remarks that some wanted to arrest Jesus, but no one laid their arresting hands on him. With this failure to do so, the officers, who had been sent by the chief priests and the Pharisees specifically to perform this task, returned empty handed. Dismayed, the Jewish authorities asked, “Why did you not bring him?” To which the officers reply, “No man ever spoke like this man!” In consternation, the Pharisees indignantly retorted, “Are you led astray, you also? Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But the crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed.” The Pharisees are confounded that their own officers have been duped when they themselves have stood firm in their disbelief. The uninstructed rabble may have fallen prey to Jesus’ charm, but then they are a basket of doomed deplorables from the start. What is striking here is not the stubborn disbelief of the Jewish authorities but the insight of the officers. They recognized that never before has there been a man who spoke as Jesus spoke. For John, this perceived uniqueness betrays the fact that this man is the Word of God incarnate, and so he speaks in a manner that is in accord with who he singularly is—the Father’s Son. At this juncture the present but silent Pharisee, Nicodemus, who “had gone to him [Jesus],” raises his cautionary voice. “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” In defense of his friend Jesus, this may have been a politically astute move on Nicodemus’ part in order to defuse, at least in the short term, a literally deadly situation. The problem is that everyone already knows what Jesus says and does, and because all of this is so well known, judgment has already been made. There is no point in bringing Jesus in for questioning. Nicodemus’ failure and the rendered verdict are apparent in the Pharisees’ ridiculing dismissal. “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee.” Thus the ongoing confrontation and debate ends, and the judgment is rendered—because he is from Galilee, Jesus is not the prophet nor is he the Christ. The Jewish leaders “went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives” (Jn 7:53–8:1). That John specifies that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, the only time it is mentioned in his Gospel, is ominous, for it intimates that he went there to pray at a time when his hour is on the horizon. Moreover, declared that to them “is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11). Again, there is commonality between John’s Gospel and Luke’s infancy account. For a fully theological interpretation of Luke’s Infancy Narrative, see JBJ 1:7–13, 18–21, 27–30, and 35–40.

Who Is Jesus?

275

that John immediately informs the reader that “early in the morning he came again to the temple” to teach all of the people who had gathered means that he had spent the entire night on the mount and thus further insinuates his agonizing nocturnal prayer (Jn 8:2). The Jewish authorities may have returned home to their beds, but Jesus spent a sleepless night with his Father. Without any further ado, we turn immediately to chapter 8. The Woman Caught in Adultery John informs us that, having returned in the early morning from the Mount of Olives, Jesus “came to the temple; all of the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.”27 Being in the temple, Jesus is once more in the presence of his Father. Once again, the people come to him there so that they too are in the presence of God, though unaware that they are also, in their disbelief, in the presence of the Father’s Son.28 In the course of Jesus teaching the people, John’s Gospel rather abruptly now informs the reader: “The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery.”29 Having placed the woman “in the midst,” they said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman has 27.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 8:2–11 unless otherwise noted. 28.  John speaks of “all the people.” He cannot mean everyone in Jerusalem. But in saying “all,” he is specifying that all the people who had been embroiled in the previous confrontations returned, which implies that, while many of them were opposed to him, they were still attracted to what he had to say. “All” felt compelled to come even if they were condemnatory of what he taught. Their consciences may have been troubling them. 29.  At this juncture we face a textual issue. Although the story of the woman caught in adultery is presently found only in John’s Gospel, scholars maintain that this episode was later inserted into the original text because it does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. It does appear in some early Latin translations at this point, but other early Latin texts have it in different places, such as after Jn 7:36 or at the end of the Gospel. The Catholic Church accepts it as canonical. Because of its literary style, however, scholars believe this story is more Lukan in character even though it does not presently appear in Luke. Nonetheless, it does appear in some early manuscripts after Lk 21:38 or at the conclusion of his Gospel. Although it is impossible to sort out the authorship history of this event, I wonder if Luke did not write it, but that he did so based upon conversations he had either with John or Mary. We must remember that Luke must have obtained the material for his Infancy Narrative from Mary, and Mary would have been living with John; thus Mary could have spoken of this event or John himself could have informed Luke. Thus, while it may have originally been placed in Luke’s Gospel, its Johannine origin could have been later recognized and so placed within John’s Gospel. The theology contained in the story of the adulterous woman is quite Johannine in nature. Despite its confused textual history, the story of the adulterous woman is considered to be historical. That being said, originally I was not going to treat this story because of all the textual issues. But at the insistent and strong urging of my friend Dr. John Yocum, I decided to do so, hopefully to good theological effect.

276

Chapter 8

been caught in the act of adultery. Now the law of Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” The Evangelist immediately informs the reader of their motivation. “This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.” In order to grasp the significance of the entire story, a few comments are in order at this introductory stage. First, the night Jesus spent praying on the Mount of Olives is the same night that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. Presuming that Jesus was praying to his Father concerning his pending death, the sacrificial death in which he would save sinners, one of those sinners for whom he would have prayed, at least implicitly, would have been the woman who now stands before him. The night of her sin, as will be seen at the story’s conclusion, is not followed by the dawn of her condemnation but by the dawn of her salvation. Thus the reason why this story of the adulterous woman might have been placed here is to illustrate the forgiving and saving work of Jesus. This will become more evident as the story progresses. Second, it would appear that the woman was “set up.” One never commits adultery in a place wherein such an act could easily be discovered, particularly when one is engaged in the act itself. The scribes and Pharisees contrived and executed this adulterous scenario for the very purpose of testing Jesus. The woman was being manipulated and used for their devious and therefore sinful purposes. If the woman now stands in shame before Jesus and the gathered crowd (among whom the woman would probably have been known), the scribes and Pharisees appear before Jesus and the crowd in their feigned self-righteous indignation. They manifest no scrupulosity or awkwardness as to how they could have discovered such a secretive and intimate act, one that, if discovered, would be extremely embarrassing. The woman’s humiliation must have touched the heart of Jesus, as would the heartless cunning of the scribes and Pharisees have caused inner ire to rise up within him, especially when he realized that they were merely out to entrap him. This shameful situation was perpetrated by shameless men. Third, the scribes and Pharisees address Jesus as “teacher,” and as such they want a considered legal opinion from him. Here is where the entrapment looms. According to the Mosaic Law, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Lv 20:10). Similarly, “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lays with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel” (Dt 22:22; see also Ex 20:14).30 Thus if he does 30.  What is fascinating here is that the adulterer is absent from the scene. If the woman was found in the act of adultery, then the adulterer had to be present as well. That the adulterer

Who Is Jesus?

277

not uphold the law of Moses, the promulgater of God’s law, then Jesus can be accused and convicted of not being a true man of God, as was Moses; much less could he be the Messiah whom Moses foretold. If he concurs with the law of Moses and sanctions the woman’s death, then Jesus could be taken before the Roman procurator and accused of inciting the Jewish populace to break the law, for the Jews were forbidden under Roman rule to enact the death penalty for a capital crime. The scribes and the Pharisees were convinced that they had Jesus in a no-win situation. Whichever way he adjudicated, he would be in trouble—either with Moses or with Caesar. Jesus’ response to the entire initial scene is rather mysterious. “Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” The scribes and Pharisees continue to ask him for a judgment. He then stood up and said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” At which point, “once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.” Often the question is asked, “What was Jesus writing?” as if the knowing of what he wrote would provide the clue as to his enigmatic reaction, and the subsequent one-by-one leave taking of the scribes and Pharisees. The interpretative clue is not in what Jesus wrote, however, but in his finger by which he did the writing. In the course of the plagues, God said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your rod and strike the dust of the earth, that it may become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt.’ ” The Egyptian magicians attempted to do the same but failed. They exclaimed to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Ex 8:16–19). Aaron’s rod became the finger of God, the divine power by which the dust of the earth became a plague of gnats. More directly, and more significantly, when Moses and the Israelites came to Mt. Sinai, God made a covenant with his people and gave to Moses his covenantal laws and decrees. These began with the Ten Commandments, one of which is “You shall not commit adultery” (see Ex 20:1–17). The remainder of Exodus 20 and all the way to the end of Exodus 31 contains all of the commands God gave to Moses—the entire Mosaic Law. The last verse reads, “And he [God] gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him on Mount was not brought forward lends credence to the judgment that the whole affair was contrived. The adulterer was in cahoots with the scribes and Pharisees, and so let off from being charged by them. Also, the Mosaic Law does not specify that the adulterous woman should be stoned, though that may have become the custom. Such a manner of death is only specified when a man violates a willing betrothed virgin (see Dt 22:23).

278

Chapter 8

Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Ex 31:18).31 Simultaneous to God giving to Moses his laws and decrees, however, the people beneath Mt. Sinai were making a golden calf before which they worshipped and feasted. God told Moses to return to the people, for “they have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly out of the way I have commanded them, they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshipped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt’ ” (Ex 32:1–8). God wished to destroy Israel, but Moses interceded on her behalf, and God relented. Nonetheless, when Moses came to the people, having taken with him the two tablets, the tables that “were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God,” Moses “threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain” (Ex 32:15–19). Having burnt and grounded up the molten calf, and having the people drink the dregs of their sin, Moses, at God’s command, returned to Mt. Sinai with two newly cut tablets, upon which God said, “I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which you broke” (Ex 34:1). Moses’ breaking of the stone tables was an act symbolizing that the Israelites had broken the commandments that God himself had written with his own finger. But the principal sin was the idolatrous act of worshipping a god of their own making. Ultimately, they had broken the covenant by choosing another god other than the Lord God. This sin was judged, within later Old Testament thought, to be an act of adultery. God, speaking through Jeremiah, tells at length Israel’s unfaithfulness, for she, like an adulterous wife, has prostituted herself with many gods. Like a female camel, Israel sniffs out the wind for lovers. “Who can restrain her lust? None who seek need weary themselves; in her month they will find her” (Jer 2:23–25). “You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return? says the Lord. Lift up your eyes to the bare heights, and see! Where have you not been lain with? By the waysides you have sat awaiting lovers like an Arab in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your harlotry” (Jer 3:1–2, see also 3:6–10).32 In Ezekiel, God first speaks of his love of Israel, how he loved her from her birth, how he cared for her in her youth, and betrothed 31.  In the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses recounts the story of how he obtained God’s commandments: “And the Lord gave me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of fire on the day of the assembly” (Dt 9:10). 32.  Psalm 106 similarly declares that the Israelites “sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings” (Ps 106:38–39).

Who Is Jesus?

279

in her maidenhood, even making a covenant with her (see Ezek 16:1–14). “But you trusted in your beauty, and played the harlot because of your renown, and lavished your harlotries on any passer-by. You took some of your garments, and made for yourself gaily decked shrines, and on them played the harlot; the like has never been, nor ever shall be” (Ezek 16:15–16). Israel even offered her sons and daughters in sacrifice to false gods. Even though God loved Israel from her birth, “in all your abominations and your harlotries you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, weltering in your blood” (Ezek 16:20–22). The adulterous betrayal of Israel is most vividly portrayed when God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a harlot. “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord” (Hos 1:2). God laments, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols” (Hos 11:1–2; see the whole of chaps. 2–13). What is to be perceived in relation to Jesus, the woman caught in adultery, and her Jewish accusers? In the light of what has just been narrated, the entire story of the woman caught in adultery has become a symbolic enactment of the entire history of God’s relationship to Israel. To clearly grasp this depiction, we need to examine each actor in turn. First, it is Jesus’ finger that transforms this historical event of the woman caught in adultery into an iconic representation of Israel’s covenantal relationship with the Lord. God wrote the entire Mosaic Law, but we now recognize that the finger he employed in writing the law was his eternal Word. Being God’s Word, the Word is the fullness of God’s truth. His very being therefore encompasses the law. The Mosaic Law contains the words of God’s Word, God’s finger. God never does anything, never writes anything, apart from his Word—his very finger. From the onset of God’s covenant, however, Israel did not keep the law—God’s word. Even before Moses brought the finger-written law down from Mt. Sinai, the Israelites had broken the covenant, having prostituted themselves with a molten calf. God had forbidden adultery among men and women, but Israel’s first act of betrayal was an act of adultery against God. And who caught them in the very act of committing adultery? It was God himself, for he informed Moses, while he was still on the mountain, of the people’s unfaithfulness—“I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people” (Ex 32:9). Their first act of betrayal was an act of adultery, and their entire history, as found in God’s condemnation within the books of the prophets, is one of unfaithfulness—a history of adulterous acts committed with other gods.

280

Chapter 8

Second, by writing on the ground with his finger (noted twice), Jesus is manifesting to the scribes (writers/scholars of the law/word) and the Pharisees (the supreme keepers of the law/word) that he, as man, is the incarnate finger of God, the incarnate Word of God. He, the Word, the finger YHWH first employed to write the law, is now he, the Word, who is YHWH’s incarnate finger.33 As he bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger, Jesus was identifying himself as God’s Word/Finger, and in that same act, he was symbolically enacting the entire history of God’s covenantal relationship with his people— YHWH’s love for them in making a covenant with them and in giving them the commandments, as well as their continual adulterous betrayal of him. Third, by writing on the ground with his finger, Jesus obviously now transforms the historical individual woman caught in adultery into an icon of the whole of adulterous Israel. Israel has been caught in adultery, for she has been unfaithful to her God. Her whole history, beginning with God writing the law of the covenant with his own finger, has sought out other gods. In the presence of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus’ finger is noting Israel’s own betrayal. Thus when Jesus states, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” he is addressing not simply those attending scribes and Pharisees, but the whole of Israel. In the adulterous woman the whole of God’s people stands accused. There is no innocent Jew who can cast a condemnatory stone. In a sense, if stones are to be cast, then the whole Jewish nation must be stoned. It is significant that, in the midst of Jesus’ finger writing and his words, the scribes and Pharisees “went away one by one, beginning with the eldest.” From the oldest to the youngest, every Jew, one by one, throughout history, recognizes that he or she is not without sin. The climax of this historical event of the woman caught in adultery, which Jesus has transposed into a symbolic exposé of Israel’s sinful history, now assumes its hidden real meaning. Having been left alone with the woman, Jesus says, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replies, “No one, Lord.” To which Jesus responds, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” None of her sinful Jewish accusers can condemn her, and neither are there any innocent Jews within Israel’s history able to condemn 33.  In Matthew and Luke the Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. Jesus retorts by asking by whom their sons cast out demons. In Matthew, Jesus then declares, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28). Given that the story of the adulterous women is Lukan in nature, it is now not surprising that in Luke’s Gospel Jesus states, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk 11:20). Being the Spirit-filled Son of God, the Word of God, Jesus, through his humanity, his finger, is able to cast out demons.

Who Is Jesus?

281

Israel. They have all, one by one, retreated in sinful shame. Sinless Jesus, now alone with the adulterous woman, is the only one who could condemn her, but he will not do so, nor will he condemn the adulterous woman Israel. Although the woman may have called Jesus “Lord” without intending its full meaning, its full meaning within John’s Gospel is evident. Jesus is truly “Lord,” for he is He Who Is, and he is so as man—Jesus is YHWH-Saves. The woman being the symbol of Israel, the implication, the hope, is that the whole of Israel will recognize Jesus as Lord, and thus not be condemned but saved, so as to sin no more. Israel, the adulterous woman, can once more be, in Jesus her savior, the pure and holy covenantal spouse of God. Here we must return to the Old Testament prophets. We highlighted above that the Lord God condemned adulterous Israel within the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea. Each of these prophets also speak of Israel’s future messianic purification, however. Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . . For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer 31:31–34) Israel broke God’s Mosaic covenant even though God was her “husband.” Now God promises to make a new covenant, which he will write with his finger not upon stone but upon their hearts. This new covenant, this purifying and sanctifying new re-creation, God will achieve through the finger of his incarnate Son, for all who believe in him as their saving Lord will become children of the Father through the transformative indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus, God will once more espouse his people to himself. In the Book of Ezekiel, God promises that he will vindicate his holy name, which the Israelites have profaned among the nations. He will do so by purifying them of sin and sanctifying them with his Spirit. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from your idols I will cleanse you. A new

282

Chapter 8

heart I will give you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. (Ezek 36:22–29) God will rid the Israelites of their adulterous idols so that they can truly walk in his statutes. He will do so by taking from them their stony hearts and replace them with spirit-filled hearts of flesh. Then they will be his people, and he will be their God. Within John’s Gospel, this prophecy is fulfilled through the Spirit-filled Jesus, who will baptize those who believe in the Holy Spirit. They will be born anew into God’s kingdom so as to be cleansed of sin and obtain eternal life (see Jn 3:3–6). Despite the fact that Israel has been an adulterous wife as symbolized in Hosea marrying the prostitute, Gomer, God promises: I will heal their [the Israelites’] faithlessness; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them. . . . They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon. O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? It is I who answer and look after you. I am like an evergreen cypress, from me comes your fruit. (Hos 14:4–8) Although Israel has been unfaithful, God will remain faithful. In his faithfulness he will once more prosper her, freeing her from idols and making her a sweet-smelling fruitful garden. God’s messianic promises given to adulterous Israel, as implied above, are found in Jesus. God will ultimately not condemn Israel but save her and make her holy. This fulfillment is enacted in Jesus not condemning but forgiving the adulterous woman, and directing her to sin no more. Moreover, this enactment not only looks back to the Old Testament assurances, but also, and more immediately, to John’s Gospel itself. Jesus’ declaration that he will not condemn her, as well as his admonition that she should not continue to sin, harkens back to John 3. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God

Who Is Jesus?

283

sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God. (Jn 3:16–21) The Father sent his Son, God’s eternal Word, his writing finger, not to condemn the world, particularly not adulterous Israel, but to save the world, particularly the people he calls his own. Such salvation, eternal life, depends on faith, faith in the name of the only Son of the Father, Jesus—YHWHSaves. This is the good news contained within the story of the woman caught in adultery. This is why the story is placed where it is within John’s Gospel. In the midst of Jesus’ contentious debates with the unbelieving Jews, Jesus must be seen not as the one who condemns them but the one who saves them, for he is not only the one through whom God wrote the law of Moses, but, being God’s finger, he is also the one through whom God will write a new chapter in Israel’s history, the re-creation of Israel as God’s beloved espoused people. Thus what Jesus is symbolically writing on the ground with his finger is the new covenant that God is making with his people—a covenant of forgiveness and newness of life.34 There is a judgment, but not one that Jesus gives. As Jesus will shortly declare, “I judge no one” (Jn 8:15). It is that the light has come into the world, and yet men love darkness, the darkness of their sin, rather than the light, the life of light that is Jesus. In the darkness of night the scribes and Pharisees plotted their evil deeds, but in the dawning of day, when Jesus was teaching in the temple, he brought the light of salvation to the accused woman and so revealed that he is the light of life to a Jewish nation caught in the adulterous darkness of sin and death. Thus the story becomes the perfect prelude to what follows in the Gospel. “Again, Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, 34.  If the adulterous woman is the icon of sinful Israel, Mary, Jesus’ mother, the “woman,” can be seen as the new icon of sinless Israel, the pure and holy church whom Jesus will espouse through his saving death and resurrection, and upon whom he will pour out his life-giving Spirit on Pentecost. Within the Catholic Church, Mary is believed to be immaculately conceived without sin, and as such she symbolizes the pure and holy bride of Christ, his church.

284

Chapter 8

but will have the light of life’ ” (Jn 8:12). Unfortunately, the unbelieving Jews take umbrage at Jesus’ declaration. The conclusion of the story of the woman caught in adultery contains its own Johannine irony. None of the woman’s accusers cast a stone at her, with the implication that they are not without sin. Later in chapter 8, Jesus will ask of the Jews, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (Jn 8:46). No one will respond to Jesus’ question, but at the end of the final confrontation between Jesus and the Jews, after Jesus declares that “before Abraham was, I am,” the Jews “took up stones to throw at him” (Jn 8:59). Although no one was willing to throw a stone at the adulterous woman, the unbelieving Jews were more than willing to cast stones at Jesus even though no one could convict him of sin.35 Moreover, they did so because they believed Jesus had committed blasphemy by appropriating the divine name YHWH—He Who Is. Again, the irony is that Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is He Who Is—YHWH-Saves.36

35.  A tangential irony is that not only do the present nonbelieving Jews desire to stone Jesus, but also their ancestors did stone the prophets of old, the very prophets who reprimanded them for their adulterous idolatry and who foretold the future messianic age. As Jesus himself laments, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Lk 13:34; see also Mt 23:37 and Heb 11:37). Notice that Jesus speaks in terms of “I.” He, as the eternal Word, spoke through the prophets of old and in so doing desired to gather his sinful Jewish brethren to himself. 36.  Before proceeding, I want to note two final points. First, in John’s Gospel, when Jesus is crucified, Pilate “wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.’ ” This inscription was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The chief priests protested, saying, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am the King of the Jews.’ ” To which Pilate responded, “What I have written I have written” (Jn 19:19–22). Pilate writes God’s final word. He is God’s finger. What Pilate wrote, as God’s finger, is that Jesus is the King of the Jews, and he did so in three languages so that the entire world would know. God’s final word, written by Pilate’s finger, is that Jesus—his incarnate Word, his incarnate finger, the finger through whom he wrote, writes, and will write, the whole of human history—is the King of Jews. This testimony is what the Father has written concerning his crucified, and now risen, Son, and what he has written, he has written! Second, in a similar vein, I think we see that this Johannine depiction of the story of the adulterous woman is again addressed particularly to John’s own contemporary nonbelieving Jewish brethren. John wants them to see that Jesus, as God’s Word, as the Father’s finger through whom he made the covenant and wrote the law of Moses, has come not to condemn them but to bring them eternal life, and so fulfill the Mosaic Law, which his own Word wrote. Likewise, their Lord God is calling them, through his incarnate Word, to abandon their adulterous sin, so as to be freed from death’s darkness and thus obtain the life-giving light of his Spirit. Thus, as noted at the onset, although the literary rendering of the story may be Lukan, the theology contained within the story is Johannine.

Who Is Jesus?

285

I Am the Light of the World The story of the woman caught in adultery having come to an end, the Evangelist continues with Jesus once again speaking to the people within the temple. Jesus said to them: “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will have the light of life.”37 The somber agonizing night with his Father results in Jesus’ early morning reappearance in the temple, where he declares that he, like the ever rising sun, is the light of the world. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:5). Thus John initiates this theme of “light” in his Prologue. There he declares that the Word, who was eternally with God when the beginning began, and so was with God as God, is life, and his “life was the light of men.” In our opening chapter, when examining the Prologue, we saw that John is making reference to the first creation story in Genesis. There God first creates light, and all else that is created follows upon that original light. From this I argued that God’s first act of creation, in first creating light, was to reveal himself. The primordial created light reveals the eternal splendor of God who is the source of all life. From within his divine light all else would come to be. Following upon this Genesis account, John perceives that what God the Father actually revealed, in first creating light, was his Word—the life of light in, with, and through whom he created all else that came to be. God’s eternal Word first shines forth amid the darkness of nothingness, and the darkness of nothingness will never overcome the life-giving light that is God’s own Word. Here we first find the primacy of the Word, for God first reveals his Word—the Word from whom all else comes, and thus the life-giving light that all else would first then behold. Moreover, by beholding the life-giving light of the divine Word, creation would also behold the life-giving radiance of God, for the Word perfectly displays the source from which his own life-giving light proceeds. Furthermore, within the Prologue, John speaks of John the Baptist as the one who, though not the light, came to bear witness to the light in order to foster belief in the light, for “the true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.” Neither the world that he created nor the Jewish people from whom he was born as man received him. The Word of life nonetheless came into the world to enlighten everyone, for “all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” because they were born of God’s will and not by human origin. Thus “the Word became flesh and dwelt [tabernacled] among us,” and “we have beheld his glory, glory 37.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 8:12–20 unless otherwise noted. This is the second “I am” (ego eimi) saying, the first being “I am the bread of life” (Jn 6:35).

286

Chapter 8

as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:6–14). Similarly, then, to behold the enfleshed glory of the only Son is perceive the glory of his Father, for the Son is the Father’s perfect image, the glorious icon of his Father. Besides viewing, within the context of John’s Prologue, what Jesus states concerning himself being the light of world, we must also consider it from within the present setting of the feast of Tabernacles. This feast included the temple’s torch-lit illumination, a symbol of being in the light of God’s presence. Such symbolism is founded upon what took place after Moses had finished constructing the portable tabernacle. “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:34). The book of Leviticus tells us that when Moses and Aaron came out of the tent of meeting, “they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all of the people” (Lv 9:23). Likewise, after Solomon prayed the final prayer dedicating the new stone-built temple, wherein the Ark of the Covenant was placed, “fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple” (2 Chr 7:1; see also 1 Kgs 8:10–11). The heavenly fire that consumed the sacrificial offering simultaneously precipitated the coming down of the Lord’s glory, thus ratifying God’s acceptance of the offering. Because the glory of the Lord had entered the temple, the priests were now unable to enter, and the people, beholding the glory of the Lord, “bowed down their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord” (2 Chr 7:2–3). Similarly, in one of Ezekiel’s visions, he was brought to the east gate of the temple and fell on his face. “As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, the Spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple” (Ezek 43:4–5; see also 10:19). As the glory of the eastern rising sun pervades the whole earth, so God’s ever rising glorious presence illumines the temple.38 What we perceive here is that the glory of the Lord that was first manifested when God created the primordial light on the opening day of creation is the same glory of the Lord that is later manifested within Moses’ original wilderness tabernacle and later within Solomon’s permanent Jerusalem temple. The divine light of creation leads to and so is finalized and completed within YHWH’s covenantal glorious presence within the temple. 38.  Isaiah’s vision of God in the temple is similar. “I saw the Lord seating upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings; with two he covered his face and two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to the other and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory’ ” (Is 6:1–3).

Who Is Jesus?

287

Within the context of John’s Prologue and within the setting of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus now emphatically declares, as the sun comes up over the horizon and in the torch-lit temple wherein his Father’s glorious presence dwells, “I, I am (ego eime) the light of the world.” Now, in this brief declaration, I propose that Jesus provides his own theological interpretation of his Transfiguration, an event that John’s Gospel does not contain.39 Within the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ “face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Mt 17:2; see also Mk 9:3). In Luke, “his raiment became dazzling white” (Lk 9:23). Thus the whole of Jesus’ humanity glows and radiates the divine light that manifests that he is the Christ, the Son of living God—a proclamation that Peter made shortly before (see Mt 16:16 and parallels). Moreover, “two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which would be accomplished at Jerusalem” (Lk 9:30–31). Moses symbolizes the covenant with its law, and Elijah portrays the entire prophetic tradition. The passing over, of which the three speak, is Jesus’ death and resurrection. This passing over, within the Johannine context, is Jesus’ hour of glory, for his sacrificial death would fulfill all of which the ancient law and prophets spoke, and so usher in the new covenant, the new relationship with God, that the risen Jesus himself would gloriously embody. In the hour of Jesus’ death and resurrection we behold fully the glory, “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:15). What ties the Transfiguration as portrayed in the Synoptics to Jesus’ Johannine proclamation is not simply that both have to do with his being radiant with light, but strangely enough with Peter’s odd suggestion that he, James, and John construct “three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Mt 17:4 and parallels). Mark and Luke note that Peter’s comment was ill conceived. Yet, literally, in the light of Jesus now declaring himself, in John’s Gospel, to be the light of the world during the Feast of Tabernacles, Peter’s remark may not have been as inept as was first thought.40 Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, has pitched his tent among us, and he will fulfill the Mosaic Law and the prophets through his death and resurrection, his passing over from darkness into glorious light. Thus the glory of the whole of the old covenant (Moses and Elijah) will be subsumed into the glory of the crucified and risen Jesus, 39.  Although John’s Gospel does not narrate the Transfiguration, the whole of his Gospel nonetheless manifests Jesus’ glory—“glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). Jesus’ declaration that he is the light of the world accentuates this all-pervading Johannine truth. 40.  This may be a form of Johannine irony where someone says something meant to be taken one way when in fact its untended meaning is actually the true import of what is said.

288

Chapter 8

who will everlastingly pitch his tent (along with Moses and Elijah) among us as the new covenantal life-giving light, a light not only of the Jews but also of the whole world. Moreover, although Matthew and Mark speak of the luminous cloud of the Transfiguration overshadowing the three Apostles, Luke specifies that “they entered the cloud” (Lk 9:34). Jesus did come down and pitch his tent among us, but rather than the transfigured Jesus remaining here on earth with us, as Peter proposed, the point of his coming down was to take us up into his transfigured glory, thereby allowing us to tabernacle, to pitch our tents, with him in his heavenly light. Simultaneously, out of the cloud, the Father’s voice was heard: “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” (Lk 9:35; see also parallels). The Father declares that Jesus is his Son, his Spirit-chosen Christ. The Apostles, and everyone else, are therefore to listen to him, for he himself is also revealing that he is the Father’s Son. If they do so, they too will enter into the glorious presence of his Father. This is precisely what the unbelieving Jews do not do. “If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (Jn 8:47).41 The Jews’ unbelief, their inability to listen to the words of Jesus, also makes it impossible for them to go where Jesus is going; that is, they cannot enter into the glorious presence of his Father because they do not believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son (see Jn 8:21). Having hopefully established the inherent revelatory relationship between the Transfiguration and Jesus’ declaration that he is the light of the world, we still need to unpack more if we are to grasp more fully what his declaration reveals. First, in so declaring himself to be the light of the world, Jesus is making an incarnational proclamation. As the incarnate “I am,” Jesus is affirming that he possesses his Father’s eternal glory as the Father’s Son, and by stating it as man, he is asserting that it is as man, through his humanity, that his divine glory is enlightening the world. The divine life of light, the Word, is now, as man, the light of the world, and it is as man that he has come to give “the light of life.”42 Thus, through the Word’s flesh, the weakness of his sarx, the glory of the Father’s Son is manifested in his salvific 41.  John’s Gospel declared that it was out of love that God sent his Son into the world, so that all who believe in him might have eternal life. Those who do not believe in him are already judged, for “the light has come into world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come into the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (Jn 3:16–21). The unbelief of the Jews’ leaders keeps them in darkness because, by implication, their deeds are evil. They desire to kill Jesus. 42.  Within the Old Testament, God’s word is portrayed as a light. “The word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps 119:105; see also Prv 6:23).

Who Is Jesus?

289

work, specifically in his death and resurrection, and this work is for all to behold in faith.43 Second, Jesus, in the midst of the divine-indwelling ancient temple, is also declaring himself to be the new living temple, for it is as man that the divine “I am” now tabernacles among humankind, and he therefore is the new and abundant light not only for the Jews but of the world. Here we perceive the coalescing of the old and the new temples. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, subsumes into himself the glorious presence of his Father as manifested in the ancient stone temple and radiates it evermore gloriously through the living reality of his own humanity, for it is the living incarnate Father’s Son who now brilliantly tabernacles among us. Those who then abide in the living temple that is Jesus abide in the Father’s Son, and so abide equally in the Son’s Father. Those who, in faith, follow Jesus, the light of life, will then no longer flounder in darkness but will walk in his light (see Jn 12:35–36).44 43.  Here we find Jesus fulfilling what was declared by the prophet Isaiah: “Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has arisen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Is 60:1–3). Interestingly, at the end of promulgating the Beatitudes, Jesus tells his disciples, “You are the light of the world. . . . Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:14–16). What Jesus designates his disciples to be and so to do in Matthew, Jesus designates himself to be and so to do in John. He is the light of the world, and he displays his light before men. In doing his Father’s works, Jesus gives glory to his heavenly Father, and in seeing his good works, men then in turn give glory to his Father. 44.  The First Letter of John also employs this understanding of Jesus being “light.” He states that “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.” To walk in the light is to have fellowship with those who believe because “Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:5–7). Later, the letter states that “the true light is already shining” and therefore there is a need to live in that light and not in darkness. To live in this light is to live in love (1 Jn 2:8–11). Paul also takes up the theme of light. Because salvation is at hand, believers who live in Christ are to “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light” (Rom 13:11–14). The Corinthians are to continue to follow Jesus and so see “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.” “For it is God who said, ‘Let light shine out in the darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4–6). Unlike Moses, who had to veil his face upon seeing God, “when men turn to the Lord the veil is removed,” and so “we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:15–18). Although the Ephesians were once in darkness, but “now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light” (Eph 5:8–9). They must remember the saying “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light” (Eph 5:14). Likewise, the Thessalonians must always be aware that, because of their life in the Lord, “you are all sons of light and sons of day; we are not of the night or of darkness” (1 Thes 5:5).

290

Chapter 8

Third, although Jesus is, as the incarnate Father’s Son, the living temple, the living temple that he is only comes to life fully through his death and resurrection.45 As the glory of the Lord only appeared within Moses’ tabernacle and within Solomon’s temple within the offering of an acceptable sacrifice (God’s fiery presence consumed the offering), so Jesus, as the new high priest, only truly becomes the luminous temple in the act of offering himself as the acceptable sacrificial victim. That his Father found Jesus’ self-offering acceptable is manifested in the Father’s raising him gloriously from the dead. By raising Jesus from the dead, his Father established him as the radiant light of the new life-giving temple. The risen Jesus is the new and living temple because he is simultaneously the supreme priest who ceaselessly offers the most holy sacrificial victim that is himself. In the life-giving light of the risen Jesus, the temple, the priest, and the sacrifice are one, and Jesus in this threefold identity tabernacles among us as the light of the world. Thus, as the life-giving light of God’s creating Word overcame the darkness of nothingness, so the re-creating lifegiving light of God’s incarnate Word, the Father’s Son, overcomes the darkness of sin—the darkness of death’s nothingness. Moreover, and importantly, as the life-giving light of creation finds its first “finality” in the life-giving light of the first covenant, so the life-giving light of both find their definitive expression in Jesus’ new and everlasting covenant. Furthermore, the finality of this definitive expression is only fully consummated in the glorious coming of the risen Jesus at the end of time. In his final vision within the Book of Revelation, John says, “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun and moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light shall the nations walk” (Rv 21:22–24; see also 22:5). Notice here that both together, God and the Lamb, are the living light within the heavenly Jerusalem. God is the eternal light, and the Lamb, the ever-living priestly sacrifice, is, as the Father’s incarnate Son, the lamp of divine light of the world.46 The Word who became flesh will ever tabernacle 45.  This follows upon what was stated above. That Jesus is the new temple in whom the fullness of the life of light dwells only comes to completion within the saving acts of his death and resurrection. These acts are “the hour” of his luminous glory. This is in keeping with what Jesus says in his earlier cleansing of the temple: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John specifies that Jesus was speaking “of the temple of his body” (Jn 2:19–21). 46.  Such a vision is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words that on the day of the Lord “the moon will be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mt. Zion and in Jerusalem and before his elders he will manifest his glory” (Is 24:23). John emphasizes this theme in his First Letter. The message that John proclaims is “that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and

Who Is Jesus?

291

among us, and we see forever Jesus’ glory, the glory of the only Son from the Father (see Jn 1:14). The primacy of the life-giving light of the Word that was first manifested in the primordial act of creation finds its culminating and everlasting act in the coming of the Father’s incarnate gloriously risen Son at the end of time. At the end of the Book of Revelation, the soon-to-come Jesus calls himself “the bright morning star” (Rv 22:16.) As he was the primordial morning light of the first day, so Jesus will be the morning light of the everlasting eighth day. Thus Jesus, as the incarnate Word, the Father’s Son, is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.47 Fourth, the above has emphasized that Jesus, the incarnate Son, is the lifegiving light of the world, and he is such in relationship to his Father the source of all life-giving light. What has been absent is the role of the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit contribute to Jesus being the light of the world? Here we must return to the witness of John the Baptist. John, although not the light, was sent by God to bear witness to the light. When questioned by the priests and Levites as to who he is, John confessed that he was not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet. Seeing Jesus approach to be baptized, John declared, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” Moreover, he bore witness that he “saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven and it remained on him,” and therefore Jesus “is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” That Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit demarcates him as “the Son of God” (Jn 1:19–34). Thus Jesus, he who is the life of light, is the Spirit-anointed Christ; he who singularly possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. Being such, Jesus is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. When Jesus then declares “I, I (ego eimi) am the light of the world,” he is proclaiming this truth not only because he is, as “I am,” God’s illuminating lifegiving Word and his Father’s glorious Son, but also because, as the incarnate Word, he is the Spirit-anointed Christ. From all eternity, God illuminates his Word, and the Father imbues his Son with the divine life-giving light of his paternal Holy Spirit. Now, as the Father’s incarnate Son/Word, Jesus glows and so radiates, in, with, and through the weakness of his flesh, the same lifegiving light of the Holy Spirit that he divinely possessed eternally. To behold Jesus, the life-giving light of the world, is, then, to behold him who embodies do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all evil” ( 1 Jn 1:5–7; see also 2:9-11). To be cleansed of sin through the blood of Jesus, and so to abide in him, is to abide in the life-giving light of the eternal Father. As the eternal Word and incarnate Father’s Son, Jesus eternally mediates the life-giving light of the Father, for it is only in Jesus, the light of the world, that we see the source of all light, the eternal Father (see 1 Jn 2:24–25 and 3:9). 47.  See Rv 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13.

292

Chapter 8

the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, as the Baptizer in the Spirit, is therefore the life-giving light of the world because the life-giving light that he will give is the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. Believers, in being baptized with the Holy Spirit, are thus born anew (Nicodemus) in the Holy Spirit so as to possess the wellspring of eternal life (the Samaritan woman)—the inner heart-flowing rivers of living water that is the Holy Spirit. Moreover, when he baptizes in the Holy Spirit, that baptismal act is the act by which Jesus subsumes the baptized into himself and so into the life-giving light of his Spirit. By abiding in Jesus’ Spirit-filled life, to abide in Christ, is to live in his light, the light that leads to his life-giving heavenly Father. Jesus will become the baptizing light of the world because he is the Lamb of God who, again, will sacrifice himself for the forgiveness of sin and so merit his life-giving resurrection.48 As the risen incarnate Christ, Jesus is empowered to baptize with the Holy Spirit all who believe in him who is the Father’s Spirit-filled Son and so are re-created into his divine Spirit-filled likeness, for they now partake of his Spirit of Sonship. By providing a theological account of the role played by the Holy Spirit in Jesus being the light of the world as the baptizer in the Spirit, we have also achieved a fuller understanding of what it means for him to be the new and living luminous temple. The Son of God incarnate tabernacles among us as man and the glory that is made visible in, with, and through his humanity is the glory of the Holy Spirit that dwells within him as the Messiah—the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. Although the fullness of Jesus’ Spirit-filled glory will only be wholly manifested in his resurrection, for only then is he empowered to baptize with the Spirit, we perceive that the man Jesus, as the new and living temple, literally embodies the entire Trinity. The one God dwelt in the Jerusalem temple. (Actually, the Trinity dwelt in the temple because God is eternally the three divine persons, but he was only known as the one God by the Jews.) As the Son of God incarnate, Jesus subsumes into himself not only the life-giving light of his Father but also the life-giving light of his Father’s Holy Spirit. Thus, for Jesus, as the Father’s Spirit-filled Son, to be the light of the world is, for him, as the new and living tabernacle, to radiate and so convey the entwined perichoretic life-giving light of the all glorious Trinity. Moreover, when Jesus then baptizes in the Holy Spirit, what he is ultimately doing is subsuming the baptized into the heavenly temple that he is, for in him, through the indwelling Spirit, one is conjoined to the Father 48.  As we saw in note 47 above, the Book of Revelation envisions the gloriously risen sacrificed Lamb as God’s lamp by which the heavenly Jerusalem is illuminated and in whose light all nations will walk (see Rv 21:22–24).

Who Is Jesus?

293

as his children (see Jn 1:12) and so enabled to worship the Father in spirit and truth (see Jn 4:23–24).49 In concluding our examination of what it means for Jesus to be the light of the world, I want to make two points. First, to know who the man Jesus is, his identity, as the light of the world is to know the entire Trinity. To know in faith that the man Jesus is the light of the world is to know that he is the Father’s Spirit-imbued Son. If Jesus were not, he would not be the light of the world, for his humanity alone would manifest nothing but his human weakness—his sarx. As it is, his sarx is the incarnate means in which and through which the Son mediates the paternal divine life of light of his Father through the indwelling life of light of his Father’s Spirit, thus making him, the incarnate Son, the life-giving light of the world. Second, what now becomes obvious is that, in being the light of the world, Jesus, as he does in being the bread of life, enacts his name and so becomes Jesus—YHWH-Saves. As the incarnate divine “I am,” Jesus saves the world by becoming the world’s life-giving light. By bestowing the Father’s life of light as the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, Jesus enlivens and so enlightens all who believe in him as the Father’s Son. Jesus rebirths, in the Holy Spirit, the faithful into his own risen humanity and so into the eternal life of his Father’s kingdom. Lastly, by bringing all into the life-giving light of his Father’s presence in communion with the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit, Jesus becomes the new and living temple—the heavenly temple in which he, as YHWH-Saves, will everlastingly shine forth as the Father’s once and for all temple-slain and temple-risen Lamb.50 49.  Although the emphasis here is on Jesus being the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, the effect of which is that those who are so baptized enter into the new and living temple that Jesus is, having been assumed into Jesus, the living temple, the baptized are empowered to participate in the Eucharist—the Lamb’s once-and-for-all saving sacrifice. Moreover, the baptized are able to become fully conjoined to him, and so tabernacle fully in communion with him, by partaking of his risen given-up body and his risen poured-out blood. To dwell in the new and living temple that Jesus is is to reap the benefits of his once-and-for-all temple sacrifice that Jesus is—communion in his Father through the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. 50.  The Letter to the Hebrews professes much of what has been treated here and thus corroborates and reinforces this Johannine account. Jesus “was faithful to him [God] who appointed him” just as was Moses. “Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.” Unlike Moses, who “was faithful to God’s house as a servant . . . Christ was faithful to God’s house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope” (Heb 3:2–6). Moreover, we have a high priest, “one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent [tabernacle] which is set not by man but by the Lord” (Heb 8:1–2). Moses’ tent was a “copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8:5). “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater

294

Chapter 8

As the result of Jesus’ proclamation that he is the light of the world, the fifth confrontation with the Jews begins. The Pharisees immediately object: “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.” Within the Jewish law, there must be the witness of at least two if the testimony is to be accepted as true. “A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime or for any wrongdoing in connection with any offense that he has committed; only on the evidence of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall a charge be sustained” (Dt 19:15). Importantly, Jesus’ proclamation that he is the light the world is not a testimony concerning another person’s crime. He accuses no one of anything criminal. His testimony is entirely positive, for it concerns his own identity. In demanding the need for witnesses other than his own, however, the Pharisees are implicitly accusing him of a crime—that is, of lying and ultimately of blasphemy, for saying that he is the light of the world carries with it the notion that he is God, for only YHWH is the true light of the world. Shortly, at the climax of this series of confrontations, this very charge of blasphemy will be laid against Jesus, and because of this judgment, the Jews will pick up stones to throw at him.51 The Pharisees may not have been conscious of the significance of their own objection, but the hidden inference does not escape John’s notice. If Jesus cannot provide credible witnesses to substantiate what he says, the Pharisees are ever ready, with more than two witnesses, to accuse him of the crime of blasphemy. Jesus nonetheless responds by acknowledging the seeming legitimacy of the objection. Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for and more perfect tent [tabernacle] (not made with human hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves, but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11–12). Thus Jesus is “the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb 9:15) and “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb 9:28). “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:19–22; see also the whole of chaps. 8–10). Having been born anew in the Holy Spirit, we are able to abide with Jesus, the great high priest who offered the holy sacrifice of himself (the Lamb), in the heavenly tabernacle, and so sit with him at the right hand of his Father on high. 51.  See Jn 8:59; also 10:31 and 11:8.

Who Is Jesus?

295

it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me. Even though Jesus does bear witness to himself, contrary to the law, his testimony is true because he knows from where he comes—that is, from his Father, and therefore he knows that he is the Father’s Son (see Jn 1:14)—and as the Father’s incarnate Son, he is the light of the world. Similarly, he also knows where he is going. After completing his saving work, his salvific death, Jesus will return, gloriously resurrected, into his Father’s presence. The Pharisees, however, because of their unbelief, do not know that he is the Father’s Son and therefore do not know that he is from the Father, and equally, then, they do not grasp that he will return to his Father. The problem resides in the Pharisees judging according to the flesh; that is, they perceive Jesus only as Joseph’s son who comes from Nazareth in Galilee and who therefore cannot be the Messiah.52 Because of their fleshly judgment, they will accuse him of blasphemy in claiming to be from God. Jesus, however, accuses no one, for his testimony is not one of accusation but of positively bearing witness to who he is as the Father’s life-giving light of the world.53 Nonetheless, even if he does judge, Jesus’ judgment is true, “for it is not I alone who judge, but I and he who sent me.” Jesus rightly judges that he is the light of the world because he is not a singular witness, but his Father who sent him also rightly judges. Jesus therefore has the prerequisite number of witnesses, as stated in “their law,” for his judgment to be true.54 “I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” In a previous confrontation with the Jews, Jesus states, “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears me is true.” Although Jesus admits here that 52.  Jesus previously accused the Jews of judging “by appearances and not by right judgment” (Jn 7:24). 53.  By saying that he judges “no one,” Jesus seems to contradict what he states in Jn 5:22, 5:27, and 5:30, where he claims that all judgment has been given to him by his Father. In the present situation, Jesus judges no one “according to the flesh” but according to a person’s belief or unbelief, and, further, he is presently making, unlike the Pharisees, no accusatory judgment but solely bearing testimony to himself. 54.  Interestingly, Jesus says “in your law” and not “in our law.” While a Jew who keeps the law, Jesus is implying that in the present situation the law ultimately does not apply, for the Jewish law cannot be the final arbiter of whether he is the Father’s Son or not. Nonetheless, Jesus is willing to accept their law, for not only does he bear testimony, but so too does his Father.

296

Chapter 8

his singular witness cannot be taken as true, there are others who testify on his behalf. Such testimony is not simply that of John the Baptist, but the greater witness is the works given to him by his Father, for they testify that “the Father sent me.” Thus “the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me” (Jn 5:31–37). Here Jesus’ salvific works are the Father’s testimony that he is the sent Son of the Father. But presently Jesus claims that the Father who sent him bears witness to him apart from his works. Remembering that this confrontation is still within the context of the Feast of Tabernacles and, given my judgment that what is taking place is a Johannine theological interpretation of the Transfiguration, for Jesus to say that his Father bears witness to him looks to be a Johannine allusion to the Father’s declaration that is found in the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts. “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Mt 17:6 and parallels). The Father is declaring that the transfigured man Jesus is his beloved Son, and he is making the same pronouncement here that he made at his baptism, a testimony that John the Baptist reiterates within the Gospel of John. He upon whom John sees the Spirit descend and remain, he “is the Son of God” (Jn 1:33–34). The Father’s witness, within the Johannine context, is, then, the testimony that Jesus is his beloved sent Son, for he does his Father’s works, and therefore the present confrontational Pharisees should listen to him when he himself testifies that he is the light of the world, for he is imbued with the transfiguring life of his Father’s Holy Spirit. Because of Jesus’ emphasis on his Father’s testimony, the Pharisees respond, “Where is your Father?” They want to know the location of his Father. They know Joseph resided in Nazareth, but Jesus speaks as if he has another father other than Joseph. So where does that father reside? Jesus responds, “You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Jesus does not address the issue of “residence” but focuses on the deeper matter of “knowing,” for to know who Jesus is as the Father’s Son simultaneously entails knowing who his Father is, and in knowing who his Father is, one would then know that he resides not in Nazareth but in heaven. Here we must observe that Jesus does not say that if one knows who my Father is then one would know who he is. That is the earthly fleshly logic of the Pharisees. To know the father is to identify the father’s son. For example, to know that Simon’s father is John is to know that Simon (Peter) is the son of John (Simon Bar-Jona) (see Jn 1:42 and Mt 16:17), and likewise to know that Joseph is the father of Jesus is know that Jesus is the son of Joseph (Jesus Bar-Yosef). Because the Pharisees think that they know that Joseph is Jesus’ father, then they know that Jesus is his son and therefore that he cannot be what he claims to be. For Jesus, however, only in knowing who he is as the Father’s Son will one come to know his

Who Is Jesus?

297

heavenly Father. Knowledge of God the Father is attainable only through the revelation of God the Son because “no one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). God the Father can only reveal himself through his Son, for his Son is the very Word of God and so the perfect image of the Father. Thus to know who Jesus is consists not in first knowing his Father, but rather in knowing who his Father is consists in first knowing Jesus as the Father’s Son. On this pronouncement by Jesus, John abruptly concludes the fifth confrontation. “These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.”55 I Am He Likewise, John immediately, without any introduction, begins the sixth confrontation. “Again he said to them.”56 We are not told the time interval between the last and the present confrontation, nor do we know the place, though we can assume that Jesus continues to teach in the temple since at the end of the seventh confrontation he exits the temple for the final time. Jesus takes up a theme that he had introduced previously—where he is going the unbelieving Jews cannot come (see Jn 7:33–36). “I go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” The unbelieving Jews may later seek for Jesus here on earth, yet they will never truly find him because they never discovered that he is the Father’s Son, and therefore they will die in their sin and so be incapable of going with him to his heavenly Father.57 Earlier, when Jesus spoke of their not finding him and not being able to come with him, the Jews thought he might mean that he would go “to the Dispersion among the Greeks” (Jn 7:35). Here they speculate: “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” Jesus will not kill himself, but he will offer his life as a saving sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins and so enter into his Father’s glory—thus rendering them unqualified, in their incredulity, to come with him. Jesus responds, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.” 55.  This is the third time that John ends one of the confrontations by noting that, because his hour had not yet arrived, Jesus was not arrested despite the desire of some to do so (see Jn 7:30 and 7:43). This is in keeping with Jesus first saying that he would not go to the feast “for my time has not yet fully arrived” (Jn 7:8). 56.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 8:21–30 unless otherwise noted. 57.  Jesus will later declare, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one can come to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). More will be said concerning this statement at the proper time.

298

Chapter 8

To understand what Jesus says here, one must return to his discussion with Nicodemus. Jesus tells him that he must be born anew or from above if he is to see the kingdom of God. What is born of flesh—that is, what is engendered from below here on earth—is flesh. What is born anew from above is spirit, for it is born of the Spirit. Thus one must be “born of water and the Spirit” in order to “enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3–6). Moreover, chapter 3 of John concludes with these words, though scholars are unsure who is speaking—John the Baptist, Jesus, or John himself. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of this earth belongs to this earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony; he who receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit; the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests on him. (Jn 3:31–36) The Pharisees are from below and are of this world and thus think and speak in an earthly manner. They have not been born anew from above—that is, they have not been baptized in water and the Holy Spirit—and therefore they have not entered into God’s kingdom. Only by believing that Jesus is the Father’s Son can they enter into the eternal life that comes from above. But Jesus is from above and is not of this world because he is the heavenly Father’s beloved Son and so speaks of what he has seen and heard. Moreover, as the Spirit-filled Christ, Jesus, without measure, pours out the eternal life of Spirit upon all who believe in him. Those who do not believe Jesus to be the Father’s Son will die in their sin and will not see life because they remain within the realm of God’s wrath. What is presently strikingly new is what Jesus says the Pharisees must believe lest they die in their sin—“that I am he” (ego eimi). Jesus can truly declare “I am (ego eime) from above” and “I am not (ego ouk eime) of this world” because he is “I am” (ego eime). Having appropriated to himself the divine name YHWH, Jesus is professing that, like his Father, he is truly God as the Father’s Son. This is also why to know Jesus to be the Father’s Son is to know his Father, for they are both equally God, and thus Jesus the “Son-I-am” can reveal his “Father-I-am.” Moreover, this is why he can proclaim what he has seen and heard, and why, as the Father’s Spirit-filled Son, he possesses and so can give without measure the eternal life-giving Spirit-I-am. Ultimately, this

Who Is Jesus?

299

is the divine foundation as to why he can declare “I am (ego eime) the light of the world,” for, as the incarnate Son, he gives the life-giving light of his Father through the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. Therefore those who do not believe in him cannot go where Jesus is going because they are not subsumed, in him, into the threefold heavenly “I am.” His Jewish listeners must have grasped, at least in some way, the significance of what Jesus said, for they ask, more than likely in exasperation, “Who are you?” Earlier, the Jews asked, “Where is your Father?” (Jn 8:18). If they knew who Jesus was as the Father’s Son, they would know where his heavenly Father resided, but in not knowing Jesus the Son, they do not know the whereabouts of his Father. Jesus responds, “Even what I have told you from the beginning. I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.”58 What is significant here is not so much what Jesus says, but John’s following aside: “They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father.” Because they did not understand that he was sent by his truth-speaking Father and that he therefore speaks what he has heard from the Father, Jesus declares: When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he (ego eime), and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him. Since the Jews did not grasp that he was speaking of his Father, Jesus informs them when and in what manner they will come to recognize who he is as the Father’s Son. It will be when they have lifted up the Son of man. This is Jesus’ second “lifting up” statement. The first occurred when Jesus spoke with Nicodemus. If Nicodemus cannot understand the earthly things of which Jesus spoke—that is, the need to be born anew in the Spirit—how can he understand heavenly things, that is, that he is the Father’s Son? Jesus informs Nicodemus that no one “has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” Because Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, descended from heaven, he will ascend as the risen Son of man. How will this ascent take place? “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man 58.  Scholars point out that the ancient texts of Jesus’ opening sentence are corrupt and that it is impossible to provide an exact translation. The present translation demonstrates the problem. When referring to “the beginning,” what did Jesus have in mind? I wonder if the corruption is because the original sentence, in whatever form, was a Johannine aside referencing back to the Prologue—what “from the beginning” was declared there. “In the beginning was the Word.”

300

Chapter 8

be lifted up, that all who believe in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:10–15). Jesus must be lifted up on the cross, for only then can he, as symbolized in the lifted-up serpent, heal humankind of sin and, as the lifted-up risen Son of man, baptize into the eternal life of the Holy Spirit those who believe in him. Jesus, in this first instance, does not specify who will lift him up, but since it was God who told Moses to lift up the serpent, presumably it is the Father who wills Jesus to be lifted up. In this second instance, however, Jesus specifies that it is the Jews, the “you,” who will lift him up. While his Father wills that he be lifted up for the salvation of the world, those who actually do lift up Jesus, the Son of man, on the cross will be the disbelieving Jews.59 Ironically, in their condemnatory lifting up of Jesus upon the cross, they will come to know that Jesus is I Am— YHWH. Again, ironically, in their lifting up of Jesus upon the cross, they will have discovered the answer to their own question: “Who are you?” Jesus is who he is named to be—YHWH-Saves! He will have become who he is named to be because Jesus does “nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.” While Jesus will be lifted up by the disbelieving Jews in accordance with his Father’s will, this “lifting up” is something Jesus himself, as the Father’s Spirit-filled Christ, does as well, for he only says and does what his Father has taught him, that is, the work of his Father. To behold Jesus on the uplifted cross is to behold the salvific work of the Father, and so to behold the saving work of the Father’s anointed Son. To behold God the Father’s definitive saving work in his crucified Messianic Son is to know that Jesus, in union with his Father and in communion with the Holy Spirit, is He Who Is. Only God is the author of humankind’s salvation, and so it can only be accomplished by the Father’s incarnate Spirit-filled Son—all of whom, as the one God, are, in accordance with their singular distinct identities, the threefold “I Am.” Having alluded to the Jew’s condemnatory cross in speaking of their lifting him up, Jesus adds a consoling remark that, though spoken audibly to his disbelieving audience, appears more to have been spoken to himself. “And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.” Jesus is assured that his Father who sent him is with him—even on the lifted-up-cross. Here “the Johannine” Jesus addresses Matthew’s and Mark’s account of the Jesus’ cry of dereliction: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (Mt 27:46 and Mk 15:34; Jesus is quoting the first verse of Psalm 22).60 Although the cross, even to the suffering Jesus, gives the appear59.  Although it is the disbelieving Jews who hand over Jesus to Pilate, it is Pilate, and not the Jews, who actually orders Jesus be “lifted up” upon the cross. 60.  For a fuller theological account of Jesus’ cry of dereliction within Matthew and Mark, see

Who Is Jesus?

301

ance of his Father’s abandonment, he knows that his Father who sent him “has not left him alone” because he is always with him, even on the cross. Why such assurance? Because Jesus always does “what is pleasing to him.” Here, too, we have another reference to the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism and to his Transfiguration. The Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus, the Father declares, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”61 The Father is pleased in his Spirit-anointed Son because his faithful Son, in the Holy Spirit, will do the will of his Father by becoming his Suffering-Servant-Son. Jesus, in accordance with his Father’s will, will allow the Jews to lift him up upon the cross, and upon that cross he will offer himself, lift himself up, to his Father as the Spirit-filled Lamb of sacrifice. In this lifting up of himself to the Father, the Father will lift Jesus up and so transfigure him into the glory of his heavenly presence. His Father will thus testify and so confirm that, in raising him from the dead, he, as Jesus himself also testified, is his beloved Son, and so the disbelieving Jews will know that, as the Father’s glorified Son, he is “I am.” John concludes this fifth confrontation by stating, “As he spoke thus, many believed in him.” Throughout chapter 7 there is a conflict between those Jews who believe in Jesus and those who do not and so want to arrest and condemn him.62 Although there are thus two camps, the believers and the unbelievers, for John, they also represent the interior conflict that is taking place and will continue to take place within the hearts and minds of individual people—the struggle of whether to believe or not to believe. Such an inner struggle becomes immediately apparent in the next and last confrontation. Jesus and Abraham John begins: “Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him.”63 Because of what Jesus declares next, this hopeful beginning quickly manifests the disbelief of the seeming “believers.” “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Jesus encourages his listeners to remain in his word and so become truly his followers. The reason is that they will come to know the truth—that is, the full truth of who he is and the salvation that he will enact—and thus this truth JBJ 1:372–80. 61.  See Mt 3:16–17, Mk 1:10–11, and Lk 3:21–22. 62.  See Jn 7:12–13, 7:30–31, 7:40–44. 63.  All Scripture passages in this section are from Jn 8:31–59 unless otherwise noted. This last confrontation is the longest and most intense, with a great deal of quick verbal ping-ponging between Jesus and the Jews.

302

Chapter 8

will make them free, free from sin and death. But “the believers” are offended and interpret Jesus’ exhortation as an insult. They conceitedly boast, “We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will be made free’?” This pretentious claim is blatantly false. The Jews were in bondage in Egypt. They were carried off to Babylonia. In their racial and divinely covenanted arrogance, they refuse to acknowledge their historically embarrassing chapters. They even deny the ever present Roman soldiers who now daily patrol their streets with sword and spear in hand. But even if they were never in physical bondage, Jesus’ words to them would still be true, for he is addressing a deeper servitude than that of corporeal slavery and foreign captivity. He, as the Father’s Son, wishes to free them from the tyranny of sin and the dominion of death. He does not invite them into an earthly kingdom, but rather he summons them into a heavenly kingdom of everlasting life. Once again, we perceive an allusion to baptism. Jesus will set them free from the slavery of the flesh, the bondage of what is from below, by baptizing them with the regenerating life of the Holy Spirit, the true freedom that comes from above. Jesus makes this unmistakably clear: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house forever; the son continues forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” To be enslaved by sin means that one cannot forever live in God’s house, the house symbolized by the temple in which the covenanted Jews presently stand. In order for them to abide forever in God’s house, they must be freed from ungodly sin and become as holy as God is holy—only then can they abide forever in the all-holy presence of God (see Lv 11:44–45). But the eternal Son abides forever in his Father’s house, the heavenly temple, for he possesses the very holiness of his Father as the Father’s Spirit-imbued Son.64 Thus, if the all-holy Son sets free those enslaved by sin, if he makes them liberated holy children of his Father, then they will be free indeed.65 Jesus continues: “I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” Yes, the Jews have an illustrious heritage, having come forth from the loins of 64.  The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of Christ being “faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope” (Heb 3:6). 65.  Because Jesus has freed us from the slavery of sin and death, Paul declares that “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1). Moreover, the whole of creation is groaning in “the bondage of decay” as it awaits “the glorious liberty of the children of God,” that is, the full freedom that comes to the sons of God at the end of time (Rom 8:20–23).

Who Is Jesus?

303

Abraham, but despite such a distinguished lineage, they now want to kill Jesus. Unlike Abraham, who believed God’s word, and despite Jesus’ urging to “continue in his word,” they allow no place for the word that he speaks even though he is God’s Word. As God’s Word, Jesus tells them what he has seen with his Father, that is, the eternal perichoretic seeing—the inter-relational beholding of the Father of his Son and of the Son of his Father; the mutual beholding within the knitting-together love of the Holy Spirit. Because of this co-inherent seeing, Jesus, as the Father’s Son, always does what he sees his Father do, but the unbelieving Jews do what they hear from their father, that is, that they are to kill Jesus. At Jesus’ insinuation that they have a father other than Abraham, the Jews retort: “Abraham is our father.”66 To which Jesus counters: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would not seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did.” At this point the confrontation is striking at the very heart of what it means to be a Jew. As children of Abraham, the Jews, like Abraham, ought to believe the truth that God speaks to them through the man Jesus. To be a child of Abraham, to be an authentic Jew, is not then by way of racial inheritance, but by way of believing God’s word.67 Instead, unlike Abraham, they seek to kill him and so manifest that they are doing what their true father did. (While “their father” is yet to be identified as the devil, what the devil “did” was to lie, and so come to embody all that is foreign to God who eternally speaks his Word, the fullness of all truth.) The Jews immediately attempt to secure their racial integrity by declaring that they do not simply have Abraham as their father but God himself. “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” The Jews are true children of Abraham, for, by way of Isaac, they were born of Sarah, his elderly wife, and not born, as was Ismael, of his maidservant Hagar. Thus the Jews are born of God’s promise to Abraham 66.  Moses declares that, while God is the rock of faithfulness, his covenanted children treated him basely: “Do you thus requite the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father who created you, and made you and established you?” (Dt 32:4–6). Isaiah also speaks of God being the father of the chosen people (see Is 63:16 and 64:8). 67.  Paul takes up this same issue. Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised and prior to performing the works of the law. To be a child of Abraham rests not “according to the flesh” but on faith. “So you see that it is men of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7). Thus Abraham is the father of faith, “for he is the father of us all”—of both those who believe without circumcision and those who believe with circumcision (see Rom 4:1–17). Later, Paul writes, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants . . . this means that it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants” (Rom 9:6–9).

304

Chapter 8

and so have God as their true Father, for without his miraculous intervention, the Jews would not have legitimately come to be.68 To this defense, Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” Because Jesus proceeds from the Father as the Father’s Son, he is truly God as the Father is God. Moreover, he came forth into the world as his Father’s incarnate Son not in accordance with his own will but in harmony with his Father’s will, the one who sent him.69 Thus, if they were truly children of the Father, they would intuitively love Jesus, for they would recognize that he is the Father’s divine Son. Actually, the Father is the Father not because the Jews are his children, but rather because he is the Father of his Son. Only because the Father eternally fathers his Son can he, through his Son, bring others into a filial relationship with him. God is the Father of the Jewish nation in the sense that he covenanted himself to them, and so made them his chosen people. But they are not fully his children because they still need to come to faith in Jesus as the Father’s Son and in turn be born anew in the Father’s Spirit of Sonship. By being baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, they are assumed into a divine filial relationship with the Father—a filial relationship that they share in and partake of by being in living communion with the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus. Jesus, in concerned frustration, rhetorically asks why the Jews cannot understand this. To his own question, he responds, “It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” But what “word” can they not bear to hear? In their blind pride the unbelieving Jews refuse to acknowledge that they need a savior such as Jesus portrays himself to be. As God’s chosen people, as children of Abraham and thus even children of God, what they desire is for God, through his Messiah, to further bless them with a worldly kingdom of which they could arrogantly boast. For the unbelieving Jews the problem did not reside in themselves but, despite their denial, in being dominated by foreign powers.70 What 68.  See Gn 15:1–6, 16:1–6, 17:15–22, 18:9–5, and 21:1–13. 69.  Once again, we perceive the theological principle that “mission” follows upon “procession.” Since the Word of God proceeds from the Father as the Father’s Truth and as the Son proceeds from the Father as his perfect image, so the Word/Son comes forth from the Father into the world as man in order to speak the Father’s truth and perform his saving acts and in so doing therefore reveals the Father. 70.  The Messiah that the Jews desire is the type of Messiah that Jesus refuses to be when tempted by the devil in the desert. There the devil provoked the hungry Jesus by stating that if he is truly the Son of God, “command these stones to become loaves of bread,” to which Jesus responded, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” As God’s Word, he will live by God’s truth and so be faithful to his Father as

Who Is Jesus?

305

they then cannot tolerate is for Jesus to tell them that he was sent by the Father as the Father’s Son to re-create them, to free them from sin and death and to conceive them anew in the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Jesus provides the ultimate reason why they cannot bear his word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. These are strong condemnatory words. The lineage of the unbelieving Jews is not that of Abraham, much less that of God, but of the devil. He is their father, and they therefore desire to do his will. The devil lied from the foundation of the world, for he told Eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she would not die even though God said that she would (see Gn 3:4). Moreover, he attributed to God false motivations: “For God knows if you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gn 3:5). Out of protective jealousy, so that he would have no divine competitors, God forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the tree. In so deceiving Eve and making her suspicious of God’s intentions, the devil became a murderer, for, as God truthfully declared, Adam and Eve died. The devil, in the end, is the jealous one, “for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy the Father’s Son. The Jews, however, desire a Messiah who would fulfill their earthly needs, as in providing an abundance of bread (see Jn 6:26–28). Moreover, the devil tempted him to make a spectacle of himself by throwing himself off the temple and being caught by angels. But Jesus refuses to participate in such celebrity stunts. The Jews, however, would thrill at the thought of having such a Messiah who would wow the Romans and so instill fear. Lastly, the devil showed Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them” (Mt 4:1–10). These vast grandiose dominions the devil would give to him if he would but worship him and thus become his slave. Jesus, again as the Father’s faithful Son, will worship his Father alone. Yet these Jews felt that since they were God’s chosen people, they had every right to be God’s appointed rulers of the world. The unbelieving Jews have succumbed, in many ways, to the devil’s temptations, the very ones that Jesus repudiated. Because they believed the devil, they are his enslaved children and therefore cannot be of God. For a fuller theological interpretation of Jesus’ temptations as found in the Synoptics, see JBJ 1:104–9.

306

Chapter 8

death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it” (Wis 2:23–24). Thus the devil is by nature a murdering liar. Unlike God the Father, who created all good things through his life-giving Word, the Word through whom he speaks all truth, the devil is the father of lies who corrupts all that is good and so brings forth death. The unbelieving Jews are, then, the devil’s children not only because they refuse to believe Jesus, the Father’s good incarnate Word, but also because they want to kill Jesus, he who embodies all grace and truth (see Jn 1:17)—the one who is and so brings forth the life of light into the devil’s darkened world of sin and death. Because the lying death-dealing devil is their father, the unbelieving Jews are incapable of believing the truth that Jesus speaks. Ironically but sadly, the unbelieving Jews, the enslaved children of the devil, will die in their sins “unless you believe that I am he (ego eime)” (Jn 8:21 and 8:24), that is, he “who is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and the Spirit-filled Son who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit in whom all are born anew unto eternal life (Jn 2:29 and 2:33–34). Nonetheless, who of the Jews will convict Jesus of sin? In the end, no one will convict Jesus of sin even though he will be condemned to death. Although those who are of God hear “the words of God,” “the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” Being of the devil and not of God, the Jews, like the devil, cannot hear God’s words, and so they cannot believe the words that Jesus, God’s Word, speaks.71 The Jews respond to such a palpable condemnation by attempting to lay upon Jesus the very allegation of which he accused them. “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Being a Samaritan, Jesus would not be an authentic Jew, but rather he himself, and not them, would be possessed by the devil.72 Jesus responds, “I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet, I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge. Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.” In contrast to being possessed by a demon and refusing to respect God, Jesus possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship and so always honors his Father. Although Jesus honors his Father, the Jews dishonor him not only by accusing him of being demon possessed, but also by 71.  Similarly, the First Letter of John states, “He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother” (1 Jn 3:8–10; see also 5:18). 72.  See Jn 4:9 and 7:20. To level such an accusation is, once again, to impugn Jesus, who possesses the Holy Spirit, and thus to sin against the Holy Spirit. See note 10 above.

Who Is Jesus?

307

refusing to acknowledge that he is the Father’s Son. Jesus is nonetheless not apprehensive about seeking his own glory and the rightful respect due to him, but rather he knows that One, his Father, is seeking his glory on his behalf. Thus the Father is the final judge as to whether he is the Father’s Messianic Son. The glory that the Father seeks for his Son will be manifested in Jesus’ hour of glory, the hour of his cross and resurrection. This hour of glory will be the Father’s definitive judgment that Jesus is his Son. The Father’s crucified and risen glorification of him is the basis upon which Jesus can unequivocally declare that anyone who “keeps my word, he will never see death.” Those who believe Jesus to be the Father’s Spirit-filled Son will never see death, for his death has won them forgiveness of their sins, and in his resurrection, they have obtained the baptismal eternal life of the Holy Spirit. The Jews are convinced that Jesus has overstepped himself, however, and in so doing confirmed their original accusation. “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, ‘If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” The Jews are now assured that Jesus is demon possessed because Abraham, their holy father, died, as did the revered prophets. All of these men were faithful to God’s word, and yet they died. Yet Jesus said that if anyone keeps his word, that person will not die. Is Jesus therefore not simply claiming to be greater than Abraham and the prophets, but even greater than God, for these men kept God’s word and yet they died? Who does Jesus claim to be that if one keeps his word, that person will not die? The irony is that while Abraham and the prophets did physically die, they are still alive, for the word that they kept is God’s word spoken through his eternal Word, the very Word who now speaks to the present Jews as the incarnate Word—the Word who is the eternal life-giving Word. Jesus will shortly proclaim to the Jews, “Before Abraham came to be, I am.” As He Who is, the Word existed eternally, and therefore he existed before Abraham, and so he could assure that if Abraham kept his word, he would live even though he may die. In response to the Jewish claim that Jesus has a demon, Jesus will now affirm that he is indeed greater than Abraham and the prophets for he is He Who Is. If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.

308

Chapter 8

Previously, Jesus said that he does not seek his own glory, and here he tells us why. If he glorifies himself, such self-glorification would be nothing because he possesses no glory of his own. The glory he possesses is the glory that his Father bestowed upon him when his Father eternally begot him. The divine glory of God his Father is the same divine glory that he possesses only because he is the Father’s only Son, and thus he possesses no glory of his own apart from being the Father’s only Son. Thus he is ontologically incapable of glorifying himself. Only the Father, because he is the Father, is ontologically capable of glorifying him who is his Son, and in glorifying his Son, we behold the Father’s glory reflected perfectly in his only begotten Son. Similarly, the Father is ontologically incapable of glorifying himself, for his very identity as Father is predicated upon his glorifying his Son in begetting his Son. Only the Son, because he is the Son, is ontologically capable of glorifying him who is his Father, and in glorifying his Father, we behold the Son’s glory as that of the Father’s only begotten Son.73 Now the Father who glorifies Jesus, the Father’ Son, is the same God whom the Jews claim as their own. But they do not know him because they do not recognize his Son. Only the Son can fully reveal the Father. Jesus, being the Son, does know him. If Jesus denied that he knew the Father, he, like the Jews, would be a liar, for he would not simply be denying knowledge of his Father, but he would also be denying who he is as the Father’s Son. “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). In being the Father’s Son, he has obediently kept his Father word—for he is God’s incarnate Word. As the Father glorifies him, so also did the Jews’ very own father Abraham rejoice to see his day, and when he saw it, he was glad. But what “day” did Abraham see such that it caused him to rejoice? Here we must return to God’s promise to Abraham. God promised Abraham, by way of covenant, that he would have a legitimate son from his wife Sarah and that he would be the father of many descendants and nations (see Gn 15:1–6, 17:1–9). But when God later told him that Sarah would bear him a son, Abraham incredulously laughed, saying, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” (Gn 17:17). Sarah too laughed in disbelief (see Gn 18:9–15). Abraham nonetheless had relations with Sarah, and “the Lord did to Sarah as he had promised. And Sarah conceived. . . 73.  Although the emphasis here is on the Father glorifying the Son and the Son glorifying the Father, what must be remembered is that the Father and the Son mutually glorify one another in their reciprocal love that is the Holy Spirit. In their communion of Spirit-Love the Father and the Son glorify one another.

Who Is Jesus?

309

. Abraham, called the name of his son who was born to him whom Sarah bore him, Isaac” (Gn 21:1–3). Now, the Hebrew word for “laugh” is “Isaac.” Thus Abraham’s and Sarah’s sarcastic laughter of disbelief turned into joyful laughter at the birth of their son Isaac (Laugh). Sarah said, “God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh over me (Gn 21:6). In “miraculously” conceiving Isaac, God literally did make “laughter” for Sarah. Moreover, “Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned” (Gn 21:7). Thus Abraham was glad at the birth of his son Isaac, but this rejoicing was not simply the delight at Isaac’s birth but also the joy of God fulfilling his promise that Abraham, through Isaac, would have many descendants and be the father of many nations. As God promised, Abraham would then be a blessing to all nations (see Gn 12:1–3). When Jesus asserts that Abraham rejoiced “that he was to see my day,” he is claiming that Abraham was rejoicing in a future unseen event that was nonetheless made prophetically visible in the birth of Isaac his son—the fulfillment of the promise that all of his offspring and all future nations would be blessed in and through him.74 Jesus, as the Father’s Son and a son of Abraham, definitively fulfills the divine promise made to Abraham that his Jewish descendants and all Gentile nations will now and for all ages be blessed in him. Abraham therefore laughed with joy in anticipation of the day when the Word, the Father’s Son, would become flesh of his lineage and dwell among us as man.75 Moreover, the “day” for Jesus, as “my day,” is the anticipated “Day of the Lord.” As YHWH-Saves, Jesus has appropriated to himself the divine Day of YHWH unto himself. He perceives himself as the Father’s final and definitive intervention in the world, and so the one who is ushering in the eschatological Day of the Lord. Within the Old Testament, this is both a day of judgment 74.  The Letter to the Hebrews extols Abraham’s faith, for while the promised Isaac was born of him, the complete fulfillment of the divine promise was yet to be realized. Therefore faithful men, such Abraham, “died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles here on earth” (Heb 11:13). Abraham, for Jesus, is one who, in faith, saw and greeted his day from afar. 75.  Although English translations speak of Abraham’s “descendants,” the Hebrew literally speaks of Abraham’s “seed,” which is then a singular that incorporates all those who will, in the future, come forth from father Abraham’s “seed.” With this understanding, Paul writes, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring (spermati—singular seed). It does not say ‘And to offsprings (spermasin—plural seed),’ referring to many; but, referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ which is Christ” (Gal 3:16; see Gn 12:7). As the Christ, Jesus, then, is the one offspring in whom all of Abraham’s descendants and all nations are blessed. This too is why Jesus could say, in John’s Gospel, that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, for he is the “seed” that fulfills the promises to Abraham—that in Jesus both Jews and Gentiles could be blessed.

310

Chapter 8

upon sin and of hope for the righteous.76 Jesus’ “day” will be the hour of his glory when, upon the cross, he will deal with the evil of sin and death, and in the glory of his resurrection, he will embody the unending eschatological day of life. In response to Jesus’ avowal that Abraham saw his day, the Jews respond. “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Other ancient manuscripts have: “and has Abraham seen you?” In the first rendition the implication would be that Jesus would have to be two thousand years old to have seen Abraham. The second implies an equal impossibility. Since Jesus is under fifty, Abraham could not have seen Jesus because he has been dead for two thousand years. Since Jesus stated that Abraham saw his day, it would appear that the second rendition is more likely the original. But Jesus’ reply to the Jews implies that it was he who actually saw Abraham. “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi).” Once again, Jesus has attributed to himself the divine name YHWH. Because he is the eternal “I am,” he existed before Abraham and therefore was able to see him during his lifetime. Thus, while Abraham prophetically looked to the coming of Jesus and beheld him from afar, Jesus, as the eternal “I am,” was able to see Abraham as his contemporary. On two earlier occasions, Jesus referred to himself as “I am” (see Jn 8:24 and 8:28). On the first occasion, as if unsure as to what he meant, the Jews responded by asking, “Who are you?” On the second occasion, John observed that “many believed in him.” Here, on this third occasion, there is no ambiguity as to what Jesus is professing, and the reason for this clarity lies in the added dimension of “eternity.” That Jesus is “I am” before Abraham “was” left no doubt that he was claiming to be YHWH—the eternal “I am.” Before the beginning began, before Abraham came to be, the Word already was, and so he was with the eternal God (ton theon) as eternally God (theon), and all that came to be, including Abraham, came to be through him who is eternally “I am” (see Jn 1:1–3). All of this revelation is now clearly verbalized and unmistakably implied by the man Jesus who stood before the Jews. Throughout the sevenfold series of confrontations between Jesus and the Jews, the identity of Jesus is in question. Is he a good person or not? (see Jn 7:12). Is he the prophet or the Christ?77 “Where is your Father?” (Jn 8:19). “Who are you?” (Jn 8:25). And, finally, “Who do you claim to be?” The identity of the man Jesus is now resolved. He is the eternal “I am” as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son, the prophet promised from of old. Such does the man, 76.  See, e.g., Am 5:18–20 and 9:11–15; Is 13:6–9 and 30:26; and Mal 4:1–6. 77.  See Jn 7:26, 7:31, 7:40–44, and 7:52.

Who Is Jesus?

311

Jesus, claim to be. But to the unbelieving ears of the Jews, they who do not “hear the words of God,” such a claim is blasphemy. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.” The punishment for blaspheming is stoning. “He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall he be put to death” (Lv 24:16). This is exactly what the Jews believe Jesus did. He blasphemed the name of the YHWH by appropriating to himself the name of the YHWH—I am. Judgment had been made, and Jesus is to be stoned. To this stoning Jesus does not reply in words but in action—“he hid himself, and went out of the temple.” What is the manner of Jesus’ “hiding?” I do not think that this “hiding” of himself is simply a physical hiding—a “miraculous” concealing of himself. What Jesus also now hides is his glory. He has been in Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles, and he has been teaching throughout in the temple. In the midst of the illuminated temple, Jesus declared, as the Word who is the life of light, that he is the light of the world, and that those who follow him will not walk in darkness but have the light of life. He is the light of the world because he possesses, as the Messiah, the transfiguring eternal life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is all this because he is the eternal “I am” who embodies the divine glory as the Father’s only Son. In walking out of the temple, all of the transfigured light that Jesus is has left the temple and so is now hidden. The temple is now dark, for he who is the new light of God’s life-giving presence is absent. Only the darkness, the nothingness, the void of unbelief remains. Upon leaving the temple, however, Jesus “saw a blind man from birth” (Jn 9:1). Jesus will dispel this man’s darkness and thus manifest that he is “the light that shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome” him (Jn 1:5). We will examine all of this in chapter 9, but before doing so, I want to make a few brief concluding comments. Conclusion First, the seven confrontations found within chapters 7 and 8 of John’s Gospel concern the identity of Jesus—who he is. Throughout these confrontations, Jesus progressively teaches and so reveals that he is the Christ, the Father’s Son, and thus the eternal “I am.” The emphasis is entirely on Jesus’ full divinity. What must not be overlooked, however, in its “hidden” obviousness, is that it is the man Jesus who is claiming to be truly divine. That this man Jesus is making such claims is what brings down upon him the ire of the unbelieving Jews. The

312

Chapter 8

Jews refuse to believe in the Incarnation—that the Father sent his Son into the world, that the Word became flesh and now dwells in their midst. Nonetheless, this is what John, in his Gospel, is desperately attempting to demonstrate within these two chapters. The confrontations, probably historical in many ways, are narrated precisely so as to allow Jesus the man to teach, in his own words, who he truly is—the Father’s Spirit-filled Son. Second, what is also obvious but may be neglected is that Jesus can only reveal who he is by revealing the Trinity. He reveals himself as the Father’s Son only by teaching that the Father sent him and that the Father glorifies him; that he came from the Father and returns to the Father; that he is the Father’s life-giving light and so the light of the world. He reveals himself as the Father’s Son by revealing that, as the Father’s life-giving light, he possesses the Father’s Spirit of Sonship so that all who believe in him will have eternal life. Only in his relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit does Jesus reveal himself to be the Father’s Spirit-imbued Son. His relationships with the Father and the Holy Spirit are constitutive, and so determinative, of his ontological divine status as the Son of God. Thus to know the identity of the man Jesus is to know the entire Trinity. To believe Jesus is the Son is simultaneously to believe in the Father and the Holy Spirit. Third, since in these two chapters Jesus is portrayed as teaching, he performs no actions, no miracle signs, and therefore is not enacting his name Jesus—YHWH-Saves. He is not becoming Jesus. Although true, what Jesus is nonetheless doing is providing a revelatory account of why he is Jesus, YHWHSaves, and therefore why his miracle signs and all that he has done and will do are saving actions. He is Jesus because he is the Father’s Spirit-filled Son, the Christ. Moreover, being “I am,” Jesus establishes the divine ontological foundation for all the other “I am” sayings, that is, why he as man—in, with, and through his humanity—can perform those actions by which he becomes and is the bread of life, the light of the world, the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life, and so on. If he were not who he is, Jesus would not be Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Fourth, because Jesus is who he is as YHWH-Save, he is revealing that his ultimate Father-given work is that of re-creating the whole of humankind. This is the Gospel’s overarching theme. As all was created through the life-giving light of the Word, so all is presently being re-created through the incarnate lifegiving light of the Word—Jesus, the Father’s Spirit-filled Son. Lastly, I want to address a delicate issue that I have spoken of previously. John’s Gospel is sometimes faulted for being antisemitic. Chapters 7 and 8 could appear to bear ample testimony to this charge. Nowhere else in John’s

Who Is Jesus?

313

Gospel, except maybe in the Passion Narrative, are the Jews consistently portrayed in such a sinister manner—to the extent that Jesus declares them to be children of the devil. Yes, there is division among the Jews in that some believe in Jesus and some do not, yet the overall portrayal is that they are hardened and blinded in their disbelief, disbelief wherein they will die in their sin. The dichotomy is glaring—Jesus is goodness and light, and the Jews are evil and dark. What John is doing, I believe, is not expressing antisemitism but his actual love for his Jewish brethren. How is this so? In narrating so clearly Jesus’ revelation of himself as the Father’s Son, and by having the Jews so clearly rejecting that revelation, even to the point that Jesus can designate them children of the devil, John, I propose, is simultaneously doing two things. First, John wishes to manifest to his unbelieving Jewish brothers and sisters, as candidly and as forthrightly as he possibly can, the error of their unbelief. And, second, he wishes that they acknowledge their mistaken disbelief in the light of the marvelous and wondrous truth of who Jesus is. The very perceiving of Jesus in the proper light would, John hopes, dispel the present darkness in which his Jewish brethren now find themselves. One could say that if this was and is his intent, John failed. In the short term, John may be disappointed, but I am fairly convinced that when the Jews, as a people, come to believe in Jesus as their saving Messiah, which they will do prior to Jesus’ return in glory, they will have done so because John’s Gospel played a significant, if not the dominant, role in their attaining faith.78 So we now turn to chapter 9, where Jesus will prophetically demonstrate, in his healing of the blind man, that he, as YHWH-Saves, is the light of the world.79

78.  For Paul’s understanding of the present Jewish unbelief in Jesus, see Rom 9–11. See also my “The Jews and the Body of Christ: An Essay in Hope,” Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology 27, no. 4 (2018): 412–24. 79.  In chaps. 7 and 8, Jesus (and John) has woven together, once again, many revelatory strands, so much so that, at times, it seemed almost impossible to sort them all out. I have attempted to bring each strand into clear light so that in beholding the glory of each we can marvel in the intertwining splendor of them all.

9 n

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

T

he identity of Jesus formed the content of chapters 7 and 8 of John’s Gospel. Within the seven serial confrontations, Jesus bore witness that he is the Christ, the Father’s Son, and therefore that he is He Who Is—the incarnate divine I Am. In so doing, Jesus simultaneously revealed the Father and the Holy Spirit. By proclaiming “I am the light of the world” and that anyone who follows him “will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life,” Jesus revealed that he is the Father’s divine light, the eternal I Am light, by which his Father will re-create the whole of humankind (Jn 8: 12). The lifegiving light that Jesus, as the Spirit-filled Christ, will give is the Holy Spirit, for in that Spirit all who come to faith and are baptized are born anew unto the abundant wellspring of eternal life. Because he is the Father’s Son who possesses his Father’s Spirit of Sonship, we perceived as well that Jesus is truly YHWH-Saves; that is, he is I-AM-Saves. He is Son-I-Am-Saves, and he is such because he is in divine communion with the Father-I-Am-Saves and the Spirit-I-Am-Saves. Jesus, as the incarnate Son, performs his Father’s salvific works, for they are enacted in the Holy Spirit. Thus every act that Jesus performs is enacted by the Father through the human actions of his Son and in the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. All saving acts are the acts of the one God, YHWH-Saves. Within these saving acts the world is re-created, for through these acts, humankind is able to be reborn into the very divine life of the Trinity itself. Now, in chapter 9 of John’s Gospel, Jesus demonstrates that all of the above is true by enacting his sixth miracle sign—the healing of the man born blind. This sign not only allows the man to gain his physical sight but also becomes the occasion of his gaining spiritual sight—the light of faith 314

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

315

whereby he comes to believe that Jesus is his Lord. This miracle sign therefore manifests the truth that Jesus truly is the light of the world and that those who follow him will possess the light of life. Moreover, as in the previous two chapters, the light of faith conflicts with the darkness of unbelief. While the blind man comes to live in the light of faith, the Pharisees will remain in the blind darkness of their incredulity. I Am the Light of the World Having hid himself and upon leaving the temple, Jesus “passed by” and “saw a man blind from birth.” And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”1 This blind man must have sat near the temple begging, and so Jesus sees him as he exits the temple area. That Jesus observes him is not by happenstance but facilitates the occasion whereby Jesus can manifest that he truly is the light of the world. The disciples, moreover, also see the man born blind, but they are blind to the opportunity that it provides Jesus to manifest that he is the world’s light. Rather, they wish to determine whether his blindness was due to his own sin or the sin of his parents. Such a question arises from within the context of God giving his commandments to Moses as found within the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Israelites are not to make any image of a god and bow down before it for “the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex 20:4–6).2 To the disciples, since the evil of blindness afflicts this man, either he or his parents must have sinned. This 1.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 9:1–5 unless otherwise noted. This event of the healing of the blind man occurs within the context of Jesus being in Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus, as torches were lit within the temple area and water from the pool of Siloam was used to cleanse the altar during this feast, so presently Jesus again designates himself as the light of the world and the blind man will wash in the pool of Siloam. 2.  See also Ex 34:6–7 and 34:14; Dt 5:8–10.

316

Chapter 9

“iniquity” could hardly be due to the blind man’s sin since he was blind from birth and so prior to his ability to sin. While it could be due to the sin of his parents, Jesus rules that out as well, for this evil is so that “the works of God might be made manifest in him.” Within this evil, within this man himself, the mighty power of God will be demonstrated. But the “iniquity” is visited upon the progeny of those who worship false gods and so disbelieve in the true God. It is the breaking of the first commandment and not the other commandments that causes “iniquity” to be visited upon the children of those who do not believe. Could the irony be that although the man’s blindness from birth is due not to his or his parents’ sin, the blindness of the Jewish elders, the iniquity of their disbelief, is due to the unfaithfulness of many of their ancestors, those who have worshipped false gods? Although the present Jewish leaders claim their allegiance to Moses and declare that they are children of Abraham, Jesus stated previously that they are not true sons of Moses and Abraham who bear witness to him, but rather, in their blind disbelief, they are children of the devil.3 The iniquity of their unbelieving ancestors has now been visited upon themselves in their own unbelief. As their ancestors did not believe in God, so the present Jewish elders do not believe in God’s Son and, like their ancestors, are blind to the truth as to who Jesus is. Significantly, moreover, the Gospel account accentuates that the man was “blind from birth.” He therefore has never seen the light of the sun by which all else is seen. He has existed in darkness from conception. He does not know nor can he even conceive what light is. The term means nothing to him. This physical darkness wherein he is incapable of seeing light also means that he cannot “see” the “first” created light by, through, and in which God created all else that exists. God’s “Let there be light,” the life-giving light, that is “the life of men” is unknown, unseen, to the man born blind. Thus the man born blind signifies the plight of the whole human race. While human beings may have physical sight, they are blind to the true light that is “coming into the world,” 3.  See Jn 5:45–47, 7:19, 8:40, and 8:56. Such an understanding would be in keeping with what Jesus states in Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. There Jesus condemns the present Jewish leaders. They may build the tombs of the prophets, but in so doing they acknowledge and give consent to their ancestors’ killing of the prophets (see Mt 23:29–36 and Lk 11:47–51). What is stated concerning the iniquity of the fathers being visited upon their third and fourth generations cannot be taken literally, nor can the blessings of the fathers being granted to thousands (see 1 Chr 16:15 and Ps 105:8). What is being expressed, in an emphatic but exaggerated manner, is that children do suffer from the sins of their ancestors as well as reap the blessings of their forefathers. Moreover, speaking on behalf of God, Ezekiel declares, “The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself ” (Ezek 18:20).

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

317

the light through whom the world was made—even “his own people received him not” (Jn 1:3–4 and 1:9–11). This life-giving light nonetheless “shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:5).4 Jesus’ healing of the man born blind manifests the truth declared in John’s Prologue and verifies that Jesus is the life-giving light of the world. Here the full significance of Jesus’ declaration is perceived. The reason that the man was born blind is not because of sin but rather “that the works of God might be manifest through him.” As God’s first act of creating light, the overcoming of the darkness of nothingness manifests the greatness of God, so the dispelling of the man’s blindness will manifest God’s mighty work of re-creation—the overcoming of the darkness of all evil by the life-giving light of God’s incarnate Word. Only within the darkness of sin and death is the glorious light of Jesus, as the Father’s Son, fully illuminated.5 Because the works of God must be made manifest, Jesus continues: “We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” This is a complex statement. First, who is the “we?” Jesus could be employing the royal “we” and so designating himself. Some ancient texts do have “I,” which would be more harmonious with Jesus saying that he must do “the works of him who sent him.” I wonder, though, if by saying “we” Jesus is indicating that he and his Father are together performing the divine works. This would be in keeping with what Jesus stated earlier: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17). Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is doing his Father’s works, the works that his Father, “who sent me,” gave him to do. In whatever manner this statement is parsed, these works must be done “while it is day,” for “night comes, when no one can work.” 4.  In chap. 1 in this volume, on the Prologue, we spoke of the “oddity” of John the Baptist having “to bear witness to the light” (Jn 1:6–7). Normally, light does not need to be pointed out because it is through light that all else is seen. Light, by its very nature, is immediately observable. Yet John must bear witness to the light that is Jesus because humankind is so enclosed in darkness, like the man born blind, that it is incapable of even seeing the light, that is, Jesus—the incarnate life-giving light that is God’s Word. The anonymity of the man born blind may be arise from his exemplifying the whole of humankind. 5.  This same logic is found in Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead. “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it” (Jn 11:4). The glory of the Father and the Father’s Son as found within Jesus’ Spirit-enacted salvific works is not simply the glory of their ability to overcome evil, but also is an expression of their abundant love (see Jn 3:16–17; 1 Jn 4:9–10 and 14–16). The splendor residing in Jesus’ works displays the glory of his love. The ultimate saving act that manifests the glory of God is the congruent act of Jesus’ death and resurrection, for here the love of God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is most fully enacted.

318

Chapter 9

Here is found a second conundrum. What does Jesus mean by “day” and by the coming “night”? The “day” would seem to be interpreted by Jesus again professing that he is the light of the world, and as long as he is in the world, he will be the world’s light—the world’s “day.” But does Jesus mean that when he has died and risen, and so is no longer “in the world,” he will no longer be the light of the world? Likewise, is the coming “night” Jesus’ absence from the world, and so a night in which “no one can work?” Such an understanding cannot possibly be correct. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, is the light of the world both during his earthly sojourn, and even more so will he also be the light of the world as the Father’s gloriously risen incarnate Son. There will never come a night wherein Jesus cannot work, for his very salvific work is the work of dispelling all darkness—the night of sin and death—both while on earth and in heaven. Darkness can never overcome Jesus. The works that Jesus must work while it is still day would then appear to be the works of his public ministry, for the hour of darkness is coming, the dark hour of his arrest, passion, and death.6 When that night comes, Jesus can no longer work the works his Father has sent him to perform. Thus while Jesus is in the world, while it is still the day of his earthly ministry, Jesus is the light of the world. In the hour of darkness, however, the coming night of his passion and death, wherein it would appear that no work can be done, Jesus will perform his greatest work. The dark hour of the cross will be the luminous hour of Jesus’ ultimate saving act. The dark hour of the cross will dispel the night of sin and death—a darkness that cannot overcome the Word incarnate. The “night” of the cross is then the “day” wherein Jesus fully becomes the light of the world, definitively becomes Jesus, for the very “night” of the cross is the “day” when Jesus, the Father’s Son, glorifies his Father and the Father glorifies his Son, Jesus. To behold the darkness of the cross is to behold the glory of Jesus, the “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). “Night” and “day” are one and the same “hour,” one and the same event, for the night of the cross is the day of salvation. Moreover, the deadly dark hour of the cross simultaneously then gives rise to the everlasting day of Jesus’ glorious resurrection, the eighth day of the world’s re-creation. Precisely because the darkness of the cross is itself the light of salvation, the cross gives rise to the everlasting day in which the glorious and heavenly Jesus will forever be the light of the world, for he will continue in the world through his saving actions. As the glorious Lord and Savior, as YHWH-Saves, Jesus, through the ministry of his church, will baptize 6.  This understanding would be in keeping with what John later accentuates. Jesus tells Judas to go and to do quickly what he is going to do. When Judas leaves, John states, “and it was night” (Jn 13:27–30).

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

319

the faithful in the Holy Spirit, and he will give his risen bread-given flesh and give his wine-given blood in the Eucharist. Through, with, and in the church, Jesus will be Jesus—the light of the world. Thus, while Jesus’ statement that as long as he is in the world he is the light of the world firstly refers directly to his public ministry, hidden within that statement is the truth that, as the crucified and risen Lord, he will always be the light of the world. Moreover, within the hidden meaning, there also resides the truth that he will be the eschatological light of the world, for as the crucified and risen lamb, Jesus will forever be the light, the everlasting day, in the city of God in whose light all of the nations will walk. In God’s city, there will be no night (see Rv 21:23–25). The first light of God’s creation, the Word who was with God and was God from before the beginning began and through whom all was created, is also therefore the everlasting last light, for through the incarnated Word all has been re-created— Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, the life-giving light of the world. Go, Wash in the Pool of Siloam Having said that he must work the works of his Father, and while he was declaring that he is the light of the world, Jesus “spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (which means Sent).”7 The act that Jesus is presently performing is one of the works, miracle signs, that the Father has sent him to do, and it is an act whereby he demonstrates what he just declared— that he is the light of the world. In this act, Jesus is imitating, re-presenting, what he did, as the eternal Word, at the dawn of creation. Then there was no vegetation on the earth because God had not yet caused it to rain, “but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gn 2:5–7). Only water can bring to life the plants of the earth. Similarly, the mist that covered the face of the 7.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 9:6–13 unless otherwise noted. Interestingly, in Mark’s Gospel, some people at Bethsaida brought Jesus a blind man. He led the blind man by the hand out of the village and “spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him,” whereupon Jesus asked him if he saw anything. The man said, “I see men; but they look like trees, walking.” Jesus once more laid his hands on his eyes, and the man “looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly” (Mk 8:22–26). Jesus’ use of his spittle makes for a similarity with his healing of the blind man in John. What is also similar is that there is a gradualness of “seeing.” The blind man in John’s Gospel, while he immediately sees clearly physically, only comes gradually to see Jesus clearly, that is, to a full understanding of who Jesus is.

320

Chapter 9

earth allowed God to sculpt the body of the first man from the lifeless dust of the earth. Once he molded man, God breathed into man his own life, and in so doing the man-fashioned clay became a living reality. Possessing God’s own divine breath of life, man had, by nature, a living relationship with God, for he inhaled, breathed, God’s own breath. In his sinning, man’s relationship with God was broken. No longer did he live by the life-giving breath of God, and so he died. He returned to the lifeless dust from which he came (see Gn 3:19). Now, in keeping with John’s Gospel, it would have been the eternal Word through whom the Father sculpted man from the mist-soaked dust of the earth, and it would have been the Word who breathed his life-giving breath into the man-fashioned clay. The incarnate Word, Jesus, presently replicates what the Father first taught him at the dawn of creation—as he created man in the beginning, so he now re-creates man after the same manner. The “mist” is now Jesus’ own Spirit-filled spittle, for he is the anointed Word incarnate. With his Spirit-filled spittle, Jesus, the incarnate Word, once more makes clay from the dust of the earth and anoints the blind man’s eyes with the clay he has made—he refashions the man born blind. Having resculpted the blind man, Jesus instructs him to “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” This washing is the act by which the clay-smeared blind man is re-created, for in the washing away of the clay, he receives his sight—he becomes an unimpaired man, a man as God intended man to be when the Word first breathed life into man at the dawn of creation. The physical healing is the miracle, but it is also for John a sign—a sign that contains a deeper meaning. The miraculous healing of the man born blind is really two signs, each one pertaining to the twofold interrelated miraculous act—the anointing with clay with the washing in the pool. First, Jesus’ act, as the Word incarnate, of fashioning the clay from his spittle is manifesting that he is not simply giving human wholeness to a man, but that he is also re-creating humankind. Second, the manner in which he is going to re-create humankind is through the waters of baptism, for in baptism, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. By being immersed in the cleansing waters of the Holy Spirit, the old clay of Adam’s fallen nature is washed away, and one is born anew by the Spirit-filled breath that comes forth from the mouth of the risen Jesus; thus one shares in, is born into, the new incorruptible clay that is Christ’s risen humanity.8 8.  We find this “breathing forth” in Jesus’ resurrected appearance to the Apostles on the first Easter evening. There the Evangelist narrates, “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

321

Jesus’ instructions to the blind man also convey or portray a liturgical action—a liturgical rubric. The man was to “go” and then “wash,” and within these actions he would receive his sight. This becomes more evident shortly when the man explains to his neighbors how he was healed. “The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash’; so I went and washed and received my sight” (emphasis added). Within the sacramental action of baptism, there is a “going” to the baptismal pool followed by a baptismal “washing,” the sacramental effect of which is the cleansing of sin, the washing off of the old man, and the attaining of the new life of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of the new man, by which one comes to see and know Jesus as the anointed Father’s Son, the life-giving light of the world.9 We also perceive within this baptismal miracle sign a play on the word “sent.” Jesus (as well as the Evangelist) often emphasizes that he is the one “sent” by the Father.10 “Sent” becomes akin to a title. As the Father’s Son, Jesus is the “Sent One,” or simply “Sent.” Jesus is “Sent” because he was sent to re-create humankind. Presently, Sent (Jesus) sends the blind man to the pool of Sent so that he may wash in its waters and regain his sight. Having been sent by Sent (Jesus) to the pool of Sent, the man himself becomes the “sent” one, and so “sent” becomes a title for him—the blind man assumes the name “Sent.” So, Sent was sent by Sent to the pool of Sent. Other than its being quite clever, forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21–23). Also, as noted in chap. 8 in this volume, waters from the pool of Siloam were used to cleanse the altar within the temple, a symbol of the sin-cleansing nature of the sacrifices offered upon the altar. Ultimately, humankind will be re-created, cleansed of sin, and made holy through Jesus’ sacrificial death and glorious resurrection. Jesus himself is the source of cleansing and the life-giving waters of baptism. 9.  The liturgical action performed here is similar to the liturgical action found within Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves. There Jesus “took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated” (Jn 6:11). Within the Synoptic accounts this is even more clearly seen. Jesus took the loaves and “looked up to heaven, and blessed, broke and gave them to the disciples” (Mt 14:19; see also parallels). These are the exact same actions Jesus performed when instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper (see Mt 26:26 and parallels). Paul’s understanding of baptism expresses the above very well. Paul stresses that on the cross Jesus put to death the fallen nature of Adam, and in his resurrection, he rose with a glorious, new incorruptible humanity. Those who are baptized sacramentally undergo this same transformation. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:2–4). Moreover, “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. . . . So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:6–11). 10.  See Jn 3:17, 4:34, 5:23, 5:30, 5:36, 6:38, 8:16, and 8:18.

322

Chapter 9

what are we to make of this? Since the pool of Sent symbolizes the life-giving light of baptism, and since Jesus is the one who will baptize in the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit, the wellspring of eternal life, the pool of Sent symbolizes Jesus himself. Thus Sent (Jesus) sent the blind man to himself—the pool of Sent, wherein he could receive the life-giving waters of eternal life and so follow, live in, Jesus—the light of the world. Moreover, the healed man, Sent, having been baptized by Sent (Jesus), is now sent by Sent to bear witness. Sent (the healed blind man) becomes an Apostle (one who is sent) to proclaim that Jesus is the Father’s Messianic Sent-Son—that Jesus is truly Jesus, YHWHSaves.11 Within the remaining narrative the healed blind man does exactly that—he bears witness to Jesus, and in so doing he will, in the end, as will Jesus himself, be “cast out.” Thus the healed blind man becomes a living prophetic symbol of all baptized Christians. All who are sent to the waters of baptism to be healed come forth from these Spirit-filled waters as Apostles—those sent forth to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Father’s incarnate Son. The significance of the meaning of “sent” must also be seen, literally, in the light of John the Baptist. He “was sent from God” in order “to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light” (Jn 1:6–8). The Baptist testified that Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” He bears witness that he saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus and remain with him. “He who sent me [John] to baptize with water said to me, ‘he on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:29–34). Thus we now have three who bear the name/title “Sent”—John the Baptist, Jesus, and the blind man. John the Baptist (Sent) was sent to bear witness that Jesus (Sent) is the Lamb of God who, as the Son of God, would baptize in the Spirit, and so John as Sent prepares the way for Sent, Jesus. Jesus (Sent) sends the blind man (Sent) to the pool of Sent, wherein he washes and receives his sight. This washing, cleansing, and receiving sight prophetically prefigure the sacramental action of baptism and thus constitute a prophetic fulfillment of John’s declaration that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit. The Sent man is now sent, having been baptized with the Holy Spirit, to bear witness to Jesus. John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jesus, the Son of God, who 11.  Again, this is in keeping with what Jesus says to his Apostle on the first Easter evening. “As the Father sent me, even so I send you” (Jn 20:21). Likewise, in his final commissioning command within Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus declares: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the close of the age” (Mt 28:19–20).

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

323

was sent to baptize in the Holy Spirit, and the seeing blind man is sent, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit, to bear witness that Jesus is the Son of God. The centerpiece between the two bookends of the Baptist and the seeing blind man is Jesus, and at the heart of who Jesus is is that he is the Son of God who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. The sacrament of baptism thus becomes the focal point of all the “sending.” Moreover, what must not be lost is that the Sender of all the sending is God the Father. Through the sending of his Sent-Son, Jesus, the Sending-Father will re-create, through his Sent-Son, humankind by means of his Sent-Son baptizing with the Sent-Holy-Spirit upon all who believe. The Holy Spirit, then, also assumes the name/title “Sent.”12 “Sending” involves the entire Trinity, for all three persons are intimately acting on behalf of humankind’s salvation, and thus all together, as to whom they distinctively are, are YHWH-Saves—the Father, as the Sending-Father, the Son, as the Sent-Son who does the saving works of the Sending-Father, and the Sent-Holy-Spirit who is the fruit of the Sending-Father’s and Sent-Son’s salvific work—he who rebirths those who believe into the wellsprings of eternal life. Ultimately, John the Baptist was sent to prepare for all of the above, and the seeing blind man, representing all future baptized generations, is now sent to proclaim that Jesus, the Father’s Spirit-anointed incarnate Son, is the light of the world. Within all of the above, what cannot be overlooked or underappreciated is the Sending-Father, for he so loved the world that he sent his beloved Son so that all might have eternal life in the love of his Holy Spirit. Now, to continue the narrative, having gone to the pool of Siloam and washed, the blind mind “came back seeing.” In coming back, the newly seeing blind man was immediately afforded the opportunity to bear witness to Jesus, for those who knew him were incredulous that he could now see. “The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, ‘Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?’ Some said, ‘It is he’; others said, ‘No, but he is like him.’ He said, ‘I am the man.’ ” Within chapters 7 and 8, the Jewish leaders and the people were attempting to ascertain who Jesus is—is he the Christ, the Father’s Son? Some thought he was, while others thought not.13 Here, in a similar manner, the people are in disagreement as to whether this man is 12.  Such is clearly seen later in John’s Gospel: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name [Jesus’], he will teach you all things” (Jn 14:26). “But when the Counselor comes, whom I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, he will bear witness to me; and you also will bear witness to me” (Jn 15:26). “Nonetheless I [Jesus] tell you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Councilor will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you” (Jn 16:7; see also 16:13–14). 13.  See Jn 7:30–31, 7:40–44, and 8:30.

324

Chapter 9

truly the former blind man whom they saw begging by the temple or not. The man himself dispels all doubt. The Revised Standard Version, which I am using, translates the Greek as “I am the man.” The Greek itself, however, is simply “I am” (ego eimi). Now, as the confrontations with the Jews progressed in chapters 7 and 8, Jesus ultimately declared that he is simply “I Am” (ego eimi), and in so doing he has appropriated to himself the divine name YHWH—He Who Is (see Jn 8:28 and 58). The former blind man presently echoes Jesus’ own exact declaration as to who he is—I am (ego eimi). He too has now appropriated the divine name YHWH. How can this possibly be? Having been healed of his blindness, the man is a new man, and being a new man, he prophetically embodies the born-anew man re-created by Jesus through the life-giving waters of baptism, the wellspring of the Spirit’s abundant eternal life. Thus the now-seeing man shares in the same Spirit as Jesus, the Christ, and in so sharing in the same Spirit as Christ, he has been assumed into Christ and therefore lives in Christ. By living in Christ, he has taken on Jesus’ own identity. Living in the incarnate I-Am, he too is a newly sculptured, born anew, incarnate I-Am. By his being subsumed into the incarnate I-Am through the Holy Spirit, the man becomes divinized—taken into the very life of the Trinity. Living in Jesus, within the transforming communion with the Holy Spirit, the man comes to share in Jesus’ Spirit-filled Sonship. He, too, is the Father’s Spirit-filled son. All of the above is by way of prophetic anticipation, for what the man prophetically embodies will only become a reality through Jesus’ enacting the Paschal Mystery whereby he will be empowered to baptize with the Holy Spirit. Jesus must first become Jesus—YHWH-Saves.14 The people ask the man, having identified himself as “I am,” “Then how were your eyes opened?” Significantly, they do not ask, “How were you healed?” Although the people are inquisitive as to his new ability to see physically, that they enquire about the opening of his eyes refers not simply to his physical sight, but also to his coming to see Jesus through his now-opened eyes of faith— coming to see Jesus as the light of the world. Such an enquiry will allow the 14.  In the first Suffering Servant Song, God, speaking through Isaiah, declares that his servant will make a new covenant with his people, “a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind” (Is 42:6–7). Jesus, through his death and resurrection, will make a new covenant and so be a light to the nations. His healing of the blind man is but a sign of his bringing the light of salvation for those to see in the light of faith. The above is also confirmed when Jesus later prays: “I do not pray for these only [the Apostles], but also for those who believe through their word, that they all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one. I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (Jn 17:20–23).

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

325

now-seeing man to bear witness to Jesus in an ever clearer manner. So here the man simply relates the event. “The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash’; so I went and washed and received my sight.” Unlike Adam, the man did exactly what Jesus instructed him to do. He was obedient, and in being obedient he was healed—this obedience is the obedience of faith, a doing in faith what Jesus said because one believed in Jesus himself, he who is the Word, the Truth, of God. Such obedient faith results in one’s re-creation in Jesus, the casting off of the nature of sinful Adam and the taking on of the new humanity of Jesus—the new Adam. Nonetheless, here the man refers to the man called Jesus. While he knows the man to be named “Jesus,” he only knows him as a man. He has yet to know him as YHWH-Saves. The man’s faith needs to mature. In response, the people want to know, “Where is he?” The man replies, “I do not know.” The geographical location is being sought, but it is presently unknown. For John, however, such a question can only be truly answered when one recognizes that Jesus is with his Father as the Father’s Son. Not knowing where Jesus is, the people “brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.” Their motivation for carting him off to the Pharisees is unclear. One suspects they were ambivalent as to his healing. They suspected that something in this event was not entirely kosher, and so they wanted to obtain the opinion of those who could properly judge—and judge the Pharisees did. But the man himself will make his own judgment. He Is a Prophet John first sets the circumstances upon which the Pharisees will make their judgment. “Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.”15 That the miracle sign took place on the Sabbath confirms, as we previously saw concerning the healing of the man at the pool at Bethsaida, that Jesus was about his Father’s work of re-creation (see Jn 5:2–18).16 No longer was his Father or he resting. The salvific work of humankind’s rebirth was at hand. Like his neighbors, the Pharisees want to know the circumstances under which he was healed. Though the man probably sensed that he was in for a hard time, with precise and unwavering language, the man sticks to his story. “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” It was as simple as that. That 15.  All Scripture quotations in this section will be taken from Jn 9:14–23 unless otherwise noted. 16.  In response to the Jews accusing him of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus declared, “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17).

326

Chapter 9

he does not name Jesus implies that the Pharisees already knew who the “he” was—who else could it be? The ensuing debate, as in chapters 7 and 8, once more focuses on the identity of Jesus. “Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.’ But others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ There was a division among them.”17 Not keeping the Sabbath is conclusive evidence that Jesus is not from God. Such logic is in direct contradiction to the Prologue. Because the Word became flesh and presently dwells among his fellow Jews, they ought to “behold his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (see Jn 1:14). Wherein should they behold such glory? They behold it in his miracle signs. This is precisely the counterargument. No one who is a sinner, someone who is not from God, is able to perform not simply miracles, but signs—miracle signs that manifest that such a man is from God. The Sabbath-enacted miracles are thus either signs that Jesus is not the Christ or signs that he is the Christ. Unable to come to a resolution, the disputants turn their attention once more to the blind man. “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” If anyone should have a clear, authoritative opinion about the identity of Jesus, it is the man whose eyes he opened. Within his new ability to see also lies his ability to see who Jesus truly is. “He said, ‘He is a prophet.’ ” Previously, the seeing blind man spoke of “the man called Jesus.” Here he professes the man, Jesus, to be a prophet and so someone from God. The more the man is forced to consider what has taken place, the more he retells his story, the clearer he comprehends the one who is his healer. Yes, Jesus is a prophet from God, but he is such in a manner that the man is yet to grasp fully—God’s Word incarnate, the anointed Christ.18 17.  The pharisee Nicodemus, in his opening remarks to Jesus, makes this same claim. “Rabbi, we know [at least some of the pharisees] that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him” (Jn 3:2). 18.  The Samaritan woman also exemplifies this same process of coming more fully to grasp who Jesus is. When Jesus told her that she has had five husbands and the one she now has is not her husband, she responded, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet” (Jn 4:17–19). Later, she comes to believe that Jesus is the Christ (see Jn 4:25–26). Of interest, when Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, came to the king of Israel to find healing for his leprosy, the king became disconcerted thinking that this was a provocation for starting a war. But “when Elisha the man of God heard that the king had rent his clothes, he sent to the king, saying, ‘Why have you rent your clothes? Let him [Naaman] come now to me, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel’ ” (2 Kgs 5:8). Naaman was healed of his leprosy by being obedient to Elisha’s command that he wash seven times in the river Jordan (see 2 Kgs 5:10), thus manifesting that Elisha was truly a prophet. Moreover, the washing in the river Jordan becomes a prophetic act that anticipates John the Baptist baptizing in the Jordan for the remission of sins as well as Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit—the cleansing from the leprosy of sin and death and the rebirth into the abundant life of the Holy Spirit.

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

327

Being unable to resolve the dispute and disgruntled with the man’s declaration that Jesus is a prophet, the Jews conclude in desperation that the whole affair could be a hoax and so sought further proof. “The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight, and asked them.” While the parents may not be able to say how he received his sight, they could testify that he was blind from birth. So the Jews asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” Such questions are a form of intimidation, and the parents succumbed to it. “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind; but how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” The parents were willing to acknowledge that their son was born blind, but instead of rejoicing at his new ability to see, they distance themselves from the whole event. Rather, they brusquely lay the interrogatory burden back upon their son. He is of judicial age to speak for himself. John notes the reason for their rather callous unresponsiveness. “His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be the Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. Therefore, his parents said, ‘he is of age, ask him.’ ”19 To be cast out of the synagogue was to be excommunicated from the Jewish people, for a person could no longer participate in Jewish worship. One lost one’s Jewish cultural and religious identity.20 Although the parents saved themselves from such a religious humiliation, their son would continue to stand true to his story and so, unlike his parents, be cast out of the synagogue. You Are His Disciple Having achieved nothing in questioning the parents other than again manifesting their own stubborn unwillingness to believe, the Pharisees once more summoned the son for further interrogation. “So for the second time they 19.  Although the parents do not hand their son over to the Jewish authorities, they do exemplify the nascent attitude that would mature into such family betrayal. Jesus expresses such in the Synoptics. “And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mk 13:12–13; see also Mt 10:21–22 and Lk 12:51–53). 20.  We have already seen that people were afraid to express their belief for fear of the Jews (see Jn 7:13; see also 19:38, where Joseph of Arimathea is said to be fearful of the Jews). Later, John will note that many, even those in authority, believed in Jesus, but because of their fear of the pharisees, they remained silent “lest they should be put out of the synagogue” (Jn 12:42). Jesus himself would prophesy: “They will put you out of the synagogues” (Jn 16:2).

328

Chapter 9

called the man who had been born blind, and said to him, ‘Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner.’ ”21 The exclamation “Give God praise” is a biblical phrase that denotes that one is to praise God by testifying on behalf of the truth. For example, “Joshua said to Achan, ‘My son, give praise to the Lord God of Israel, and render praise to him; and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me’ ” (Jos 7:19; see also 1 Sm 6:5). Thus the Jews jubilantly exhort the seeing blind man to rejoice and to give God praise because they have established the truth that Jesus is a sinner. This condemnatory judgment was presumably made because Jesus healed the man born blind on the Sabbath. For the man who was the one who was healed on the Sabbath, such reasoning seems irrelevant. “Whether he is a sinner I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see.” The bottom line for the former blind man is that he now sees—with that he cannot argue and in that he is pleased. When it was done is immaterial. Having failed to sway the blind man with their fabricated exuberant condemnation of Jesus, they return to their old line of questioning. “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” At this juncture the man’s patience runs out and barbed sarcasm wells up. “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?” Again, as the Jewish leaders refused to listen to Jesus as narrated in chapters 7 and 8, so now they ignore the man born blind, for the now-seeing man has become an icon of Jesus. They were blind to Jesus being the light of the world, and now they are blind to the now seeing man being a living reflection, a living illumination, of the saving light that Jesus is. Moreover, by derisively asking if the questioning Jews wish to become Jesus’ disciples as well, the now seeing man is not only referring to Jesus’ present followers but also intimating that he numbers himself among them, that he too is a disciple. Being such a disciple of the light, he now presently sees himself as a witness to the light. The now seeing man’s sarcasm and insinuation are not lost on the Jews. “And they reviled him, saying, ‘You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.’ ” Earlier we perceived that Jesus gave the anonymous blind man a name—Sent. The Jews unwittingly confirm that name, for they now name him “disciple.” To be a follower of Jesus, to be his disciple, is to be sent to bear witness to him, and this is what this Sent-disciple has been doing since he first saw light—he has borne witness to the Light. Unlike the seeing-Sent-disciple of Jesus, the Jews profess that they are disciples of Moses, and the reasons they provide are again ironic. They know that God has spoken 21.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 9:24–34 unless otherwise noted.

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

329

to Moses (see Ex 33:11). As Jesus has already pointed out to them, however, “it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:45–46). Even more ironic is their confession that, as for Jesus, they “do not know where he comes from.” Earlier the Jews argued that, because Jesus is the son of Joseph and so from Galilee, he could not be a prophet (see Jn 6:42 and 7:52). Moreover, unlike Jesus, “when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from” (Jn 7:27). By now admitting that they do not know from where Jesus comes, they have professed that he must be the Christ! The irony of what the Jews declared is not lost on the now energized mocking man. Why, this is a marvel! You do not where he is from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. With an eruption of incredulous satire, the man makes a statement that is in essence a rhetorical question. “Since he opened my eyes, how is it possible that you do not where he is from?” The man himself provides the obvious answer, by first submitting compelling criteria. All the Jews know that God does not listen to the entreaties of sinners.22 So while the Jews have condemned Jesus as a sinner, he had the ability to open the man’s eyes, and therefore he cannot be a sinner.23 Moreover, and more positively, if someone worships God and does his will, then God will listen to him. Here the blind man is echoing Jesus’ own words and so making his own testimony on his behalf. He is providing as his own criteria the very same evidence as Jesus, as to why people should believe in him as the Father’s Son. Jesus does not seek to glorify himself but seeks only to glorify, give worship and honor to, his Father (see Jn 8:54). Jesus does the Father’s will, and he does his Father’s works and so manifests that he is the Father’s Son.24 Because Jesus fulfills all of these requirements, “God listens to him.”25 Besides, never in the history of the world has anyone 22.  See Ps 34:16 and 66:18–19; Prv 15:28; Is 1:15. 23.  Although previously the man said he did not know if Jesus was a sinner, by now demonstrating that God hears Jesus’ prayers, he has convinced himself that Jesus cannot be a sinner. 24.  See Jn 4:34, 5:19, 5:30, 5:36, 6:38, and 8:28. 25.  Unlike the Synoptics, John’s Gospel does not specifically mention that Jesus goes off to pray, though we did note that after he works the miracle sign of the multiplication of the

330

Chapter 9

ever claimed that someone “opened the eyes of a man born blind.”26 This man born blind is claiming that his healing is an historically novel event and so demands a privileged causal agent that is uniquely singular. Within this constellation of arguments the now seeing blind man draws his conclusion. “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” Jesus must be from God, and although he does not yet know fully grasp in what manner he is from God, John’s readers do know. Jesus is from the Father as the Father’s Son, for what we have just beheld in the healing of the blind man is “his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (see Jn 1:14).27 If such were not the case, Jesus could do nothing, and therefore he would not be from God.28 Again, the man is echoing, and so bearing witness to, Jesus’ very own words: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise” (Jn 5:19). To accentuate the uniqueness of this miraculous sign and what it reveals, and to appreciate more fully what is implied in the blind man’s declaration, though he was not aware of it, we must take into account what is acknowledged in the Old Testament concerning the power of God. The Old Testament contains no account of a healing of a man born blind, yet God does declare that he has such power. Because he is not eloquent, “slow loaves, Jesus “withdrew again to the hills by himself,” presumably to pray (Jn 6:15). Upon the opening of Lazarus’ grave, however, “Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I know that you hear me always, but I said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that you did send me’ ” (Jn 11:41–42). Likewise, Jesus, as in the Garden of Gethsemane in the Synoptics, speaks of his heart being troubled and “what will I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Whereupon “a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again’ ” (Jn 12:27–28). Moreover, there is Jesus’ lengthy “High Priestly Prayer” in chap. 17, where he again “lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you’ ” (Jn 17:1). Within these passages we find both Jesus praying and the Father answering his prayer. 26.  The healing of Tobit’s blindness is the only Old Testament example. But Tobit was not blind from birth. The Synoptics tell of Jesus healing the blind beggar (Mark names him as Bartimaeus; see Mt 20:29, Mk 10:46, and Lk 18:35). Mark also narrates another instance of Jesus healing a blind man (see Mk 8:22). In all of these instances the authors do not specify whether the man’s blindness was from birth or occurred at some later date. 27.  At the Last Supper, just prior to the Passover whereupon Jesus would be crucified, John states, “Jesus, knowing the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God” (Jn 13:3). 28.  This is in keeping with what Jesus earlier declared: “For the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself ” (Jn 5:26). What the Father does, the Son can therefore also do. Moreover, as Jesus can do nothing apart from the Father, so believers “can do nothing” unless they are attached to the living vine that is Jesus (Jn 15:5).

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

331

of speech and tongue,” Moses objects that he is not fit to lead the Israelites. God reminds Moses, “Who made the mouth? Who makes dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Ex 4:10–11). As the Lord, God has power to heal, even making the blind to see. Psalm 146 declares that “the Lord opens the eyes of the blind” (Ps 146:8). Moreover, on the day of the Messiah, “out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see” (Is 19:18; see also 35:5). In the first Servant Song, God declares that he has given his servant “as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes of the blind” (Is 42:6–7). Jesus exemplifies and fulfills these passages. As the incarnate Father’s Son, he possesses the divine power to make the blind see and so is the light of the nations. Likewise, Jesus manifests that he is the Spirit-anointed Messiah, the Father’s servant, by opening the eyes of the blind. Thus, although since the work began no one has heard of anyone opening the eyes of a man born blind, Jesus has done so, and in so doing, he has demonstrated that he is truly the divine Son of God who is ushering in the Messianic Age through the power of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, in response to the seeing blind man, the Jewish authorities declare in anger: “ ‘You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?’ And they cast him out.” John’s narration of the story of the blind man begins with his disciples asking Jesus, “who sinned this man or his parents, that he was born blind” (Jn 9:2). Now the Jews declare that he was “born in utter sin.” They may be alleging that his original blindness was due to his own sin, but they could also mean that his being a blind beggar, and thus his previous wretched, ignorant state, manifests his sinfulness from his birth. Thus how dare he arrogantly presume that he could teach them, those who were born nobly and are now learned in the ways of God. But the Jews make a point—again ironically. All human beings are born sinners. As David declared of himself, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51:5). While this man, as are all human beings, including the Jewish elders, is of the sinful stock of sinful Adam and so born a sinner, the blind man, in his being born anew in the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit by which he sees, not only physically but also in faith, no longer is the born sinner that he was. As Jesus promised at the onset, his being born blind was for the sake of manifesting the works of God, the greatest of which is the re-creating of humankind through Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son. However, and Jesus will shortly make this very point, the disbelieving Jews remain in their born state of ignorant sin-filled darkness. Nonetheless, the end result was the Jews casting the man out of the synagogue as they had threatened. No longer was he to

332

Chapter 9

be considered a faithful Jew with all the rights and privileges that accrue to God’s covenanted people. Although he was cast out by the Jews, he was nonetheless sent by Jesus, as his disciple, to proclaim the good news of his receiving the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit.29 29.  Here I want to note two points. First, in John’s Gospel, apart from Jesus himself, John the Baptist and the man born blind speak, as individuals, more than any others in the Gospel— more than Mary, Martha, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, or the Apostles. I am convinced this is not by chance. John was sent to bear witness to the light that had come into the world—to testify that Jesus would baptize with the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. The healing of the man born blind manifests that Jesus, as he himself proclaimed, is the light of the world. The seeing blind man becomes the living anticipatory prophetic witness, the Sent one, to testify that Jesus is the light of the world who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. After his healing, the man continually testifies that it was Jesus, the light of the world, who healed him—re-created him on the Sabbath. As witnesses to who Jesus is and will become, YHWHSaves, they speak more than anyone else in the Gospel. This does not mean that others do not bear important witness, e.g., Martha and Thomas (see Jn 11:27 and 20:28). The point I wish to highlight is that John the Baptist and the seeing blind man are paired as a twosome who both proclaim that Jesus, as the Spirit baptizer, is the light of the world—John as the prophetic precursor and the seeing blind man, as the living embodiment and so prophetic witness, that Jesus will, as the light of the world, baptize with the Holy Spirit. Second, what is fascinating is that Paul becomes the fulfilled living icon of Jesus being the light of the world as the baptizer in the Spirit. Luke’s account states, “Now as he [Paul] journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him” (Acts 9:3). Paul himself describes his conversion on two occasions. “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me” (Acts 22:6). “At midday, O king [Agrippa], I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me” (Jn 26:13). This light, brighter than the midday sun, was a manifestation of the Lord Jesus, who in his glorious risen state is the true light of the world. Having learned that Jesus is the risen Lord whom he is persecuting, Paul rises from the ground blind. He is led to Ananias in Damascus. Ananias told him that God sent Paul to him in order to receive his sight “and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Scales having fallen from his eyes, enabling him to see, Paul “rose and was baptized” (Acts 9:17–18). According to Paul, Ananias stood before him and said, “ ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said to me, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name’ ” (Acts 22:12–16). In Paul’s second account, Jesus tells him that he is sending him to the Gentiles “to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17–18; see also Gal 1:15–16). Although the light that manifested the glorious Lord Jesus blinded Paul, he regained his sight within the context of being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Jesus, as the light of the world, dispelled the darkness of Paul’s disbelief by baptizing him into the light of the Holy Spirit. Having been baptized, Jesus sends him to the Gentiles so that he in turn may dispel their darkness and so be made holy through faith in Jesus—he who is the light of world, of Jews

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

333

Lord, I Believe John continues the narrative by informing the reader that Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe”; and he worshiped him.30 Where the seeing blind man went after being cast out and what his emotional state might have been in being ejected, we do not know. Upon hearing that he had been cast out, Jesus nonetheless sought him out and found him, almost as if he were lost and now found—having been cast out by the Jews and basically left to fend on his own by his parents, he had no “where” to go. No longer considered to be a member of the Jewish family and bereft of a parental family, he had no home. We perceive here, then, Jesus’ concern and care for the seeing blind man, but his motivation was that of wanting to bring the man to the fullness of faith and so into the family of believers. The man had already professed that Jesus was a prophet and declared him not to be a sinner but one who is from God. Jesus now wants to reveal his full and true identity to the man, something that he attempted to reveal to the Jews throughout chapters 7 and 8 but failed to accomplish in their disbelief. So Jesus asks him if he believes “in the Son of man.” The question is: Who is the Son of man? What is his identity? Within his vision, Daniel saw upon the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him, and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dn 7:13–14) and Gentiles alike. Thus what John the Baptist prophesied and what the seeing blind man prophetically anticipated is enacted within Paul’s conversion, for here the risen Jesus reveals through his actions that he is the light of the world—he who baptizes with the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. For a theological interpretation of Paul’s conversion, see my “Paul’s Conversion in His Own Words,”  in The Book of Acts: Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical Readings, ed. Charles Raith II (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019), 175–87. 30.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 9:35–41 unless otherwise noted.

334

Chapter 9

The one approaching the Ancient of Days (the Lord God) had the appearance of one born of man, a son of man, and yet he comes not from the earth but from the heavens and so possesses a divine status. The eternal Ancient of Days gives to this divine appearing son of man an everlasting kingdom such that he has dominion over all peoples. Thus for Jesus to ask the man whether he believes in the Son of man is for him to ask whether he believes that he who is the Son of man, he who is of human stock, is the Father’s Son come down from the heavens to earth. In response to Jesus’ question, the man asks, “And who is he, sir (kyrie), that I may believe in him?” The man wishes to believe in the Son of man who has come from God, but he is ignorant as to who this man is. He possesses the light of faith, but he is still in darkness as to in whom he is to believe. Jesus responds, “You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.” The first thing the blind man saw upon being healed is Jesus, the light of the world, and it is this man Jesus, whom he now sees and who is presently speaking to him, who is the Son of man as the Father’s Son. Jesus is eliciting from the man faith in the Incarnation—the man before him is the Son of God. In response to Jesus’ revelation of himself, the disclosure of his divine identity, the now fully seeing blind man declares: “Lord (kyrie), I believe.” The man, having respectfully addressed Jesus as “sir” (kyrie), now professes him as “Lord” (Kyrie).31 In declaring him to be “Lord,” the Greek word for the Hebrew word Adonai, which in turn is the title signifying God’s name YHWH, the man has confessed that Jesus is “I Am”—He Who Is. Because Jesus is “I Am” as the Word incarnate, he is “a prophet” and not a “sinner,” and so why and in what manner he is “from God.” Moreover, as the incarnate Word, the eternal divine Word who is God’s life-giving light, Jesus is the light of the world and so possesses power to heal, to give the light of sight, even to one born blind. That this is what the now fully seeing blind man believes is confirmed in the action that accompanies his profession of faith—“and he worshiped him.” One can only authentically worship one who is genuinely divine. To do otherwise would be idolatry. Thus, within his act of faith and his corresponding act of worship, the 31.  Interestingly, in the light of note 29 above, when Jesus reveals himself to Paul as a light brighter than the sun, Paul asks, “Who are you, Lord [Kyrie]?” While Paul realized that he was in the presence of the “Lord,” he did not know who the “Lord” was. The “Lord” had to reveal to Paul that “I am Jesus (ego eimi Iesous) whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). In revealing to Paul that he was Jesus, he also confirmed that he is Lord by designating himself, in accordance with the title “Lord,” as “I Am”—I, who am Jesus, is I Am. Now, the seeing blind man knew who Jesus was, but he did not know him to be the Lord. Only when Jesus revealed that he is the Son of man who is the Son of God did the blind man then profess him to be “Lord” (he who is I Am), the glorious light of the world. Thus there is a reversal in the manner of revelation. In Paul’s case, he had to come to know that the Lord is Jesus, and in the case of the blind man, he had to come to know that Jesus is the Lord.

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

335

blind man fully beholds he who is the life-giving light of the world—Jesus, the Spirit-filled Christ, the incarnate Father’s Son who baptizes in the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. Jesus affirms the man’s act of faith by declaring, “For judgment I came into the world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” The man born blind is judged to be just, for, though he did not physically see, he has come to see not simply physically but also truly in faith; that is, he has come to know and believe the true identity of Jesus as the Father’s Son, the light of the world. Yet those who see physically but who do not see with the eyes of faith, these Jesus will judge condemned, for they do not behold him as the Father’s Son, the light of the world. Some of the Pharisees near Jesus heard him and grasped his point, “for they said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ ” In response, Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” By asking “Are we also blind?” the Pharisees realize that they too could be blind, not in the sense of physical blindness like the blind man, but blind in their disbelief. That they question the possibility of their own blindness insinuates that they are ill at ease with their own conscience— while they stubbornly refuse to believe, their very stubbornness causes them interior qualms. For “some” of them, however, their arrogant stubbornness will silence their heart’s unease, and so they will remain hardened in their lack of faith. This is why Jesus says that if they were truly blind—that is, if they sincerely do not grasp who Jesus is—they would not be guilty, for they would possess a clear conscience of which they were rightfully following. By confidently asserting, however, that they “see” when they know, within the questioning of the own consciences, that such assuredness is not actually the case, their guilt remains. Their dishonesty not only with regards to Jesus but also most of all with themselves is what will condemn them. “And this is judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come into the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (Jn 3:19–20). John brings the narrative to an end once Jesus has brought the seeing blind man to the fullness of faith and has judged some of the Pharisees condemned in their self-imposed blindness. We do not know the remainder of the man’s life, but there is an assurance that he will continue to live in the light of faith. The Jewish leaders’ contentious relationship with Jesus will continue, as we will see in chapter 10 of John’s Gospel, but before turning to it, I would like to make two concluding remarks.

336

Chapter 9

Conclusion First, I want to comment on the tale of two healings. The story of the healing of the blind man at the pool of Siloam is in stark contrast to the healing of the man at the pool of Bethsaida. The seeing blind man exhibits delight and gratefulness, and continually bears testimony to Jesus. He first believes Jesus to be a prophet and ultimately the Son of God. In so doing, he symbolizes a baptized man, a man born anew in the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, the man at the pool of Bethsaida never exhibits any delight or gratefulness. Moreover, he never professes any faith in Jesus, and so he never bears any testimony on behalf of Jesus. Unlike the seeing blind man, who energetically defends himself and Jesus, the lame man continually makes excuses, first to Jesus as to why he has not been healed in thirty-eight years and then to the Jews as to why he was carrying his pallet on the Sabbath. Even after Jesus reminds him that he has been healed and that he should sin no more lest something worse happen to him, his immediate subsequent action was to inform the Jews that the man who had healed him was Jesus. How do we account for the contrast between these two men? Both experienced miracles, but only the blind man recognized his miracle as a sign of his attaining new life and so came to faith in Jesus as the life-giving light of the world. The lame man perceived his healing merely as a miracle and was ho-hum even about that. He never grasped the sign nature of his own healing. For the Evangelist, one can see miracles, but unless one perceives the sign that the miracle manifests, one will continue in the darkness of unbelief. The above comment leads me to my second concluding remark. The healing of the blind man is the penultimate miracle of Jesus’ seven miracle signs in the Evangelist’s Book of Signs. I have often observed that John’s Gospel has no account of the Transfiguration; rather, the entire Gospel is a narrative of Jesus, through his miracle signs, displaying his glory as the only Son from the Father. The first five miracle signs manifested the glory of Jesus, but this sixth miracle, the healing of the blind man, explicitly signified that Jesus himself is the transfigured and transfiguring light of the world. As the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus gives the life-giving light of the Holy Spirit by which, in which, and through which one is re-created. In this sixth miracle sign we perceive that this life-giving light is enacted within the sacramental action of baptism, for in that pool of water, Jesus baptizes in the Holy Spirit. In the sacramental act of baptism, Jesus manifests his glory as the Father’s Son, for in that sacramental action, sinful humankind is cleansed and born anew. Baptized men and women become, then, in their new Christ-assumed humanity, luminous signs of Jesus’ own glory. They become, here on earth, resplendent icons of the risen Jesus—he who is the light of the world. Having been re-created in Christ

Giving Sight to the Man Born Blind

337

through the Holy Spirit, the baptized, by the very nature of their being baptized, are sent to bear witness to the light that Jesus is—they are to be lights of the Light.32 The healing of the blind man, as the penultimate miracle, signifies Jesus as the life-giving light of the world. The last of Jesus’ miracles, the raising of Lazarus, will signify an even more luminous mystery. Jesus will manifest his glory in a manner that reveals more profoundly who he is as the Father’s Son. The man born blind could not see, and so, until Jesus healed him, he never saw light. He was at least alive, however. Not only could the dead Lazarus not see, he was not even alive. He was completely engulfed in the darkness of death itself. Thus the penultimate miracle sign of the healing of the blind man leads to the final miracle sign of the raising of Lazarus. In the healing of the blind man, we behold Jesus as the life-giving light of the world. In the raising of Lazarus from the dead, we behold Jesus as the life-giving light of life. If the first five miracle signs displayed the glory of Jesus, and the sixth miracle sign provided the reason for why all the miracle signs manifested his glory as the light of the world, the ultimate and last miracle sign subsumes all that the previous miracle signs gloriously signified and literally raises them up to a new intensity. The supreme glory of Jesus, as the only Son from the Father, is that he is the resurrection and the life. Only in being the resurrection and the life does Jesus fully re-create humankind, and only then does Jesus become definitively Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Remember, though, that the miracle of raising of Lazarus is a sign. The sign prophetically anticipates Jesus’ own death and resurrection. Only as the risen Savior and Lord does Jesus fully become Jesus—the resurrection and life for others. Again, it may appear that we have gone ahead of ourselves. Yet I think it is important that we grasp the progression of Jesus’ miracle signs as the Evangelist himself narrates them, for this is the developing theological progression that he perceived and intentionally ordered. That being said, we must first examine chapter 10 of John’s Gospel and only then move on to Jesus’ raising of his beloved Lazarus. 32.  Although I have focused on individual baptized Christians bearing testimony to Jesus, for John, the entire church bears witness to Jesus as the light of the world. Through its preaching of the Gospel, its sacramental actions enacted in the name and in the person of Jesus, and through its charitable works of mercy, the church is the light of the Light. That the church clearly perceives such to be the case is admirably found within Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (the first of its kind), Lumen Gentium. Christ is the light of humanity; and it is, accordingly the heart-felt desire of this sacred Council, being gathered together in the Holy Spirit, that, by proclaiming his Gospel to every creature, it may bring all men that light of Christ which shines out visibly from the Church. (§1; translation taken from Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. A. Flannery (Northport, NY: Costello, 1975)).

10 n

I Am the Good Shepherd The Father’s Son

F

ollowing the healing of the blind man, who came to believe that Jesus, as the Son of man, is the Lord, and after his declaration that the Pharisees remain in their guilt because of their unbelieving blindness, Jesus continues to address the Pharisees in chapter 10. He first does so by employing a cluster of pastoral metaphors that convey his relationship with those who believe in him and those who do not believe—a gate to the sheepfold, the gatekeeper of the sheepfold, and the good shepherd of his flock (Jn 10:1–21).1 The true shepherd enters by the gate, and to him the gatekeeper opens the door, for he is the good shepherd who pastures his sheep unto eternal life, for he leads them there through his salvific death. Those who do not believe in him are thieves, robbers whom the sheep do not follow because they do not recognize their voices. They are like wolves who come to kill and destroy. The second half of chapter 10 (Jn 10:22–41) takes place during the feast of the Dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem. Here Jesus continues to engage the Jews as to who he is. They have beheld his works, yet they refuse to believe that he is the Father’s Son. With the above in mind, we can now turn to the text itself. 1.  Unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus often employs parables in his teaching, in John’s Gospel Jesus never utilizes them. His being the gate to the sheepfold and his being the good shepherd are the closest, but John refers to them as “figures,” that is, metaphors or figures of speech rather than parables (see Jn 10:6). In Jn 16:25, Jesus says that although he has spoken to his disciples “in figures; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures, but tell you plainly of the Father.” Jesus speaks of his Father’s love for his disciples because they have believed in him. The disciples rejoice that Jesus has now spoken “plainly, not in any figures” (see Jn 16:29).

338

I Am the Good Shepherd

339

I Am the Good Shepherd Continuing his condemnation of the unbelieving Pharisees, Jesus immediately states at the onset of chapter 10, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber, but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.”2 Since he prefaces his opening declaration with “Amen, amen,” Jesus is accentuating that what he is about to say is a seamless authoritative interpretation of what he just previously declared. What Jesus now states concerning thieves and robbers and his being the door to the sheepfold and the good shepherd is, then, a metaphorical interpretative account of the immediately prior condemnatory confrontational exchange with Pharisees. Jesus first provides a scenario wherein someone climbs over the stone wall that encloses, and so protects, the sheep. By surreptitiously climbing over the wall rather than passing through the gate, and so without the permission of the gatekeeper, such a person is immediately identified as a thief who wants to steal the sheep. The shepherd, however, enters by the gate, and “to him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.” Being the shepherd, he has the right to enter into the sheepfold in order to gather his own sheep, and the gatekeeper recognizes his entitlement by dutifully opening the gate on his behalf. In the midst of many sheep belonging to various shepherds, his sheep hear and recognize his voice. They have no fear of him, unlike the ensuing alarm upon seeing a robber climbing over the wall. What is extraordinary is not that the sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd but that he “calls his own sheep by name.” Now, if a shepherd had a handful or a dozen sheep, he might have names for each of them, but if he had a flock of fifty or a hundred or more, while he might recognize all of them, he would hardly have names for all of them. But Jesus, being the good shepherd, has an intimate personal relationship with each of his believing “sheep,” for he has called each of them by name. Moreover, those who have recognized his saving voice, and believed in him as the Father’s Son, are those who now follow him. In contrast: “A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” The healed blind man is here the current example. Not only did he receive his physical sight, but he also received the light of faith. When the Pharisees attempted to convince him that Jesus was a sinner, the blind man would not believe them. He did not recognize their strange voices. Rather, he 2.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 10:1–21 unless otherwise noted.

340

Chapter 10

bore witness to Jesus, for he recognized that he was a worshipper of God, and so God listened to him. “Never since the foundation of the world has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (Jn 9:30–34). While the Pharisees cast him out of the synagogue, the Jewish sheepfold, he became a follower of Jesus, for when Jesus found him (called him by name) and revealed himself as the Son of man, the faith-seeing blind man came to believe him to be the Lord and so worshipped him (see Jn 9:35–38). Thus the seeing, faith-filled, blind man illustrates “the sheep” who follow Jesus, while the Pharisees are the robbing strangers from whom the believing “sheep” flee. As John points out, however, “This figure Jesus used with them [the Pharisees], but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” Because the meaning of the metaphorical images escaped the Pharisees, Jesus identifies the characters whom the images signified. So, Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Again, Jesus prefaces his clarification with a double “Amen,” thus emphasizing that what he is about to declare is the authoritative interpretation of what he stated immediately prior. What is to be perceived is that he is the door to the sheepfold. This is the third “I am (ego eimi)” saying. The Old Testament contains no allusion to God or anyone else being the door or gate through which sheep enter or exit. Nonetheless, by declaring “I, I am, the door,” Jesus is asserting that he is the divine “I Am”—YHWH—but he is not “the door” simply because of his divinity but rather he is “the door” because he is the Incarnate I AM—the Father’s Son existing as man. By stating that he is the door and “if any one enters by me, he will be saved,” Jesus, the divine “I Am,” is affirming that it is through his humanity that one is able to enter into salvation. Jesus’ humanity is the vehicle, the means, the door through which one obtains salvation. The “me,” he who is “the door,” is the man Jesus—the incarnate Son of God. This truth is what needs to be believed and acknowledged within the twofold “Amen.” Now, in declaring that he is the gate through which one enters into salvation, Jesus is not stating that he is a “door” in the sense that one must pass through him as one would pass through a door so as to enter into another

I Am the Good Shepherd

341

room, leaving the door behind. Rather, “to enter by me,” so as to be saved, means that one enters into the very person of Jesus and so remains in communion with Jesus, the door. One enters into salvation by being in communion with him. But how does Jesus become the gate through which one enters into salvation? First, the incarnational act, the becoming man, is the foundational act by which Jesus comes to be the door in whom humankind finds salvation. As the incarnate He-Who-Is, Jesus comes to be Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Second, Jesus, through his sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, obtains the forgiveness of sin, conquers death, and merits eternal life. This Paschal Mystery establishes Jesus as the universal Savior and definitive Lord; that is, Jesus, through these acts, salvifically enacts his name. He truly becomes Jesus— YHWH-Saves. Third, by coming to believe that Jesus is the Father’s risen Son, one is united to him, he who is the gate of salvation, and so enters into Spirit-­ filled communion with his Father. Thus Jesus is himself the living door in that through, with, and in his risen humanity the risen humanity of the Son of God, He-Who-Is, one enters into salvation. By abiding within the risen incarnate Son, one gains entry into the presence of his Father, the source of all life.3 This understanding is confirmed when Jesus states that “he came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” The Father’s Son came into the world by coming to exist as man and did so in order to give life to all who believe in him, life with his Father.4 This abundant life, as seen earlier in John’s Gospel, is obtained first through baptism, wherein one is born anew into eternal life.5 Moreover, Jesus declares, “I am (ego eimi) the bread of life” and this life-giving bread is his risen flesh. He who eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in 3.  The Letter to the Hebrews corroborates such an understanding. The author exhorts his readers to have hope. “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the household of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:19–22). The believing Hebrews are able to enter into the heavenly sanctuary, into the presence of the transcendent Father, because of Jesus’ sacrificial death. The risen Jesus is the living way, the living door, into this heavenly sanctuary because through his flesh the inner curtain of the heavenly temple has been torn asunder, allowing entrance into the very Holy of Holies. The reason is that those who believe, and so abide in the living Jesus, have been cleansed of evil through the purifying waters of baptism—they have been made holy in Christ and therefore are rightly able, with a clear conscience, to stand before the all-holy Father. 4.  As will be seen later within the chapter, the abundant life that Jesus gives is “eternal life” (Jn 10:28). Jesus has previously declared this truth multiple times, and he will continue to do so (see Jn 3:16, 3:36, 5:40, 6:33, 6:48–51, 14:6, and 20:31). 5.  See, e.g., Jn 1:32–34, 3:1–8, and 4:7–14.

342

Chapter 10

Jesus and Jesus in him and so will possess eternal life in him (see Jn 6:47–58). Both within baptism and the Eucharist, Jesus is himself the living gate, for through them he provides entrance into his everlasting risen life. Through and in these sacraments, Jesus enacts his name—YHWH-Saves—for they both give access, in communion with Jesus, to his Father through the life-giving Holy Spirit. Thus, in being the living door, Jesus gives entrée into the divine life of the Trinity. To abide in the Trinity within the humanity of the risen Jesus is salvation. Although Jesus is employing the metaphor of being “the door” by which one enters into salvation, that metaphor conveys a twofold interrelated ontological truth. Jesus becomes the door to salvation by enacting the work of salvation, and one reaps the benefits of his saving work by being united to him who is now the living gate in whom one partakes of salvation.6 Now, in contrast to Jesus, the present life-giving door, “all who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them.” Being thieves, they “only came to steal, to kill and destroy.” Those who came before Jesus, before the Incarnation of the Father’s Son, were often false shepherds. God, speaking through Jeremiah, declared, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” In contrast to these evil shepherds, “I [God] will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing says the Lord” (Jer 23:1–4). Similarly, in Ezekiel, God announces: Son of man [Ezekiel], prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep. . . . So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with no one to search or seek for them. (Ezek 34:2–6)

6.  Jesus states that those who enter into salvation by him, he who is the door, “will go in and out and find pasture.” Jesus will lead his believing sheep here on earth to find pasture wherein they will be spiritually nourished. That they can “go in and out” seems to imply that they can do so safely, for they are under the protection of Jesus, the good shepherd.

I Am the Good Shepherd

343

Likewise: “Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts his flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded” (Zec 11:17). It is these past priestly shepherds, these Jewish authorities, to whom Jesus is referring when condemning them as thieves and robbers who came only to steal and kill. In the present context, however, Jesus is not only speaking of past neglectful shepherds, but also to the very Pharisees standing before him. They do not believe in him, and they attempt to confuse and undermine the faith of those sheep who want to believe in Jesus—such as the healed blind man and those who marvel that such a sign could be enacted. Jesus’ condemnation of the ancient, evil shepherds and their prodigy, the present Pharisees, provides the rationale for his next declaration. Unlike the bad shepherds, past and present, Jesus is the good shepherd. I am (ego eimi) the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am (ego eimi) the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. That Jesus is the good shepherd is the fourth “I am” saying in John’s Gospel. In defining himself as the good shepherd, Jesus provides the reason as to why he is the gate of salvation. Before that is examined, it is necessary again to look back to the Old Testament. Unlike the metaphor of being “the door” in whom one enters into salvation, the Old Testament provides multiple references to God as the good shepherd. These become prophetic anticipations of Jesus being the Father’s good shepherd. Psalm 23 declares: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; he makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name sake” (Ps 23:1–3; see also Ps 80:1). Isaiah declares that God will come with might, and “he will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are young” (Is 40:10–11). In Jeremiah, God announces to the nations, “He [God] who scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock” (Jer 31:10–11). Ezekiel most fully prophetically anticipates the coming of Jesus as the good shepherd.

344

Chapter 10

Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some of his sheep have scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep. . . . I will feed them with good pasture, and upon mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they will lie down in good grazing land, and on fat pasture they shall feed . . . I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep. . . . I will seek out the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the crippled, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will watch over; I will feed them with justice. (Ezek 34:11–16) Not only do the Israelites profess that God is their loving shepherd but also, because of the “bad” shepherds, the failed Israelite leaders and false prophets, God promises that he himself will be the shepherd of his people. His care for his sheep demonstrates his benevolent love of and watchfulness over his sheep. Moreover, he promises them future prosperity and safety. All of these promises are couched in pastoral metaphors—providing green pastures, seeking out the lost and weak, strengthening the strong—yet they speak of a transcendent reality, a healing, a protection, a salvific life and prosperity that exceed the earthly. God, as the ultimate and definitive shepherd, will give his flock, Israel, a heavenly and holy life, for they, as God’s sheep, will abide with him. Within the Old Testament, God speaks of himself as the good shepherd who will personally shepherd his sheep. The manner in which God will be the good shepherd would have been understood by the Israelites of the time as God nourishing, guiding, and protecting his people as the transcendent God, and so by his all-powerful and all-loving care. Now within John’s Gospel, Jesus, by stating “I am (ego eimi) the good shepherd,” literally fulfills the Old Testament prophecies in a manner never anticipated. God the Father sent his Son into the world so as to become incarnate, and it is as man that the Father’s Son shepherds his Father’s human flock. Thus it is not as transcendent that God, YHWH, cares for his people, but imminently as man within the historical confines of this world. Moreover, although Jesus continues to employ metaphorical language, that of being a good shepherd, it is fulfilled in an ontological manner for, being the Father’s incarnate Son, being the incarnate He-Who-Is, he will lead humankind to salvation—the abundance of eternal life.7 7.  Within the New Testament, there are multiple references to Jesus as the shepherd. When the wise men came to Jerusalem seeking the new born king of the Jews, they are informed that, according to Mi 5:2, “And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah; are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people

I Am the Good Shepherd

345

Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, is ultimately the good shepherd because “he lays down his life for the sheep.” By laying down his life, by willingly offering his life as a sacrifice to his Father, Jesus obtains forgiveness for sins, conquers death, and in his resurrection obtains eternal life for those who believe in him. Here we perceive more clearly why Jesus is “the door” through whom one enters into salvation. Only by abiding in the risen Jesus, the good shepherd, he who died on behalf of his sheep, does one have access to his Father, the source of all life. Jesus is the living door because he is the ever living good shepherd. He shepherds his sheep into himself, and, by abiding in him, the door, they enter into his divine and risen life. Once more, Jesus contrasts himself as the good shepherd with the mere hireling. Because the sheep are not his own, when the hireling sees “the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, the wolf snatches the sheep and scatters them.” The hireling “cares nothing for the sheep.” Jesus, however, is “the good shepherd,” and because he is such, “I know my own and my own know me, Israel” (Mt 2:1–6). Matthew’s Gospel also informs the reader that when he went preaching around the towns and villages and saw the crowds, Jesus “had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:36). Lastly, as he and his Apostles made their way to the Mount of Olives, Jesus prophesied, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’ ” (Mt 26:30–31). Jesus is quoting Zec 13:7: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me. . . . Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.” In Luke’s Gospel the Pharisees and scribes complained that Jesus “receives sinners and eats with them.” In response, Jesus gives the parable of the man who had one hundred sheep and lost one of them. He searches after the one until he finds it. Upon finding it, he rejoices and gathers his friends and neighbors to share in his joy. Jesus concludes, “Just so, I tell you, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk 15:1–7). Obviously, Jesus is the shepherd who seeks out the one lost “sinful” sheep. The Letter to the Hebrews declares that we are at peace with God, for he brought Jesus from the dead, “the great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb 13:20). 1 Peter tells its readers that Jesus bore their sins in his own body so that we might live to righteousness. “For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Pt 1:24–25). 1 Peter also assures the readers that “when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfailing crown of glory” (1 Pt 5:4). Interestingly, in keeping with John’s Gospel where Jesus professes that he will lay down his life for his sheep, the Book of Revelation states that Jesus is “the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rv 7:17). The lamb of sacrifice is the shepherd of eternal life. Given all of the Synoptic and other New Testament references to Jesus as the shepherd, I believe that here we have another instance where John, through the mouth of Jesus, is providing a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition concerning Jesus being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophetic anticipations of God himself shepherding his people.

346

Chapter 10

as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” As he stated above, Jesus knows his sheep and his sheep know him. Previously, it was stated that the shepherd knows his sheep, and even personally calls them by name. Here Jesus, as the good shepherd, states something even more extraordinary. So intimate is the knowledge between Jesus and his sheep that it is of the same nature as the mutual knowing of Jesus and his Father. While Jesus will elaborate more fully the divine intimacy that exists between him—as the Father’s Son and his Father as the Son’s Father—already here we grasp how fulsome and personal is the communion between Jesus and those who believe in him since it replicates the eternal communion between him and his Father. There is no greater union than between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ love for his Father and his Father’s love for him, as well as his love for his sheep, is found in the attached ending clause—“and I lay down my life for the sheep.”8 Out of obedient love for his Father, and out of love for his Father’s sheep, Jesus lays down his life in order that they may have an abundance of life, that is, life in communion with the Father and the Son. At this juncture, Jesus brings up a related topic. “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”9 Besides his Jewish flock of believers, Jesus recognizes that he is to save the Gentiles as well. By shepherding the Gentile believers into himself, there will be one flock composed of all nations and races.10 8.  Later Jesus will declare, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). 9.  God, speaking through Isaiah, tells of his gathering the people from all nations to himself (see Is 56:1–8). 10.  Jesus’ declaration that he has other sheep besides the Jews contrasts with what he says within Matthew’s Gospel. When Jesus sent out his twelve Apostles, he charged them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 10:5–6). Moreover, when a Canaanite woman from Sidon came to him and cried out begging him to heal her demon-possessed daughter, not only did his disciples tell Jesus to send her away, but also Jesus himself declared, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Moreover, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs,” to which the women responded by noting that even the dogs eat the crumbs from the master’s table. Jesus commended the woman’s great faith and so healed her daughter (Mt 15:21–28; see also Mk 7:24–30). This episode is congruent with what Jesus states above concerning other sheep. He is to shepherd the Jews, but Jesus must not forget the Gentiles. Not surprisingly, then, while Jesus, in Matthew’s Gospel, tells his disciples not to enter a Samaritan town, in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman and enters her town (Jn 4:7 and 4:39–41). This need to first preach to the Jews and then to the Gentiles is in keeping with Paul’s practice. He first preached to Jews in their synagogues, and, while some believed but most did not,

I Am the Good Shepherd

347

Jesus being the good shepherd, “the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again; this is the charge I have received from my Father.” The Father loves his incarnate Son precisely because he obediently lays down his life for his Father’s sheep.11 This sacrificial death is the charge that was given to him. Moreover, having laid down his life as the perfect sacrifice, Jesus also has the charge to take it up again in his resurrection. All of this “laying down” and “taking up” Jesus does freely of his own accord.12 Although his crucifixion appears to be something that he passively undergoes as a helpless victim, Jesus is freely enacting humankind’s salvation. This free obedience in love is what makes Jesus the good shepherd—what makes Jesus Jesus—YHWH-Saves.13 After Jesus concluded his teaching on being the door and the good shepherd, John comments on the Jewish reaction. “There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, ‘He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?’ Others said, ‘These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?’ ” This division has now become common (see Jn 7:43–44 and 9:16–17). On the one hand, Jesus is once again accused of having a demon and therefore being mad, and so no attention should be paid to him (see Jn 7:20 and 8:48). On the other he moves on to evangelize the Gentiles (see Rom 1:16; Acts 3:26 and 13:44–48). Nonetheless, Paul knew that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, reconciled the Jews and Gentiles, making them one body, one new man, “through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end,” for both “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (see Eph 2:11–22). 11.  Earlier Jesus declared, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Jn 3:35). 12.  Because he is the Word of God, Jesus has life in himself. “In him was life, and the life was the light of all men” (Jn 1:4). Jesus therefore possesses the power to lay down his life as well as the power to take it up. Earlier Jesus told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19). John adds: “But he spoke of the temple of his body” (Jn 2:21). In Acts, it is the Father who raises Jesus from the dead (see Acts 2:24, 4:10). The same is true within Paul’s letters (see, e.g., Rom 6:4 and 8:11; 2 Cor 4:14 and 13:4; Phil 2:9). 13.  Although the approaching “hour” of his death is ever present in John’s Gospel, Jesus has control over when that “hour” comes to pass. This is why all attempts to arrest Jesus fail—his hour had not yet come (see Jn 7:30, 7:44, 8:20, and 10:39). In the Garden of Gethsemane, “Jesus, knowing all that would befall him, came forward” to meet those who came to arrest him (Jn 18:4). While the soldiers and elders came to arrest him, it was Jesus who actively came to meet them. Moreover, the cross was not laid upon Jesus, but he actively bore “his own cross” (Jn 19:17). Lastly, Jesus, having completed all of the salvific work that his Father had given him to do, said at that “hour,” “It is finished,” whereupon, he actively “bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (Jn 19:30).

348

Chapter 10

hand, no demon would make the claims that Jesus has made about himself. Moreover, and most assuredly, a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind. As the blind man himself declared, “Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (Jn 9:32–33). That Jesus gave sight to the man born blind authenticates his being the good shepherd in whom, as the living door, one obtains an abundance of life. As Jesus previously confessed, “I am (ego eime) the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). Thus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus is the good shepherd because in and through his humanity, the living door, one enters into the eternal life-giving light of his Father. At this stage, while the theme of Jesus being the good shepherd continues, John’s Gospel advances to a new setting, that of the feast of the Dedication of the temple. Jesus Making Himself God John informs the reader: “It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon.”14 This feast celebrated the rededication of the temple during the time of the Maccabees. It is also known as Hanukkah or the feast of Lights.15 In rededicating the temple, Judas and his brothers first cleansed the sanctuary and removed the pagan altar. They built a new altar, along with fashioning new vessels and lampstands that lit up the refurbished temple. They placed bread on the table and hung up the curtains that separated the Holy of Holies from the outer temple court. “Thus they [the Maccabee brothers] finished all the work they had undertaken” (1 Mc 4:51; see also 4:42–50). The next morning, December 14, 164 BC, by present-day reckoning, they offered sacrifices on the new altar with festive music. All the people bowed in worship and thanked God for prospering them. “So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness; they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise” (1 Mc 4:56).16 What subsequently transpires in Solomon’s portico during the eight-day feast of the Dedication does not make explicit the symbolic nature of Jesus’ presence, that is, that he, through his passion, death and resurrection, will consecrate himself as the new dedicated temple. He will become the living temple in whom true praise and worship will be given to his Father (see Jn 2:13–22 14.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 10:22–42 unless otherwise noted. 15.  The temple was desecrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC. 16.  See also 1 Mc 4:52–58 and 2 Mc 1:18–2:19 and 10:1–8.

I Am the Good Shepherd

349

and 4:19–24). Jesus nonetheless will stress that, in doing his Father’s works, he is manifesting that he is the Father’s messianic Son—the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world.” Thus, as the Father newly consecrated the temple of old, so now the Father will consecrate his new temple—his risen incarnate Son. During this winter festival “the Jews gathered around him and said to him, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? [The literal translation is: How long will you take away our life?] If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’ ” Ironically, by not believing that Jesus is the Christ, the unbelieving Jews possess no life. For the faithless Jews, it is their winter of discontent. In response, Jesus states, “I told you, and you do not believe.” Jesus, however, has never explicitly told the Jews that he is the Christ. John the Baptist denied that he was the Christ, and he bore witness that the Spirit descended upon Jesus, thus designating him as the Christ (see Jn 2:19 and 2:32–34). Most explicitly, the Samaritan woman, in the course of her conversation with him, says to Jesus: “I know that the Messiah is coming [he who is the Christ]; when he comes, he will show us all things.” To which Jesus declares, “I who speak to you am he” (Jn 4:24–25). To the Jews, and for that matter to the Samaritan woman, Jesus never plainly says, “I am the Christ.” Why is this the case? Simply put, it would do no good. He would not be believed. What is important for Jesus (and for the Evangelist) is not so much what he says, but what he does. Jesus has emphasized this throughout the Gospel, and he will do so now. “The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.”17 Thus if the Jews do not believe the testimony contained in his deeds, they would hardly believe his words. What is most striking is Jesus’ blunt condemnatory statement. The reason the Pharisees do not believe that he is the Christ based on the testimony of his works lies in the simple fact that they do “not belong to my sheep.”18 Is not belonging to Jesus’ flock due to their disbelief, or is it due to their not having been chosen? From what Jesus states next, it would appear to be the former— their refusal to hear his voice. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one can snatch them out of my hand.” What Jesus said earlier he now reiterates—sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd and the shepherd knows his sheep. Thus the shepherd leads his sheep, and they follow him. Moreover, Jesus 17.  For previous statements where Jesus says that his enacting his Father’s works bear him witness, see Jn 5:36–38, 10:38, and 14:11. 18.  Earlier, Jesus states, “He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them, is that you are not of God” (Jn 8:47).

350

Chapter 10

now defines that the abundant life that he gives is none other than imperishable eternal life (see Jn 10:3–4 and 10:10–15). Again, Jesus stated earlier that the wolf snatches the sheep because the hireling flees. Now he declares that, because his sheep follow him and so obtain eternal life, “no one can snatch them out of my hand.” The reason is that Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep—even in the face of marauding wolves. Furthermore, Jesus provides the ultimate reason why his believing sheep cannot be snatched from his hand. “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The believing sheep are the Father’s gift to his incarnate Son.19 Since his Father is “greater than all”—that is, since he is all powerful and so governs the whole cosmos and the entire course of history—no one is able to snatch the believing sheep from his hand. So there are two hands that tightly grip the believing sheep—the Father’s hand and the hand of the Father’s incarnate Son, Jesus. This union of clutching, binding hands manifests that Jesus, the Son, and the Father are one. What, then, is the nature of this oneness? If the Father is “greater than all,” does this imply that the Son is less divine than his Father.20 Or does this oneness designate an ontological oneness wherein the Father and his Son equally exist as the one God? By affirming that the Father is “above all” and that he and his Father are one, Jesus is expressing a twofold truth concerning his relationship with his Father. As “Father,” the Father is the eternal source of the Son’s being, for he is eternally begotten from the Father. Moreover, as the Father’s Son, the Son is obedient to his Father’s will. This obedience is evident in the Father sending his Son into the world so as to become the incarnate man, Jesus, as well as in the Son’s willing obedience in becoming man. Likewise, as Jesus states on numerous occasions, he is the obedient Son of his Father and therefore only says what his Father has given him to say, and only enacts his Father’s works. Within this context the Father is “above all”—even greater than his Son. But the very manner in which the Father is “above all,” and so greater than the Son, manifests that the Father and Son are both equally divine and therefore ontologically the one God. Being begotten from the Father, he who is the source and fount of life demands that the Son, as the Father’s perfect divine image, be as divine as the Father is divine. If the Son is not fully divine, he would not be the Father’s perfect Son, nor would the Father be the Son’s perfect Father. Moreover, Jesus’ perfect obedience to the Father’s will as the 19.  The Pauline Christological hymn contained in Colossians states that not only was all created in and through the Father’s Son, but also all was created “for him” (Col 1:16). 20.  Later, Jesus will declare, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28).

I Am the Good Shepherd

351

Father’s Son does not manifest a divine inequality between the Father and the Son. Rather, his obedience testifies to the equal unity of divine will and thus that they are both equally the one God. Similarly, the human obedience of the Son to the Father, and their enactment together as one the works of salvation, bear witness that the man Jesus is truly the divine Son of his Father. Thus, as to their respective subjective identities as Father and Son, the Father is above all and so greater than the Son. Yet they are ontologically one in that both the Father and the Son, by being reciprocally related as Father and Son, are equally the one God. Jesus will have more to say shortly concerning the relationship between himself and his Father. The truth of what I have just articulated is verified, ironically, by the unbelieving Jews and by Jesus’ rejoinder to them. First, the Jews perceived the significance and the nuance of the Father being “above all” and yet that Jesus and his Father are both the one God. “The Jews took up stones again to stone him.”21 Second, although it is evident as to why they wanted to stone Jesus— for blasphemy, yet Jesus confronts them as to why they would wish to do so. “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” Jesus’ rebuttal focuses on the good works that his Father has given him to do, and not on what he has said. Again, his works testify as to who he is as the Father’s coequal divine Son. The Jews respond in a manner that demonstrates that they grasped the inherent meaning of what Jesus said. “We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being man, make yourself God.” For Jesus, his works, and not his words, fully manifest that he is the Father’s divine Son. For the Jews, however, it is not for any good work that they wish to stone him, but for his stating that he and his Father are one, and thus both God. The Jews perceived that the oneness of which Jesus speaks is an ontological oneness. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, exists in the same divine manner as his Father. In condemning Jesus for this seeming blasphemy, however, the Jews have actually borne witness to the Incarnation—“being a man, make yourself God.”22 Jesus, then, by focusing on his good works, wants 21.  The first time is found in Jn 8:59; see also 11:8. 22.  Leviticus contains the rule that “He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him” (Lv 24:16). Earlier, John notes that “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God” (Jn 5:18). In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is condemned for blasphemy. At the trial the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, Son of the Blessed?” To which Jesus responded, “I am (ego eimi); and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” To which the high priest retorted, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” At this point, Jesus was condemned as deserving death (Mk 14:61–64). By saying

352

Chapter 10

the Jews to connect the dots. By doing the good works “from the Father,” Jesus is hoping that the Jews will perceive that indeed he, as the Father’s Son, is ontologically one with his Father, and therefore that he is not blaspheming. In response to this charge of blasphemy, Jesus furthers his defense. “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” While Jesus continues in his defense, for the sake of clarity, we must first examine what he has so far declared. First, Jesus notes that God has said to the Jews, despite their sinfulness, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Ps 82:6). Being God’s covenanted people, the Jews are sons of God and so gods. Being God’s chosen sons, God spoke to them in a unique manner different from other nations and peoples. The ever true Scripture has confirmed this. Now, if such is the case, how is it possible that the one whom “the Father consecrated and sent into the word” is blaspheming when he declares, “I am the Son of God”? Obviously, the one the Father has consecrated (with the Holy Spirit and who is thus the Christ) and sent into the world as man has to be the Father’s Son, that is, Jesus.23 Therefore such a person cannot be blaspheming when he says, “I am the Son of God.” Jesus’ apologetic argument is impeccably logical. Nonetheless, there is a problem at hand. Jesus has never said, “I am the Son of God.” Such is the case not only within John’s Gospel but also within the Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, nowhere in the entire New Testament is it claimed that Jesus said, “I am the Son of God.” Within John’s Gospel, as well as in the Synoptics, Jesus frequently speaks of “my Father” or “the Father” with the implication that he is the Father’s Son.24 Because Jesus speaks of God as his Father, the Jews could have concluded that he said “I am the Son of God,” when in fact he never said that. The Jews are correct in concluding that Jesus claims to be the Son of God since he always speaks of God being his Father, and so they have attributed to him the claim that he declared, “I am the Son of God.” If this is the situation, then Jesus could be quoting the Jews, who are falsely quoting him. Jesus had never said directly, in so many words, that he is the Son of God, but in this discussion with the Jews he is willing to proceed as if he had said it, in the hope that they would “I am,” Jesus is not only affirming that he is the Christ and the Father’s Son, but he is also asserting that he, the man Jesus, is the divine “I am”—YHWH. 23.  By stating that the Father “consecrated” him, Jesus may be alluding to the feast that is now being celebrated—the feast of the Dedication, that is, the re-consecration of the temple. This would be in conformity with what was noted at the onset. Jesus will be the new living temple in whom true worship of the Father will be given in communion with the Holy Spirit. 24. See JBJ 1:179–206.

I Am the Good Shepherd

353

believe it. But why am I so emphatic about Jesus having never said, “I am the Son of God?” As I have argued previously, I believe it is metaphysically impossible for Jesus to say such.25 Being the Father’s Son, he can only speak of “my Father.” Moreover, the Father, being the Son’s Father, can only speak of “my Son.” Within the Trinity, the Father in begetting his Son gives his whole divine being to his Son, and thus, in the love of the Spirit, the totality of who he is as Father, he is “saying” Son. He eternally actuates himself as Father and so defines himself as Father in begetting (saying) Son. Likewise, the Son, in being begotten by the Father, reciprocally gives the whole of his divine filial being to his Father, and thus, in the love of the same Spirit in which he is begotten, in the totality of who he is as the Father’ Son, he says “Father.” Thus the Father reveals himself as Father only in revealing his Son, and the Son reveals himself as Son only in revealing the Father. The Father never refers to himself as “I,” and the Son never refers to himself as “I.” The Father can only say “my Son,” and the Son can only “my Father.”26 Jesus continues his defense against the charge of blasphemy. Unsurprisingly, he returns to the testimony seen within his works. “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” The works that Jesus does are the previous miracle signs. If such signs are not of the Father, then Jesus’ claim to be the Father’s Son should not be believed. But how could they not be of the Father, since they all signified, in some manner, the bestowing of life? If he does his Father’s works, however, then even if what Jesus says cannot be believed, the works should be believed because they bear testimony that they are of the Father. If the works are of the Father, and Jesus is enacting them, then they make clear that Jesus is the Father’s Son, for the Father’s works can only properly be enacted by his Son. The Jews should therefore believe the testimony that lies within the works so that “you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 25. See JBJ 1:88–90. 26.  The Holy Spirit, as the mutual and reciprocal love of the Father for his Son and of the love of the Son for the Father, incites or inflames the paternal love of the Father for his Son and in turn incites or inflames the filial love of the Son for his Father. It is in the love of the Spirit that the Father says “Son” and the Son says “Father.” Also, the Father only knows himself as Father in knowing his Son, and the Son only knows himself as Son in knowing the Father. The Holy Spirit only knows himself in knowing that he is the mutual love of the Father and the Son. The persons of the Trinity only know who they are not in relation to themselves but only in relation to one another.

354

Chapter 10

To grasp that the works are enacted by both the Father and the Son is to perceive that the Father and the Son co-inhere in one another. Therefore the works testify that the Son is truly God as his Father is God. Jesus spoke of this earlier. “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise” (Jn 5:19). Later Jesus will say, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves” (Jn 14:10–11). Again, the works that Jesus performs are actually the acts of the Father who dwells in his Son. Such Fatherly works, enacted in and through his Son, manifest their interrelationship and the oneness they share as Father and Son.27 What is evident within Jesus’ declarations is what would later be theologically termed the perichoresis of the persons of the Trinity—the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) abiding or indwelling in one another so as to be the one God. The Son inheres in his Father for he is the Father’s Son, and the Father inheres in his Son for he is the Son’s Father.28 Here we see Jesus’ confirmation that for he and his Father to be one (see Jn 10:30) means that they are ontologically the one God, for their oneness is that of the Father ontologically abiding in his Son and the Son ontologically abiding in his Father. Here the incarnational implications must be recognized. Although it is the co-inhering Father and Son who are performing the saving works, the works are enacted through the humanity of the Son. The incarnate Son, Jesus, is enacting his Father’s works. These salvific works are therefore theandric actions—divine deeds done humanly. Moreover, these divine deeds enacted humanly manifest that Jesus is the Father’s Son. This is why they should be believed even if one does not believe Jesus’ words. These saving good deeds could only be done by someone who is divine, that is, the Father’s works done by his Son, the man Jesus. Lastly, by doing the Father’s works, Jesus, his Son, is enacting his name. He is becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Thus the works that Jesus performs confirm that Jesus is aptly named, for they verify that he is the Father’s-Son-­ YHWH-Saves. Equally, since the human deeds he performs are those of his 27.  Later within his high priestly prayer, Jesus will pray that those who do believe in him “may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21). Christians come to share in the very divine communion that the Father and Son themselves share. 28.  The Spirit inheres within the Father and the Son as the love between the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Son inhere in the Holy Spirit as the paternal and filial love that is the Holy Spirit.

I Am the Good Shepherd

355

Father, Jesus confirms that his Father is Father-YHWH-Saves. That he performs them as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Christ, Jesus confirms that the Holy Spirit is Spirit-YHWH-Saves. To rightly believe the testimony found in Jesus’ human works is, then, to believe in the entire Trinity, the one God-YHWH-Saves. As the Pharisees previously failed to stone Jesus, so now they fail in their attempt to arrest him. “Again, they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.” The manner in which Jesus was able to escape the hands of the Jews is not stated, but in some manner, he eluded their grasp.29 Having done so, “He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained” (see also Jn 1:28). Jesus returned to the place where his Father first commissioned him to undertake his public ministry. One can surmise that in so doing, knowing that the culminating hour of his saving work was close at hand, Jesus retreated there in order to ponder his coming hour and to be strengthened again in the Holy Spirit. In the Spirit, he prayerfully prepared himself for his Father’s final work—the crowning work for which his Father baptized him in the Spirit. In this hour and in this work, his Father will confirm that Jesus is his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased.30 Such an interpretation may be confirmed in the Evangelist’s closing remarks. “And many came to him; and they said, ‘John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.’ And many believed in him there” (see also Jn 7:31 and 11:45). Although the Jewish authorities wanted to arrest Jesus, many other Jews followed him to the place where he was baptized by John. There they recalled that, while John performed no miraculous signs, what John declared concerning Jesus has now become true. And what did John declare? Jesus is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.” God, who sent him to baptize with water, told him, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” The Baptist assures the reader, “And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” This is the truth that John testified about “this man.” The previous contentious discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees concerned these very points. Is Jesus the Christ? Is he the Son of God? Jesus returned to the place of his baptism to prayerfully ponder, as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son, the work for which he was baptized. Those who followed him to this baptismal spot came to recollect what had taken place there. In so doing the “many” came 29.  Their attempt failed because Jesus’ hour had not yet come. See note 13 above. 30.  See Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11, and Lk 3:22.

356

Chapter 10

to believe what the Baptist declared—Jesus is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son who, by being the Lamb of God, will, as the risen Lord, baptize in the Holy Spirit.31 Having come to the end of John’s tenth chapter, I once more want to address the issue of the perceived antisemitism in John. Throughout this chapter, especially in the second half, Jesus and the Jewish leadership engage in a contentious interchange over whether Jesus is the Christ and the Father’s Son. Jesus formidably argues that his works bear testimony to the truth of both, for they are his Father’s works. Within this polemic, Jesus even declares that the stubborn, unbelieving Jews are not his sheep and so not members of his flock. In response, they attempt to stone Jesus for blasphemy and endeavor to arrest him. Obviously, within the Gospel, Jesus is the “good guy,” and the unbelieving Jews are the “bad guys.” Moreover, John points out, as he has done on a few previous occasions, that there was division among the Jews themselves—those who believe in Jesus and those who do not—again, the good versus the bad (see Jn 7:43–44 and 9:16) So, is John having Jesus engage in an antisemitic diatribe? Although Jesus (or John through Jesus) is forcefully arguing his case, with the unbelieving Jews pugnaciously countering his claims, I believe that this is part of a Johannine evangelistic strategy, a stratagem that is founded upon the historicity of the events. The unbelieving Jews within the Gospel are expressing their historical legitimate concerns about Jesus’ identity as the Father’s Son. Jesus, in responding to these objections, is attempting to demonstrate that they are unfounded. Rather, the witness of John the Baptist and the works that Jesus does, the miracle signs, demonstrate and manifest that he is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son—a witness the Father himself bears. In a sense, Jesus (and John) is taking seriously the Jewish objections. He is not simply disregarding or discounting them. Moreover, Jesus is not simply engaged with his Jewish contemporaries, but he is also, and more so, speaking to John’s Jewish contemporaries. John, 31.  What took place at the Jordan where John was baptizing conforms with what Jesus said in John, chap. 5. Jesus says that John’s testimony is true. “You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I received is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me” (Jn 5:32–36). Jesus references the witness of John in order that he be believed and so in that belief that many be saved. The “many” who followed Jesus to John’s baptismal place, and who came to believe, exemplify those who are saved because of John’s testimony. Nonetheless, doing his Father’s works bears even greater witness, as Jesus has argued throughout, that he is the Father’s anointed Son.

I Am the Good Shepherd

357

through Jesus’ combative discussions with the Jewish nonbelievers, is hoping to demonstrate that the reasons for their disbelief are misguided, and that Jesus’ response to these misguided beliefs adequately addresses their past and present theological disquiet. Similarly, noting that there are divisions among the Jewish populace highlights and strengthens John’s evangelistic agenda. Those who believe in Jesus become witnesses to the truth of who Jesus is. John the Baptist, Nicodemus, the Samaritan women, and the man born blind are not the only ones who bear witness to Jesus, but the unnamed “many” also testify to Jesus’ divine identity and saving work. For the Evangelist, these past witnesses continue to bear contemporary testimony. Thus John is not engaged in antisemitism but is instead expressing his ardent love and deep concern for his fellow Jewish brethren—that they would know the abundance of life and fullness of peace that only come through faith in Jesus as the Father’s Spirit-filled Christ. This is why I have said previously that John’s Gospel will play a significant role in the future conversion of the Jewish people. I do not think any further summary is necessary. The theological significance of chapter 10 has become clearer as our study progressed. Thus we are able to move to chapter 11, where Jesus enacts his last miracle sign—that of raising Lazarus from the dead. This seventh and concluding sign encompasses, and so focuses and magnifies, much of what the previous signs signified. To this life-giving sign we now turn.

11 n

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

A

t the end of John, chapter 10, we left Jesus on the other side of the Jordan, where John the Baptist first baptized. Jesus retreated there, having engaged in a heated discussion with the Pharisees, wherein they attempted to stone and arrest him for blasphemy—he, being a man, made himself equal to God as God’s Spirit-anointed Son. At the onset of chapter 11 the Evangelist informs us: Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.” Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.1 We do not know the exact interval between Jesus’ dispute with the unbelieving Jews and when Mary and Martha sent word to him concerning their brother’s illness. What is immediately evident, nonetheless, is that what is about to be narrated will be significant. The “now” gives us the first clue. This “now” not only designates “the present,” but more so signals the reader to be alert, to take note, for what is about to be recounted is important. “Now” what is about to be told involves “a certain man”—a special man and not just any man. This particular man is “Lazarus of Bethany,” the brother of Mary and Martha. That he is from Bethany and that Martha and Mary are identified as his sisters not only 1.  All Scripture passages in the introduction are taken from Jn 11:1–5 unless otherwise noted. The raising of Lazarus from the dead is the longest narrative in John’s Gospel.

358

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

359

further specifies who Lazarus is, but also gives prominence to his sisters—they too must rightly be taken into account within the about-to-be-told story. Mary’s further significance resides in the fact that she anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair, even though this event has yet to be narrated (see Jn 12:3).2 The sisters’ message to Jesus informs us as to why Lazarus himself, “this certain man,” is notable—“he whom you love.” The sisters did not need to inform Jesus of this “certain” man’s name; merely telling him that it was he whom he loved would be enough for him to know immediately of whom they were speaking. Lazarus’ identity, who he is, is now defined by the singular love that Jesus has for him. Thus his illness assumes greater import, and Jesus’ response takes on greater magnitude. Since this certain ill man, Lazarus, is so beloved of Jesus, the reader anticipates an appropriate response. Such a response is not simply, in love, expected but even demanded. This expectation becomes more insistent in John’s concluding introductory remark: “Now, Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” Lazarus may be “he whom” Jesus loves, but Jesus also loves his sisters. Jesus’ love, then, permeates John’s entire prologue of the chapter and thus the entire story of the soon-to-be-told event. This love will impel Jesus to raise up the one he loves, and he will do so out of love for Lazarus’ sisters. That the sisters’ messenger addressed Jesus as “Lord” (a divine title) accentuates that Martha and Mary do not consider Jesus to be simply a prophet or teacher but someone who possesses in himself the divine power necessary to address effectively their concern and so alleviate their evident anxiety. Contained within this divine address as “Lord” also resides Martha’s and Mary’s love for Jesus. He may be their friend, but he is so as one whom they consider divine. John is depicting a relationship between Jesus and Lazarus and his two sisters that may be best described as “a divine intimate friendship.” Nowhere else in his Gospel does John convey such mutual affection and fondness.3 2.  Because John is writing after all of these events took place, he speaks of Mary’s anointing of Jesus as a past event. For the reader, however, while it may be a past event, it is yet to take place within the Gospel narrative. It is still in the future. The fact that John informs the reader of a past event, but one that is yet to be narrated, implies that although the reader may not yet be aware of it, John wants nonetheless to establish for the reader the importance of Mary already here, even though what made her noteworthy chronologically lies in the future. 3. Such loving intimacy will be heightened within the later dialogues between Jesus and Martha and then with Mary, as well as Jesus weeping before the tomb of Lazarus. Similarly, this affectionate love will be witnessed in Mary anointing Jesus’ feet and wiping them with her hair. Here we can note that the passion with which John narrates the whole story of Lazarus’ raising testifies to its historicity. Not only are the actors within the story displaying such trueto-life affection, love, anxiety and sorrow, but also John manifests his own emotional historical eyewitness involvement in the story in the sensitive manner in which he is narrating it. He, too, was and still is moved by what he witnessed and experienced.

360

Chapter 11

Significantly but not surprisingly, Jesus’ response to this ardent plea does not directly bear upon the issue at hand—is he going to come and do something to help his beloved friend, Lazarus? Rather, Jesus raises the matter to a more profound and more fundamental concern—to the question of death’s finality and, in the face of death’s sovereignty, the manifestation of God’s glory, that is, the glorification of the Father’s Son. For Jesus, even though Lazarus will die, his illness is not unto death, for not only will Jesus raise him back to natural life, but also, in so doing, he will manifest that he himself possesses a manner of life that exceeds earthly life—eternal life over which death has no authority. Thus, for Jesus, Lazarus’ illness and subsequent death provide the opportunity for manifesting the glory of his Father and thus the means by which he is glorified as the Father’s life-giving incarnate Son. To glorify the Father’s Son is to glorify the Son’s Father.4 Fascinatingly, while Lazarus is identified as “he whom you [Jesus] love,” later in his Gospel John will speak of one of his disciples as he “whom Jesus loved” (see Jn 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:17, 21:24). Traditionally, this “beloved disciple” is John the Evangelist himself. All of the above passages are subsequent to the passage that designates Lazarus as “he whom you [Jesus] love.” Did John purposely wait until Lazarus was so designated before he then designated himself as “the beloved disciple?” I wonder if John first wanted to accentuate the singular love that Jesus had for Lazarus, and only then speak of Jesus’ particular love for him. Since John narrates the raising of Lazarus in so moving a manner, did he too, along with Jesus, have a special love for Lazarus? Thus, although John was Jesus’ “beloved disciple,” Lazarus was loved by Jesus in a noticeably conspicuous manner. But why would Lazarus be so singularly loved? A bishop friend of mine speculates that Lazarus was physically or mentally handicapped (challenged) in some manner. Why else would he, as a grown man, seemingly be living with his two adult sisters? Lazarus’ infirmity, then, elicited Jesus’ remarkable love for him. Although we will later examine this more closely from a theological perspective, could Jesus’ parable in Luke about Lazarus and the rich man be of any help here? Did Jesus purposely name “the poor man” who was “full of sores,” Lazarus? Was the real man, Lazarus, like the fictional Lazarus, suffering from some chronic condition, a condition that caused him to be scorned and ridiculed by the rich and haughty? The fictional Lazarus will be taken into the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man will abide within the torment of Hades. Although the rich man received good things in this life, Lazarus, both the real and the fictional, received “evil things; but now he [both the real and fictional] is comforted here [in Abraham’s bosom]” (Lk 16:19–25). Such an interpretation could be strengthened by the interchange that takes place between Jesus and his disciples prior to his healing of the blind man. The disciples want to know whether he or his parents sinned “that he was born blind.” Jesus responded that it was neither his sin nor his parents’ sin that caused the blindness, “but that the works of God might be made manifest in him” (Jn 9:2–3). Lazarus’ disability, of whatever type, was not due to his sin but “for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.” This side of heaven is all curious and maybe idle speculation. What we are assured of is that Lazarus was loved by Jesus and that John was his “beloved disciple.” 4.  This is in keeping with the Christological hymn in Philippians: every knee is to bend and every tongue is “to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

361

John’s opening verses thus set an intense scenario wherein its completion will become a prophetic enactment, for in raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus will manifest that he is the resurrection, that he will embody a life that transcends natural life—a life that is eternal. While Jesus’ calling forth Lazarus will glorify his Father in that he himself will be glorified, such glory merely anticipates the glory of his own resurrection (the Father’s glorification of his Son), and this abundant life will accrue to all who believe in him. Moreover, this glory will only reach its fulfillment when Jesus returns in glory, whereupon all who abide in him will rise glorious from the dead and so share fully in his everlasting divine and risen life. This will become evident when we examine the dialogue between Jesus and Martha and then again with Mary. This whole prophetic sequence is the veritable prophetic enactment of Jesus becoming Jesus. In raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus enacts his name and in so doing manifests that he is YHWH-Saves. Yet this enactment of his name is but a prophetic anticipation of his own resurrection when he definitively becomes the resurrection and the life, and so definitively becomes Jesus. Ultimately, Jesus will become Jesus-fully-in-act when all the Spirit-filled faithful share completely in his risen glory and so are in heavenly communion with his divine Father. Are There Not Twelve Hours in the Day? In response to the sisters’ request, John states, “So when he [Jesus] heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.”5 One would have expected, after all the talk of “love,” that John would have told the reader that Jesus immediately set off in haste to Bethany. Rather, John informs us of Jesus’ loitering—“so when he heard that he was ill,” he frittered away two days. If Jesus had set off immediately, however, he could have arrived before Lazarus had died and so would have been able to heal him of his illness (a point Martha and Mary will make). Thus Jesus’ motivation for staying put is not out of indifference, but precisely to ensure that Lazarus was truly dead. Only by raising the dead Lazarus will “his illness” not be “unto death,” and only in raising Lazarus from the tomb will God’s glory be witnessed. The dead Lazarus is the “means” by which the Son will be glorified. After two delaying days, Jesus announced to his disciples: “Let us go into Judea again.” Instead of being excited at the prospect of finally setting off to help “he whom you loved,” and so easing the angst of his “beloved” sisters, the disciples themselves become filled with dread. “Rabbi, the Jews were but now 5.  All scriptural quotations in this section are taken from Jn 11:6–16 unless otherwise noted.

362

Chapter 11

seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?”6 For the disciples, it is absurd to go back into Judea. The reason they fled beyond the Jordan in the first place was to avoid the stone-throwing Jews (see Jn 8:59 and 10:31). Unlike Jesus, the disciples are oppressed by fear and not governed by love. Their fearful reticence provides Jesus the opportunity to once again articulate what he is about. “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks at night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” This, again, may seem an odd and incomprehensible response given the context. Obviously, Jesus is pointing out a commonplace. During the daytime, one does not stumble because one can see where one is going. One stumbles when walking at night because of the lack of light. As would be expected, there is a deeper meaning to this truism. To grasp it, we need again to see what Jesus says earlier concerning why the man was born blind. His blindness is due neither to the sin of his parents nor to his own sin; rather, “that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is still day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:3–5). Such a declaration is in keeping with what Jesus declared earlier: “I am (ego eimi) the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). Thus Jesus is telling his disciples that he must do the works of his Father while he still has time, while it is still the light of day, for the hour of darkness is swiftly approaching, by which time his works must be completed. Now, his very works are the light that shines in the darkness of sin and death, and the reason his works/signs are light filled is because they are enacted by he who is light itself— the eternal light of the incarnate I AM, the very light by which the world was created and is now being re-created, and in both cases, darkness cannot overcome this light of life that Jesus is (see Jn 1:5 and 1:9). Jesus, as the Incarnate I AM, then literally embodies the light of life and so, in his own resurrection, will literally embody eternal life. Those who follow Jesus in faith will have the life of light, for they will live in him who is the resurrection and the life.7 Jesus 6.  That the disciples speak of the Jews “now seeking to stone” Jesus indicates that the time between Jesus leaving Jerusalem and crossing the Jordan was a relatively short from when the sisters informed Jesus of Lazarus’ illness. 7.  Here we grasp why Jesus speaks of the light not being “in” someone. Ophthalmologically, light comes from without and enters into a person’s eye, enabling a person to see. The light thus does not find its origin within the person. For those who come to believe in Jesus, however, the light does reside within them because they live within him who is the origin of light—the divine saving light of truth that is the Holy Spirit. Those who dwell in the darkness of sin and death do so because they do not reside in Jesus, the light of life, and so “the light

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

363

therefore cannot be fearful of or bothered by the stone-throwing Jews. He must continue doing the works that his Father has given him to enact, and in this instance he, as the light of life, is to dispel death’s night that presently darkens Lazarus’ tomb and so manifest that he is the resurrection and the life. In doing so, the light-giving life of his glory will shine forth for all to see.8 Thus Jesus must be about his Father’s business while it is still light. John comments: “Thus he spoke.” John’s accentuating the manner and content of what Jesus spoke to his disciples underscores the perplexing nature of its meaning and yet simultaneously begs the reader to perceive its inner meaning. In other words, “Do not pass over it lightly. Discern what Jesus is saying.” John then continues, “and then he said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.’ ” This is the first time that Jesus references Lazarus by name, and he does so by prefacing it with “our friend.” We already surmised that the Evangelist saw himself as a friend of Lazarus, but here Jesus declares that Lazarus is not only the one whom he loves, but also the one whom all his disciples love. Jesus’ speaking of “their” friend might be his subtle hint that they too should not be afraid but, out of love, willingly set off for Judea. Because Jesus spoke of Lazarus “sleeping” and his going to “awake” him, his disciples respond, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” From their previous experience, the disciples know that sleep betokens recovery—Lazarus is on the mend—and therefore there is no need to go to Judea! John inserts a clarification: “Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking a rest in sleep.”9 Why would the Evangelist provide clarification when none was needed? Not only is the disciples’ misunderstanding obvious, but Jesus himself will also immediately provide his own clarification. Yes, sleep usually means taking a rest, yet for Jesus, “sleep” is not in them.” Later, Jesus will tell the unbelieving Jews, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of the light” (Jn 12:35–36). As the Father’s Son, Jesus is the light, and to believe in Jesus is to become children of the Father, for one comes to dwell in the Father’s Son. 8.  What Jesus declares within John is a theological elaboration of what he states in Luke. Having been told that Herod wants to kill him, Jesus says, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem’ ” (Lk 13:32–33). Jesus must daily continue his saving work even in the midst of death threats. Only when he finishes his work in Jerusalem through his death, and on the third day is raised from the dead, will he have accomplished his Father’s work. 9.  The term “sleep” is frequently used in the Bible to signify death (see, e.g., Ps 13:3; Mt 9:24, 5:39; Acts 7:60; 1 Tm 4:13; and 1 Cor 15:6).

364

Chapter 11

means “death,” for “death” is but a “sleep” from which one wakes unto eternal life. Death, in the end, is not death for those who live in him; he who is the resurrection and the life. So, “Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead; and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.’ ” Despite the death of Lazarus, the one he loved, Jesus is not sad but glad. He is pleased that he was not there before he died so as to heal him—actually he made sure that he was not there prior to Lazarus’ death so that he could now be glad that he was not there. The reason is so that they, his disciples, may come to faith. Jesus’ initial prophetic words must be fulfilled: “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.” Lazarus’ death again provides Jesus the opportunity to display the glory of God in Lazarus’ raising, and in so doing he is himself to be glorified—this beholding of his glory is to behold the glory “of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). Beholding this divine filial glory is to evoke faith from his disciples. This is why Jesus is glad that he “was not there.” But enough talk—“Let us go to him.” The disciples appear unable to follow Jesus’ reasoning and so still show no enthusiasm for going to Judea in order to wake their “friend” Lazarus. Instead, Thomas exhorts his fellow disciples to make the best of a bad situation by cheering them on to be heroic. “Thomas, called the twin, said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him.’ ” Thomas gives the impression that he and his comrades have a choice—“Let us also go.” By not letting Jesus go off on his own, they are valiantly remaining loyal to their leader, even if reluctantly, which makes them even more gallant. While this is all bugle-blowing bravado, though sincere, there is prophetic, ironic truth present. Although he is ostensibly setting off to raise Lazarus from the dead, Jesus’ raising him back to life will become the catalyst for his own condemnation. Ironically, the manifestation that he is the resurrection and the life ushers in his own death. So, Thomas is correct in that Jesus, by going to raise Lazarus, is going to his death.10 But his very death is the means by which Jesus merits his own resurrection and so definitively establishes him as the resurrection and the 10.  That Thomas and the other disciples do not die with Jesus unmasks their hollow, though sincere, avowal. What Thomas’ declaration does manifest is that, although the disciples were expressing their concern for Jesus’ safety, their hidden motivation was for their own—they did not want to be stoned. Sadly, they feared more for their own lives than for the life of their “friend” Lazarus. In raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus was revealing that he is the resurrection and the life; however, when Jesus rises from the dead, Thomas ironically does not believe the reports of his fellow Apostles. I will have kinder comments to make about Thomas’ disbelief at the appropriate time in the third volume.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

365

life. Herein the glory of the Son of God is most fully beheld, and thus faith in him is most fully occasioned. I Am the Resurrection and the Life John next sets the scene for Jesus’ arrival. Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been dead in the tomb four days. Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother.11 Jesus first discovers that Lazarus has been entombed four days. This is one more day than Jesus will lie in his tomb. Bethany is about two miles from Jerusalem, up and just over the brow of the Mount of Olives to the east. Because of its proximity to Jerusalem, many Jewish friends of Martha and Mary came to console them at the loss of their brother. Moreover, the Evangelist is alerting the reader that Jesus is once more within the camp of Jewish hostility—as his disciples are fearfully aware. Not all of Martha’s and Mary’s present consolers may be sympathetic toward Jesus—this will be proved true. Nonetheless, John immediately picks up the story. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.”12 Having received word of Jesus’ approach, Martha hastened to meet him while Mary remained at home. Such differing responses are in character with the two sisters as found in Luke’s Gospel. There, Jesus came to their house (Lazarus is not mentioned) for dinner. Martha, as is well known, was busy doing all of the serving, while Mary contemplatively sat at Jesus’ feet, taking in every word that came forth from his mouth. Martha complained to Jesus about Mary’s lack of help, only to be told that her sister had chosen the better part (see Lk 10:38–42). Martha is characterized as “the action sister,” while Mary is “the pondering sister.” Thus it is not surprising that, upon being informed that 11.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 11:17–27 unless otherwise noted. 12.  Jesus’ dialogue with Martha is an anticipatory theological interpretation of the miracle sign of Lazarus’ raising.

366

Chapter 11

Jesus was near, Martha ran off to meet him in order to inquire what could be done concerning her dead brother. Mary, not surprisingly, remained at home. Upon meeting Jesus, Martha makes a statement that is a declaration of faith. If Jesus had arrived earlier, he would have healed her brother, and therefore he would not now be dead. There may be a tinge of rebuke in her voice, that Jesus could have, but did not, arrive sooner (and she would have been correct), but it is ever so small because, though her brother is now dead, “even now” she knows that whatever Jesus, her divine “Lord,” asks of God, he “will give you.”13 Martha’s faith provides her the assured confidence that Jesus, as her Lord, can act, and, being who she is, action is what she desires. Here we perceive grace building upon and elevating nature. By nature, Martha is a “doer,” but what she now wants done is founded upon the grace of her faith in Jesus as her Lord. To Martha’s assertion that even now God will allow him to do whatever he asks, Jesus replies, “Your brother will rise again.” At first glance, Jesus’ statement could almost be taken as a sign of indifference. “What do you want me to do? Your brother, after all, will rise; so get yourself together.”14 Martha readily acknowledges, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”15 One senses that, although Martha agrees that such is true, her present concern is not about what happens at the end times but what she wants to happen now—the case of her dead brother demands a more immediate response. Martha’s affirmation that her brother will rise on the last day does, then, become the provocation, and therefore the catalyst, for Jesus to express the inner and true meaning of his first opening assertion. “I am (ego eimi) the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”16 Martha’s “brother will rise again” because Jesus, as “I am (ego eimi),” is 13.  Martha’s response is reminiscent of the blind man’s defense of Jesus. “Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him” (Jn 9:30–31). 14.  Here there is a tonality similar to that found in Jesus’ response to his mother at the wedding feast at Cana. Mary told her son, “They have no wine.” Jesus responded, “O, woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come” (Jn 2:3–4). Fascinatingly, Cana was the first miracle sign, and the raising of Lazarus is the last miracle sign. Jesus embarked on his “hour” at Cana, and after raising Lazarus, he will have arrived at his “hour.” In both instances it was a woman, his mother and then Martha, who spurred him on to proceed. Martha, like his mother, may signify the church—a church eagerly awaiting its salvific birth to new life. 15.  Belief in the resurrection and eternal life can be seen, e.g., in 2 Mc 7:9. Jesus has spoken many times of his giving abundant and eternal life (see, e.g., Jn 4:14, 5:24, and 10:10). 16.  This is the fifth of the seven “I am” sayings in John’s Gospel. Jesus earlier states, “For the Father has life in himself, so the Father has granted the Son also to have life in himself ”

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

367

“the resurrection and the life;” and anyone who “believes in” him, “though he die, yet shall he live.” Moreover, anyone who lives and “and believes in” Jesus “shall never die.” Does Martha believe this? To grasp fully the meaning of Jesus’ declaration that he is the resurrection and the life, we need to conjoin it with Martha’s profession of faith. Jesus’ “I am (ego eimi) the resurrection and the life” affirms that, he, as man, possesses the fullness of divine life because who he is, his identity, is “He Who Is”—the divine “I Am.” Martha corroborates Jesus’ attestation by providing the reason as to why he is “He Who Is”—the divine “I Am,” and therefore why he is the resurrection and the life. “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” The reason she believes (her “yes”) that Jesus is the resurrection and the life resides in her “Lord” being “the Christ, the Son of God.” Thus her profession of faith is also incarnational. The man Jesus who stands before her is her Lord (the divine “I Am [YHWH]), for he is the Messiah, the Father’s Son. Thus there is an intertwining, a perichoresis, of Jesus’ declaration and Martha’s act of faith. They both confirm one another and thus enhance one another, and in so doing inform us as to who Jesus is in all of his incarnational fullness. Now, in what manner is Jesus the resurrection and the life such that he who believes in him, even though he die, will live, and so, by believing in him, he will never die? Jesus, being the Spirit-anointed Father’s Son, the divine “I Am,” will raise Lazarus from the dead. That miracle will signify that what Jesus presently declares is true—that he is the resurrection and the life. Because of who he is, however, Jesus is the resurrection and the life not simply because he possesses the divine ability to raise someone from the dead such that the raised person, such as Lazarus, continues to exist, though apart from him. Rather, for Jesus to be truly the resurrection and the life, he himself must embody the resurrected life within himself. He must be in himself the resurrection and the life. Jesus himself must therefore be gloriously resurrected wherein death itself is vanquished in him. The raising of Lazarus, then, signifies that he, in himself, is the resurrection and the life, and only by abiding in him, and not apart from him, will one live even though one may die (as did Lazarus), and therefore one who lives in Jesus never truly dies. Thus, even though Jesus presently speaks of himself as the resurrection and the life, and he does so because he can raise people from the dead such as Lazarus, he only definitively becomes the resurrection and the life when he embodies in himself the resurrection, and this is only obtained when he conquers death on the cross and rises gloriously from (Jn 5:26). Also: “Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death” (Jn 8:51).

368

Chapter 11

the dead. In other words, Jesus only becomes the resurrection and the life when he becomes fully Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Only then will those who believe that he is the Christ, the Son of God, be united to him as their risen Lord and so partake of his risen life by being in communion with his Spirit-filled risen humanity. Moreover, in keeping with Martha’s affirmation, Jesus will actuate the fullness of who he is as Jesus, the resurrection and the life, on the last day when all those who abided in him on earth will share in the fullness of his resurrection in his Father’s everlasting heavenly kingdom.17 This need to abide in the risen Jesus in order to share in his resurrected life not only presumes that one believes, possesses faith, but also entails Jesus’ teaching, within John’s Gospel, concerning the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. The risen Jesus is he who will baptize in the Holy Spirit, and therefore, through water and the Spirit, the faithful are born anew into his risen life so as to abide with him in God’s Kingdom.18 Moreover, Jesus is the bread of eternal life (see Jn 6:47). Thus, within the Eucharist, by eating his risen body and drinking his risen blood, one comes into communion with the risen Jesus himself, and thus shares, literally, in him his risen eternal life. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I am in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. (Jn 6:53–57)19 Thus for Jesus to say that he is the resurrection and the life means, first, that he is able to raise Lazarus from his tomb. Second, this miraculous raising up of Lazarus to his earthly life signifies that the yet-to-be-risen Jesus will become in himself the eschatological resurrection and life. And, third, in order to partake of Jesus’ eschatological life at the end of time, one must, through faith-filled 17.  In the Book of Revelation, Jesus declares, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, the living one; I died, and behold I live forevermore” (Rv 1:18). 18.  See Jn 1:32–34, 3:5, and 4:14. 19.  In his bread of life discourse, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that on the last day he will raise up all who believe in him. “This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:39–40). “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:44).

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

369

participation in baptism and the Eucharist, live in the risen Jesus in the present time. Here we perceive clearly the salvific significance of the Incarnation. Jesus declares: “I am the resurrection and the life.” To partake of the life-giving “I Am,” one has to be in living communion, through faith and the sacraments, with Jesus’ risen Spirit-filled humanity because through, with, and in his risen humanity one is in union with the Father’s Son and so conjoined to the Son’s Father, the source of all life.20 Before we continue examining John’s narrative, two further points must be made. First, Martha is privileged to echo Peter’s profession of faith as found in the Synoptic Gospels—Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (see Mt 16:16 and parallels).21 Even though John’s Gospel does not narrate Peter’s profession, the entire Gospel is written so as to lead the reader to come to believe his declaration of faith (see Jn 20:30–31). Importantly, every contentious dialogue that Jesus has with the Jewish leaders is over this very issue—Is Jesus the Christ, the Father’s Son? Moreover, Martha not only reiterates Peter’s profession, but she also confirms what John the Baptist declared at the onset of the Gospel—that Jesus is the Son of God upon whom the Spirit has rested (see Jn 1:32–34). 20.  Paul’s understanding of “living in Christ” and so partaking of his resurrected life through baptism and the Eucharist is theologically similar to what is narrated here in John’s Gospel. For example, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried with him, therefore, in baptism into his death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom 6:3–5; see also Col 2:12). “For as many are baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13). “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11). “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:20–24). God’s plan for the fullness of time “is to unite all things in him [Christ],” and the promised Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his [God’s] glory” (Eph 1:10 and 1:14; see also 2 Cor 2:21–22). With regards to the Eucharist, Paul states, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16–17). 21.  Earlier, when Jesus asked the twelve whether they too would leave, Peter professes: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6:69). Peter’s profession does entail faith in Jesus’ divinity, but it does not express it in the same manner as in the Synoptics.

370

Chapter 11

Now, Martha’s Petrine profession is made in response to Jesus’ declaration that he is the resurrection and the life, and that whoever believes in him will never die but will possess life eternal. Martha grasps, then, that for Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, means that he is not about establishing an earthly kingdom, as Peter first misconstrued in his profession, but a heavenly kingdom wherein sin and death are vanquished and Spirit-filled communion with his Father is attained. On this point she possesses more clarity on what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God, than does Peter initially. Thus, while one might have expected the “contemplative” Mary to make such an assured well-thought-out act of belief, it is the “busy” Martha who is the premier woman of faith.22 Second, why does Martha attach the concluding clause to her profession of faith—“who is coming into the world”? Unmistakably, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, is already in the world, standing directly before her. Through her final clause, Martha is subsuming the entire history of the Old Testament into her profession. Jesus is the long prophesied and long expected Messiah, whose future coming into the world has imbued the faith of ancient Israel. That future is now present. Martha, through her profession of faith, is appealing to her unbelieving Jewish kinsmen and is expressing on their behalf the faith of Israel both then and throughout history. Jesus is their resurrection and life because he is the Christ, the Son of God who is coming into their present world; if only they had her eyes of faith to see.23 Because Jesus, the Father’s Messianic Son, did come once, he continually comes now and throughout history, and definitively at the end of time, for he is their resurrection and the life—both now and for eternity. Martha’s “is” is the continuous ever present and ever future “coming” of the Messiah. Jesus Wept Abruptly, “when she [Martha] had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, ‘The Teacher is here and is calling for you.’ ”24 Having 22.  In highlighting the theological significance of Martha, I do not wish to downplay Mary. She, after all, chose the better part. Nonetheless, with her “take-charge” attitude, Martha would not be one to hold back in professing boldly who she believed her Lord to be. 23.  The Prologue declares: “The true light that enlightens man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not” (Jn 1:9–11). Martha is one of his own people who does know him, and she is professing her faith so that all his and her people would know him. 24.  All Scripture quotations in this section are taken from Jn 11:28–37 unless otherwise noted.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

371

made her profession of faith, Martha returned to her home and informed Mary that the Teacher was calling her. That she designates Jesus as “The Teacher” may be of significance in that it alludes to Mary’s earlier sitting at Jesus’ feet, attentive to his every word. Although Martha tells Mary that the Teacher was calling her, no such request by Jesus is narrated, though it is highly likely that Jesus would ask for her. In order not to cause a commotion among all those gathered at their home, Martha spoke to Mary discreetly, though, in the end, they hurriedly tagged along with her. Upon hearing of Jesus’ arrival, Mary “rose quickly and went to him,” thus demonstrating her keen desire to speak to her teacher about her brother’s death. As Mary is making her way, John provides further information concerning the setting. “Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.” So, Jesus is still in place, but Mary’s quick departure, after receiving Martha’s personal message, caused her Jewish consolers to react by pursuing her. That they thought she was returning to Lazarus’ tomb to weep indicates how distressed Mary must still have been over her brother’s death, since he had now been entombed four days. “Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ ” Because Mary makes the same declaratory statement of faith as Martha, one can conclude that they must have repeatedly, in their mutual consoling sorrow, said to one another: “O, Martha/Mary, if only Jesus had been here, our brother would never have died.” Significantly, Mary, like Martha, now calls “The Teacher” “Lord” and in so doing likewise expresses her faith in Jesus’ divine ability to heal. Moreover, unlike Martha but in keeping with who she distinctly is as Mary, she, upon beholding Jesus, “fell at his feet.” As she sat at Jesus’ feet as her teacher, so now she falls at Jesus’ feet as her Lord. Martha had immediately confronted Jesus with the issue of her brother’s death and with what could now be done. Alternatively, Mary first falls in respectful affection before Jesus and only then speaks to him, not face-to-face as Martha did, but looking up in humble supplication. In the end, it is Mary, not Martha, who thrusts Jesus into action. “When he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; and he said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ Jesus wept.”25 It was Mary’s affectionate weeping for her beloved brother, along with 25.  The only other instance in the New Testament where Jesus is said to weep is in Lk 19:41: “And when he drew near and saw the city [Jerusalem], he wept over it.” Jesus wept over

372

Chapter 11

that of her Jewish consolers, that aroused Jesus also to weep at the death of the one whom he loved. Love is once more at the forefront, stirring Jesus to inquire where they had laid Lazarus. His very asking of the question alerts Martha and Mary, as well as those congregating around them (and the reader) that Jesus has some purpose in mind. Now, the Greek for John’s comment that Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” is difficult to decipher. Literally, it reads something like: “He snorted in spirit.” The New American Bible (revised edition) translates it as “perturbed.” The New Jerusalem Bible has it “as greatly distressed, and with a profound sigh.” The New Revised Standard Version renders it: “he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved.” To discern the meaning of this sound, a sound that expresses a complex interrelated emotional state, it must be seen within its narrative context. It follows upon Jesus’ beholding all of the loving weeping, particularly on the part of Mary, and is prior to his asking where Lazarus had been laid, concluding with the arresting staccato comment that Jesus himself wept. Jesus, from within the very depth of his incarnate existence as the Son of God, is therefore virilely breathing forth a sound that expresses his own human loving sadness over Lazarus’ death, as well as a welling-up rage against death itself, coupled with his resolute single-minded determination to vanquish death.26 Thus, having “snorted in the spirit,” the loving and sorrowful Jesus will now, with his weeping companions, purposefully advance to Lazarus’ tomb, and once there he, the resurrection and life, will unmercifully put death to death by raising Lazarus to life. The meaning of the sound, then, is perceived by the actions it initiates and the subsequent concomitant actions that follow upon it.27 When Jesus inquires of those present where they laid Lazarus, they reply, “Lord, come and see.” Whether all present believed Jesus to be the “Lord” in the divine sense is questionable; nonetheless, it is because Jesus is such that he will presently raise Lazarus. What is more curious is their saying, “Come and see.” When he, at the beginning of the Gospel, was gathering his disciples, Jesus asked the two who were following him what they wanted. They said that they wanted to see where he was living. Jesus answered, “Come and see.” Jerusalem because of its lack of faith and over its future destruction (see Lk 19:42–44). 26.  Jesus’ rage in the face of death may be echoing the sentiment expressed in the Book of Wisdom: “God did not make death, and does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might live. . . . For righteousness is immortal” (Wis 1:13–15). 27.  The sorrowful love for Lazarus and the raging anger against death that Jesus expresses here is prophetic, for it will be the same love for humankind that he sighs forth in his last breath on the cross, and in so doing ruthlessly destroys death and breathes forth the new life of the Holy Spirit upon the world.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

373

Later, when Philip found Nathanael and told him that they had found the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke, Jesus of Nazareth, and Nathanael demurred, questioning how anything good could come from there, Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Moreover, in the midst of this disciple ingathering, Jesus’ new followers declared him to be “Teacher,” “Messiah,” “Son of God,” and “King of Israel” (see Jn 1:35–49). Ostensibly, the entire group is guiding Jesus to “come and see” where Lazarus is buried. What is actually happening is that they are taking Jesus, the Lord, to Lazarus’ tomb so that they will “come and see” that he is the Teacher, the Messiah, and the Son of God—all names that Martha and Mary have already attributed to him. They will come to see this when Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, calls forth Lazarus from his tomb. Later, because of his overwhelming popularity, the chief priests and Pharisees are fearful that they will lose their temple and nation—succinctly put, that Jesus will become King of Israel. In the immediate interim, however, the Jews, having seen Jesus weep, comment, “ ‘See how he loved him!’ But some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ ” Some guileless Jews recognize Jesus’ authentic love for Lazarus. Others cynically question as to why he could heal a blind man but not his beloved Lazarus. It is upon the cynics that one must keep an eye. Lazarus, Come Out John once again resets the stage. “Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.”28 Upon his arrival at Lazarus’ tomb, Jesus once more groans within himself. Provoked by the sight of the stone-covered cave itself, Jesus reasserts his inner resolve, so as to, out of love for Lazarus, confront death itself. Such set purpose is witnessed in Jesus’ immediate pointed command: “Take away the stone.” Only the ever practical Martha possesses the nerve (pluck) to question its wisdom. “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” Though Jesus will pay no heed to Martha’s caution, for his will is fixed, her warning accents the reality of Lazarus’ death—a four-day death wherein his body is well into the inevitable process of putrefying. Instead of addressing Martha’s observation, Jesus challenges her faith. “Did I not tell you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?” The narrative problem here is that Jesus never told Martha that. At the onset, he told his disciples, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory 28.  All Scripture quotations in this section will be taken from Jn 11:38–44 unless otherwise noted.

374

Chapter 11

of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it” (Jn 11:4). On the one hand, Jesus is reminding her that she recently professed that he is the resurrection and the life because he is her Lord who is the Messiah, the Son of God. She must cling, therefore, to the truth of this faith and not in the truth that Lazarus’ body is now decomposing, and, if the tomb is opened, it will permeate the air with stench. On the other hand, another way to interpret Jesus’ response is to recognize that he is not simply addressing Martha’s question but that he is also addressing the entire gathered crowd, including his disciples, to whom Jesus did say that they would see the glory of God. Thus Jesus, having addressed both Martha and the entire gathered crowd, had his command forthwith obeyed. “So they took away the stone.” “Jesus lifted up his eyes and said: ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you hear me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by that they may believe that you did send me.’ ”29 With the 29.  Jesus first lifted up his eyes in Jn 6 when he saw the huge crowds gathering around him. The seeing of the multitude initiated his multiplication of the loaves, which would in turn signify that he is the bread of life (see Jn 6:5). Prior to the distribution of the multiplied bread, he gave thanks. (See Jn 6:11. In the Synoptic accounts of the multiplication, Jesus “looks up to heaven” prior to his blessing and breaking the bread; see also Mt 14:19, Mk 6:41, Lk 9:16.) Thus, in lifting up his eyes and seeing the multitude, Jesus gives thanks to his Father for the multiplication, the end result being that the people would come to see him as the bread of life. The lifting up of Jesus’ eyes is, then, not only the seeing of the crowd, but also a lifting up of his eyes to his Father in thanksgiving for allowing him to multiply the bread so as to nurture the people’s faith in him. Therefore both here at the tomb and in the multiplication of the loaves the lifting up of Jesus’ eyes is in thanksgiving to the Father for hearing his prayer in order that those who see these miracle signs will come to faith. The final time Jesus lifts up “his eyes to heaven” is when he prays: Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (Jn 17:1–4) This is, in a sense, a post-Lazarus prayer. By raising Lazarus, God was glorified, and Jesus, his Son, was glorified by means of it. This Lazarus-raising glorification prophetically anticipated the glorification of the Father and the Father’s glorification of his Son through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Thus, shortly after his raising of Lazarus, Jesus’ last Passover arrived, and he knew his hour was at hand. Before this hour, Jesus prayed that his Father would glorify him in order that he might glorify his Father. This mutual final-hour glorification was in Jesus having power over all flesh, that is, his ability to give eternal life to all whom the Father had given to him. So, as both were glorified in the raising of Lazarus, so now both would be glorified in giving eternal life through Jesus’ death and glorious resurrection. This eternal life would consist in those who believe coming to know God as their only true Father, and in knowing Jesus, the Father’s anointed, as the Father’s true Son, the one who was sent to bring salvation. The desired end result, then, of all three prayers, at the multiplication, prior to his raising of Lazarus and prior to his glorious death and resurrection, is that people would come to believe that the Father sent Jesus, his Spirit-anointed Son.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

375

stone removed, Jesus signifies that he is praying to his Father by lifting up his eyes to heaven. Addressing his Father, he thanks him for hearing his prayer, a prayer that he has already prayed. Moreover, he already knew, before praying to his Father, that his Father always hears him. Jesus being the Father’s Son, his prayers are always heard because he wills, says, or does nothing other than what his Father has already willed him to say or do.30 Jesus, as the Father’s Son, always wills, speaks, and acts perichoretically with his Father. His human will is always in conformity with his Father’s divine will so that together they will, within the same human will, speak with one human voice, and together they act within the same human act, that is, within the one human will, voice, and action of Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son.31 This is why all of Jesus’ actions manifest the glory of his Father and simultaneously are to the glorification of himself as the Father’s Son.32 The reason Jesus is vocalizing his filial prayer to his Father is not, then, for his own sake, but for the people who are gathered about him. Knowing that his Father hears and answers his prayers, they will come to believe that his Father sent him into the world as the Father’s incarnate Son. The Father’s fulfilling of Jesus’ prayer validates Martha’s act of faith—“Even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give it to you” (Jn 11:22).33 Having exhorted Martha to continue in firmness of faith so as to see the glory of God, and having thanked his Father for having heard his prayer for the sake of the people’s faith, Jesus “cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out.’ ” Jesus’ sound of groaning lament over Lazarus’ death, combined with his 30.  See Jn 4:34, 5:19, 6:38, 8:28, and 12:49. 31.  I will treat more fully the perichoretic relationship between the Father and the Son in the next volume. Later, Jesus will speak of he and the Father dwelling in one another and being one (see, e.g., Jn 14:10–11, 14:18–20, 14:23, and 17:21). 32.  Because he, as the Father’s Son, always wills and acts in unison with his Father, the prayers of those who abide in Jesus will always be heard and answered. Jesus will later declare to his disciples: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (Jn 14:12–14) Moreover, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you” (Jn 15:7). And: “Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name” (Jn 16:23). To abide in the risen Jesus, and therein to ask in his name, is to ask in accordance with his will, and so to ask in accordance with his Father’s will. Thus those who believe in Jesus and abide in him share in their perichoretic willing and thus are guaranteed, as was Jesus himself, of the Father hearing and answering their prayers. The Father hears the prayers offered in the name of his Son, Jesus, and answers such prayers through his Son, Jesus. 33.  This is again the fulfillment of the blind man’s defense of Jesus—that God only listens to those who worship him and do his will (see Jn 9:30–31).

376

Chapter 11

resolute resolve to confront such death, climaxes with a loud declarative cry: “Lazarus, come out.” The loudness of Jesus’ cry is his battle cry against deadly death, as well as his cry, as God’s Word, of victory over death.34 Moreover, he addresses Lazarus directly. He calls to him by name. The obvious implication is that Lazarus, though dead, can hear him. Earlier, Jesus declares to the Jews: Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live . . . Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who are good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. (Jn 5:25–29) Lazarus is a prophetic fulfillment of Jesus’ words not only in his coming forth at the voice of Jesus, but also as the prophetic anticipation of the dead coming to the fullness of the resurrection when Jesus calls all to come forth at the end of time.35 Moreover, Jesus does not say, “Arise” or “Arise and come 34.  Although John’s Passion Narrative does not have it, Matthew’s and Mark’s Passion Narratives do, that is, Jesus “crying out with a loud voice” the open verse of Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (see Mt 27:46 and Mk 15:34). While Jesus, in his agony, appears to be God forsaken as he prays the entire psalm, he is confident that his Father will rescue him from death. Thus Jesus’ final loud cry from the cross is both an agonizing confrontation with death’s horror and a cry of victory over death’s demise. His loud cry of raising Lazarus from the dead in John’s Gospel expresses a like meaning to Jesus’ loud cry upon the cross in Matthew and Mark. For a more extended theological interpretation of Jesus’ cry from the cross within the Synoptics, as well as an extended footnote on John’s account, see JBJ 1:380–84. More could be said as to how the Evangelist depicts Jesus’ confrontation with death’s horror as he hangs on the cross, but that must await the next volume. 35.  Thus the raising of Lazarus, with its prophetic eschatological anticipation, fulfills what God declares to Ezekiel in his vision of the dry bones. God shows Ezekiel a valley of dead bones and asks him whether these bones can live. God, through Ezekiel, does bring these dead bones back to life. God then declares through Ezekiel: Behold, I will open your [house of Israel] graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. . . . And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people.” (Ezek 37:11–15) Jesus fulfills this prophecy, and so it becomes a sign to the present unbelieving Jews that he is truly divine, for he is the Lord (YHWH) who, as the resurrection and the life, is he who is now opening graves and calling forth the dead dried bones of Israel. The calling forth of Lazarus by name also alludes to Jesus as the good shepherd. For the true shepherd the gatekeeper opens the door. The sheep hear his voice, and “he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” (Jn 10:10). At the end of time, Jesus will call each of his human sheep by name and lead them into eternal life.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

377

forth.” Jesus’ command that he “come out” gives the impression not only that Lazarus is able to hear him, but also that he has been already awaiting Jesus’ summons. His illness is not unto death. Although Lazarus may be dead (and stinking), his death is not unto a death from which he needs to be raised. Lazarus’ death is the sleep of death. He only needs to be awakened by being called forth from his slumber. As I have noted previously in relation to other miracles, this miracle sign testifies to the Incarnation. The person, the “who,” who calls Lazarus forth is the Father’s Son. The manner in which the Son calls Lazarus forth is as man. Jesus, as the Father’s Son, cries out with his human voice, “Lazarus, come out.” This is a theandric action—a divine action done humanly. Moreover, by declaring, “I am the resurrection and the life,” Jesus accentuates the incarnational nature of the act that he is enacting. As “I am,” as “He Who Is” as the Father is “He Who Is,” the man Jesus calls forth Lazarus. It is as man that Jesus, the divine “I am,” he whose existence is “existence” itself, is the resurrection and the life. Apart from his divinity, Jesus would not be the source of life, and apart from his humanity, he would not be the resurrection and so the source of new and eternal life. The narrative simply continues: “The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth.” It may first appear that Lazarus’ ability to come out of the tomb, even though his hands and feet were bound and his face was covered is in itself an ancillary “miracle.” How could he even stand up, much less move? But that may be the miracle itself. At Jesus’ command, and by his power alone, does Lazarus come forth. The coming forth cannot be attributed to Lazarus in any fashion. He contributes nothing to his coming out. He is completely dependent upon Jesus. He alone, with no cooperating assistance, is the resurrection and the life. Having come forth bound hand and foot, and thus with the inability to undo himself, Jesus tells those around him, “Unbind him and let him go.” (One can imagine the ever quick-off-the-starting-block Martha being the first to rush excitedly over and start unraveling him—like a kid opening a present at Christmas. In the end, she did get the gift for which she asked.) Lazarus is, then, no longer bound by death and symbolically no longer bound by the sin that ushered him on to his death, though he will die again, for he has yet to be truly freed from sin and the death that tightly enwraps it. Such sin-bound death will only be obtained when Jesus himself dies sin’s death and rises up into the freedom of his own resurrection. Nonetheless, the living Lazarus himself is now a prophetic sacramental sign of both baptism and the Eucharist. If the raising of Lazarus is the prophetic sign that Jesus will become, through his death, the resurrection

378

Chapter 11

and the life, the risen Lazarus is the sign that, through baptism, Jesus’ sacramental act of bestowing the Holy Spirit, one dies and rises in Christ and so is born anew into his risen likeness through the Spirit. Moreover, to live fully in the risen Jesus is to partake of his risen body and blood, and so the living Lazarus is equally a prophetic sign of one who, sharing fully in Jesus’ risen life, will live forever in him. Lazarus being “let go,” the narrative immediately moves to recounting the reaction of the accompanying Jews. But we must pause to unravel the theology contained in the calling forth of Lazarus, specifically in its relationship to the previous six miracle signs, as well as the theology of Jesus’ declaration that he is the resurrection and the life in its relation to the other six “I am” sayings. To do this, though, we first must ponder the two grave scenes—that of Lazarus and that of Jesus. These two tableaux are complementary in their dissimilarity. When scrutinizing Lazarus’ grave scene and his coming forth, we find a crowd of people who are themselves looking at a grave. A stone covers Lazarus’ tomb. He has been dead for four days, and thus his body is much decayed. The stone covering must first be removed, for only then could Lazarus come forth. Jesus calls forth Lazarus, and he comes out entirely bound and needing assistance in his unbinding. The remnants of his binding cloth lay strewn about him as he is let go. What do we find at Jesus’ grave? According to John’s Gospel, Joseph of Arimathea “took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews” (thus just like Lazarus was buried) (Jn 19:40). Mary Magdalene (probably a different person from Mary, the sister of Lazarus) comes to Jesus’ tomb early in the morning on the first day of the week when it is still dark. She finds that the stone covering his grave has already been removed. She runs to tell Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loves what she has just discovered. They too find the tomb empty, and the beloved disciple stoops to peer into the tomb and sees “the linen cloths lying there.” Upon his arrival, Peter goes into the tomb, and “he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.” The beloved disciple then enters the tomb and, finding it empty, containing only the burial cloths and face napkin, believed, “for as yet they did not know the scriptures, that he must rise from the dead” (Jn 20:1–8). Here there is no pre-resurrection gathering of people. There is no finding of someone to remove the stone. There is no calling forth of Jesus. There is no unbinding of Jesus. The linens are there, and the face napkin is properly rolled up. And Jesus is nowhere to be found. There is a striking difference between Lazarus’ tomb scene and Jesus’. What makes for this radical difference? Jesus is himself the resurrection and the life, and so all that is seen is an empty tomb

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

379

with the remnant cloths that once enwrapped his dead body. Jesus, having proclaimed who he is, has now definitively become who he was to be—the resurrection and the life. There is no need to roll away the stone, no need for a calling forth, no need for an unbinding. In his glorious resurrection, Jesus has himself burst open his own grave; he has freed himself from sin-bound death, and he has called himself forth into eternal life.36 Lazarus’ tomb scene is the prophetic prefigurement of Jesus’ tomb scene, and the differences between the two manifest that what was prefigured in the first is fulfilled in the second. The calling forth of Lazarus finds its full meaning in Jesus’ resurrection, and Jesus’ resurrection can only be properly understood within the context of his calling forth of Lazarus. They mutually interpret one another and so enhance one another. Moreover, Jesus was only in his tomb three days, while Lazarus was entombed for four. As the resurrection and the life, Jesus’ body does not, unlike Lazarus’, undergo corruption.37 Even though Lazarus’ body does undergo corruption, however, as will all human bodies (except for Mary’s), Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, will resurrect his and their bodies and fill them with the divine life of the Holy Spirit. Lazarus, then, signifies every bodily decayed man and woman who will also be called by Jesus into eternal life on the day of the final and glorious resurrection. In the midst of this comparison of the two grave scenes, one person significantly emerges from behind the curtain—the Evangelist himself. John was obviously present throughout the whole of the Lazarus event. He would have witnessed the miracle sign and so would have come to believe more fully Martha’s declaration that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He did not, however, grasp, in Jesus being so, the full truth of what it means for him to be the resurrection and the life. Only upon entering the empty tomb and seeing the linens that once covered Jesus’ dead body did John, the beloved disciple, come to believe, “for as yet they did not know the scriptures, that he must rise from the dead.” Only when the miracle sign of the raising of Lazarus was fulfilled in 36.  This is in accord with what Jesus declared earlier. As the good shepherd, Jesus lays down his life for his sheep. “For this reason, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father” (Jn 10:17–18). Unlike Lazarus, and all of humankind under the authority of sin-bound death and who therefore cannot raise himself back to life, Jesus, as the resurrection and the life, possesses from his beloved Father the ability to do both freely. 37.  This is in keeping with Ps 16:8–11 as interpreted in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter, quoting the Psalm, “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption,” concludes that David was speaking of Jesus’ resurrection, for “he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption” for “God raised” him up (Acts 2:27–33; see also 13:37).

380

Chapter 11

Jesus’ own glorious resurrection did John grasp what was signified in Lazarus’ raising. Thus, when writing his Gospel, John would have written of each in the mutually illuminating light of the other. Moreover, John’s beholding of the linen cloths and the napkin, of the same kind as Lazarus’, was his clue by which he was able to put both “raisings” together and thus come to faith that Jesus must rise from the dead as the resurrection and the life.38 The Raising of Lazarus: The Source and the Summit Having treated the last miracle sign, the raising of Lazarus, I think it would be good for us to examine the overarching structure of the Book of Signs in John’s Gospel on two related levels. First, I want to propose that this last miracle sign manifests why Jesus was able to enact the previous six, and thus why all of the previous miracle signs are subsumed into and find their fullest expression in this final miracle sign. Second, at the heart of this last miracle sign is Jesus’ declaration that he is “the resurrection and the life.” It is the fifth of seven “I am” sayings. I want to propose also that we discover that Jesus, in declaring “I am the resurrection and the life,” has revealed the theological basis upon which all the other six “I am” sayings are true, those already spoken and the two yet to be, for his being the resurrection and the life is the source of their validity. Likewise, Jesus subsumes the other six “I am” sayings into himself as the resurrection and life and in so doing affords them their fullest meaning and significance. Thus the raising of Lazarus, both as a miracle sign and as a prophetic enactment of Jesus being the resurrection and the life, contains within it the foundational source and concluding summit of the entire Book of Signs. Let us now observe how all of this is so. In examining Jesus’ first miracle at Cana, which inaugurated the coming of his hour, we perceived that the changing of an abundance of water into an abundance of wine first signified baptism. Baptism, as Jesus taught Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, is a rebirth into the abundant life of the Holy Spirit, a welling up of eternal life within one’s very being (see Jn 3:5–6 and 4:13–14). Such a rebirthing baptism by water and the Spirit is founded upon 38.  Within the Synoptic resurrection accounts, only Luke mentions the linen cloths. Peter (the beloved disciple is not mentioned), when he arrived at the tomb, stooped down and looked in. “He saw the linen cloths by themselves, and went home wondering at what had happened” (Lk 24:12). The sight of the cloths did not bring Peter to faith. It may always be a mystery as to why the Synoptic Gospels do not narrate the raising of Lazarus. But it is not a mystery as to why John included it in his Gospel. The raising of Lazarus is, for him, the hermeneutical prophetic sign as to who Jesus is as the resurrection and the life, a sign that is realized in Jesus’ own resurrection.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

381

Jesus himself. As the Baptist declared, Jesus is the Spirit-anointed Son of God who will baptize in the Holy Spirit (see Jn 1:32–34). Moreover, the changing of water into wine also signified that, having been baptized into newness of life, one is ushered into the new wine, the fullness of eternal life that is the Eucharist. Thus this first miracle sign prophetically embodies, and so anticipates, Jesus’ subsequent teaching and further miracle signs pertaining to both baptism and the Eucharist. While more will be said, we find already here at Cana the hidden truth that Jesus could enact such a miracle, which contained such life-giving signification, only if he is the resurrection and life. Being the resurrection and life, Jesus is the source of the miracle sign, and this miracle finds its summation, its being fully signified, in his raising Lazarus. The subsequent four miracle signs follow upon what is found at Cana and build upon it, and so enhance what it signified. Jesus’ second miracle sign, the healing of the official’s son, who was on the point of death, again enacted at Cana, signifies his ability to restore life, not simply the restoration of natural life, but the ability to set one free from the pangs of death—the demonic fruit of sin (see Jn 4:46–54). The third miracle, the healing of the man at the pool of Bethsaida, which again contains baptismal imagery, also signifies Jesus’ power to restore healing and newness of life (see Jn 5:2–9). Jesus could not have performed either of these miracles if he were not the resurrection and the life, and they would possess no lasting significance if they did not signify that he is the resurrection and the life. These miracles must point to and anticipate Lazarus’ raising, for only within the context of that raising do they point to and anticipate the everlasting healing and eternal life that Jesus himself literally embodies as the Spirit-filled Father’s Son. Passing over, momentarily, the fifth miracle sign of the multiplication of the loaves, we find Jesus’ quelling of the storm (Jn 6:19–21). This miracle, since it is a “nature” miracle, does not at first appear to signify the restoration of life. Obviously, Jesus could still the waves and calm the wind only if he possessed divine power, but what newness does it signify or presage? This miracle signifies Jesus’ divine authority over the whole of creation. As the Word created all that is, so now the Word made flesh is, as the resurrection and the life, the author of a whole new creation. Again, this “nature” miracle would have no ultimate significance if it did not signify that, in the risen Jesus himself, there will arise an everlasting tranquil new heaven and a peaceful new earth. Nothing of God’s original good creation will be lost owing to the corruption of sin and death. His miraculous multiplication of the five barley loaves and two fish is the preamble to Jesus’ bread of life discourse (see Jn 6:11–14). This is the first instance where a miracle sign is conjoined with an “I am” saying, and this

382

Chapter 11

uniting accentuates both the miracle and the “saying.” By multiplying an abundance of bread, Jesus signifies that he is the author of an abundance of life. The manner in which he is such is founded upon his declaration: “I am the bread of life.” Jesus himself is “the bread of life” because “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Eucharist is Jesus’ bread-given risen flesh and his wine-given risen blood. To eat his flesh and to drink his blood is, then, for one to “abide” in Jesus and for Jesus to “abide” in him (see Jn 6:35, 6:53–57). Thus to be in living communion with the risen Jesus here on earth, through the Eucharist, is the guarantee that Jesus will raise one up on the last day. Jesus, then, is himself the bread of life because he is himself the resurrection and the life. The raising of Lazarus confirms that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and this affirms, in turn, that when one eats his flesh and drinks his blood, one is eating and drinking the risen humanity of “He Who Is,” the divine “I am.” Such eating and drinking are therefore one’s assurance that one will rise in glory in, with, and through Jesus, the Spirit-anointed Father’s risen Son, on the last day. The “I am the resurrection and the life” is the source and summit of the “I am the bread of life.”39 Prior to healing the man born blind, the sixth miracle sign, Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). God, through his eternal Word, created all that came to be, for “in him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men,” a light that the darkness could not overcome (Jn 1:3–5). That Word, who is the life of light, became flesh and now dwells among us (see Jn 1:14). Therefore Jesus, the incarnate life of light, is able to declare that he is the light of the world, and all who follow him in faith will have the light of life. The life of light that Jesus provides is not something apart from him. Rather, he is himself life of light—the incarnate divine life-giving light. As the Word is eternally the life of light, so now Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is the life of light, for it is through his humanity, the humanity of the divine “I AM,” that the light of “He Who Is” shines forth in his giving new life to all who follow him. Upon encountering the man born blind, and in response to his disciples’ query as to who was to blame, his sin or the sin of his parents, Jesus responded 39.  Although the Eucharist is the assurance of eternal life, those who are baptized also obtain eternal life, for they are baptized into the risen Christ. Moreover, for the Eucharist to effect eternal life, it must be received in faith and not in an unworthy manner. To partake of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner leads to death rather than to life. Paul is emphatic on this point (see 1 Cor 11:27–30). Likewise, the reception of the Eucharist implies that one will live a holy life in communion with Christ. Thus, within John’s Gospel, while the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper is not narrated, John does narrate that, similar to Jesus, his disciples must wash one another’s feet (see Jn 13:1–20).

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

383

by saying that neither were responsible but that his blindness was for the sake of manifesting the works of God. Jesus then says that, while it is still day, he must continue to do the work of the one who sent him. He concluded, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:1–5). Jesus couples this declaration with what he is about to do and so gives what he is about to do its meaning. Immediately following, Jesus “spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay.” He then instructed the man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. Jesus reimages the creation of man as found in Genesis 2:7, where God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. By washing in the pool of Siloam, the blind man images baptism, and so he becomes a new creation. In being born anew in the Holy Spirit, the blind man is able to see, and he not only comes to see the world around him, but most importantly he comes to see, in faith, Jesus as his Lord whom he is to worship (see Jn 9:35–38). Jesus became the blind man’s light of life in whom he will no longer walk in the darkness of sin and death. Thus the miraculous healing of the blind man signified that Jesus was the life-giving light of the world. Again, we perceive here that the source that empowers Jesus to be the life-giving light of the world flows from his being the resurrection and the life as manifested in the raising of Lazarus, and his being the life-giving light will only find its pinnacle of perfection when what is signified in Lazarus’ resurrection is achieved. Through his death, Jesus will rise to be fully the life-giving light of the world, a living light that casts out the tomb-bound darkness of sin and death. Moreover, as signified in the blind man’s healing, this life-giving enlightenment is initially attained through baptism—being reborn into the light of Christ’s risen life. Between his declaring that he is himself the light of the world as signified in his healing of the blind man, and his being the resurrection and the life as signified in his raising of Lazarus, Jesus declares both that he is the sheep gate and the good shepherd, though neither of these two declarations has accompanying miracle signs (see Jn 10:7–18). They nonetheless are only true because Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Jesus defines himself as the good shepherd because he is willing to lay down his life for his sheep and so saves them from the marauding wolf. Moreover, he lays down his life so that he may take it up again. Jesus is also the door to the sheepfold, for anyone who enters “by me” will “be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture” (Jn 10:9). As the good shepherd, Jesus dies to save his sheep from prowling sin and plundering death, and in rising from the dead he provides his sheep the good pasture of eternal life. Thus, as the good shepherd, Jesus leads his sheep to himself, and in so

384

Chapter 11

doing, he himself becomes the door through and in whom they enter into the heavenly pasture of abundant life. Jesus is the good shepherd who leads the faithful to himself, and he is the door of life only because he is himself the resurrection and the life. If he were not the resurrection and the life, Jesus could not be the good shepherd nor would he be the living gate, for he would be unable to lead anyone into a pasture of everlasting significance. Lazarus, a “sheep,” is the living symbol that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and hence the good life-giving shepherd who, in himself, provides entrance into eternal life.40 Having demonstrated how the previous six miracle signs find their source and summit in Jesus being the resurrection and the life, we are also able to perceive more fully what it means for Jesus to be the resurrection and the life in the ever present contemporary setting, in the world as it progresses throughout history. The risen Jesus exercises his salvific ministry as the resurrection and the life as the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, a ministry that continues to birth anew the faithful into eternal life. The risen Jesus continues to heal human disorders and diseases, and in so doing, he signifies that in him there is freedom from the darkness of death, which is the consequence of sin. The risen Jesus is, above all, the ever abundant bread of life, for he daily enacts, through his church, the Eucharistic liturgy wherein the faithful come to abide in him as he truly exists as their risen life-giving Lord. The risen Jesus is still, then, the life-giving light of the world, for those who walk in communion with him who is the light of life will not stumble and fall into sin and death but rather obtain the eternal life of light. The risen Jesus is the ever present shepherd who leads his faithful flock to life-giving pasture, and he continues to be the door in whom they enter into the presence of his heavenly Father. Thus the raising of Lazarus and the previous six miracle signs mutually elevate and enhance the significance of one another, as do Jesus’ being the resurrection and the life and the other six “I am” sayings enrich one another. For John the truth contained within these mutual 40.  The other two yet to be spoken “I am” sayings are “I am (ego eimi) the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6) and “I am (ego eimi) the vine, you are the branches” (Jn 15:5). Jesus is himself the way to the Father for those who abide in him as the Father’s Son comes into communion with his Father. As the Father’s eternal Word, Jesus is himself the truth. To abide in him is to come to know the Father, for “only the Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). Jesus is himself the life, for again, to abide in him who is the resurrection and the life is to live in union with the Father who is the source of all life. Similarly, to abide as branches in the vine that is Jesus is to partake of his risen Spirit-filled life, and so Christians are able to bear, in communion with him, much fruit—ultimately, the abundant fruit of eternal life that he shares with his Father. Thus, as with the previous “I am” sayings, these also find their source and summit in Jesus being the resurrection and the life.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

385

interrelating miracle signs, with their conjoining interrelated “I am” sayings, is ever present, and therefore their salvific significance continues for all time. I have been emphasizing that the raising of Lazarus with Jesus’ accompanying declaration that he is the resurrection and the life is the source and summit of the previous six miracles, as well as the source and summit of the other six “I am” sayings. Now, the source from which flows all seven miracle signs and all seven “I am” sayings is the reality that Jesus simply is “I Am (ego eimi).” Jesus, without any qualifying predicate clause, simply appropriates to himself the divine name YHWH—“I Am Who Am” (Ex 3:14).41 As the Incarnate “I AM,” “He Who Is,” Jesus literally embodies all of the “I am” sayings, and moreover he is able to enact all of his miracles, miracles that signify that he is the author of life, for in, through, and with him is found eternal life. Likewise, as “He Who Is,” Jesus reveals and so affirms that he is the Christ, the Father’s Spirit-filled Son. In confirming that he is the Father’s Son, the SonI-Am, he in turn reveals his Father as the Father-I-Am, and thus he who is the eternal fountain of all life, both divine and created, as well as the new risen life that Jesus himself now embodies. The Holy Spirit, as the one in whom Jesus will baptize, and so the one in whom believers are born anew into eternal life, is the Spirit-I-Am, for he is that divine communion of life and love that binds the faithful to Jesus the Son, and through and in him to the Father. Thus, in accordance with our designated overall Johannine theme of “re-creation,” we perceive that all three persons of the Trinity are intimately and directly involved in Jesus’ humanly enacted seven life-giving miracles and in his seven humanly spoken life-giving “I am’s,” for together they are the one perichoretic divine I AM. The reader by now may have already surmised that all of the above pertains to Jesus becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. All of Jesus’ miracles signify Jesus becoming Jesus—becoming the source and summit of eternal life. Moreover, within all of his “I am” sayings, Jesus is revealing all of the various ways that he is himself the source and summit of abundant life. All of these miracle signs, in union with the “I am” sayings, point to and anticipate their future fulfillment. The hour that was inaugurated at the wedding feast of Cana, the hour in which Jesus begins to become Jesus, an hour that ever more intensifies throughout the Book of Signs, will climax at the hour of his death. Only when Jesus is lifted up on the cross, with his concomitant being lifted up into his resurrection, does Jesus conclusively become Jesus—the incarnate “I Am” fully in act. By enacting these salvific acts, prefigured in his miracle signs, Jesus genuinely becomes the baptizer in the Holy Spirit; the bread of life; the light of the world; the sheep 41.  See Jn 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5–8.

386

Chapter 11

gate; the good shepherd; the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth, and the life that leads to his Father; and the living vine who nourishes his branches with his Holy Spirit. All of these miracle signs and “I am” sayings, which prefigure and point to the hour of Jesus’ death and resurrection, also prophetically herald the coming hour of his glory. Jesus first displayed his glory at the wedding feast of Cana (see Jn 2:11), and he continued to manifest his glory through each of his miracles. Likewise, in his “I am” sayings, Jesus reveals the manner in which his glory is and will be seen. His glory is most fully revealed in his raising Lazarus, wherein Jesus reveals that he is the resurrection and the life (see Jn 11:40). But these displays of glory again anticipate, by way of prophetic enactment, the final and everlasting hour of his glory—the hour of his death and resurrection. Only in these salvific life-giving acts does Jesus fully glorify his Father and his Father fully glorify him (see Jn 13:31–32 and 17:1). In these saving acts, Jesus definitively becomes Jesus, and so in these acts do we “behold his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). The more Jesus becomes Jesus, and thus reveals with greater intensity his glory, the more does he reveal that he is the Father’s Spirit-filled Son.42 Once more we perceive that John’s entire Gospel, specifically here in the Book of Signs, is a Gospel of Jesus’ transfiguration—the ever increasing manifestation of his glory as the Son of God. This transfigured glory, realized in his death and resurrection, will be finalized in his coming in glory on the last day. Then he will raise up into glory and he will call forth by name, as he did Lazarus, all those who abide in him, and in that supreme universal display of glory, Jesus will have enacted his name fully, for he will have completed his Father’s final work of salvation. Here all the miracle signs and the “I am” sayings attain the eschatological enactment—Jesus will be the everlasting bread of life, for he, the good shepherd, will eternally nourish his sheep on his resurrected life-giving Spirit-filled humanity and so provide them entrée into the life-giving light of their heavenly Father. Moreover, throughout our study of the Book of Signs, I have exclusively spoken of Jesus’ resurrection as the summit or pinnacle of his glory. What must be remembered, however, and what I want to highlight here, is that within Jesus’ glorious resurrection is his glorious ascension. In rising gloriously from 42.  This ever increasing manifestation of Jesus’ glory also elicits faith from those who behold his glory. This is first witnessed at the wedding feast of Cana. “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (Jn 2:11; see also, e.g., Jn 4:53–54, 6:68, 7:40–41, 9:38, 11:45). This coming to faith is in accord with John’s purpose in writing the Gospel—“that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31). One has life in Jesus’ name because his name is YHWH-Saves.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

387

the dead, Jesus ascends gloriously into his Father’s heavenly presence. Because he is the risen and ascended Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus is able to baptize in the Holy Spirit and give himself as the risen bread-given flesh and risen wine-given blood. The ascending of the risen Jesus into his heavenly Father’s presence establishes that he is the resurrection and the life, and all who ascend into him, through faith, baptism, and the Eucharist, share in his glorious resurrected eternal life. The faithful ascend into heaven with Jesus because they, here on earth and in heaven, abide within the risen, ever life-giving Jesus. Through our above examination we have found the raising of Lazarus to be the source and summit of the entire Johannine Book of Signs. It is the hermeneutical key for understanding all that has gone before. Moreover, as the hermeneutical key for grasping the full significance of Jesus’ past acts and words, it becomes the prophetic harbinger of what lies in the future. His “high priestly prayer” will be Jesus’ prayer to his loving Father wherein he will request that all he previously prophetically did and said will find its fulfillment in the final hour of his death and resurrection. Thus Jesus’ “high priestly prayer” looks to the past in anticipation of the future—when the fullness of his glory as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son will be revealed. With all of the above in mind, we can now return to the narrative where we find the fallout of Jesus’ raising Lazarus. It Is Expedient That One Man Should Die for the People Immediately after Jesus tells those surrounding Lazarus’ empty tomb to “Unbind him, and let him go,” the Gospel states: Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him; but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.43 Many of the Jews who had followed Mary when she hurriedly left her home to come to Jesus believed in Jesus because they witnessed his raising of Lazarus from the dead. One could surmise that these believing Jews were those who, upon seeing Jesus weep, said, “See how he loved him!” Observing Jesus’ love for Lazarus opened their eyes to believe in him—his love engendered within them a believing love for him. But other Jews, who had also accompanied Mary, left the scene of the now-empty tomb and proceeded to the Pharisees, whereupon they told them of the miracle sign—Lazarus is alive. Again, one cannot help but 43.  All Scripture quotations in the section will be taken from Jn 11:45–57 unless otherwise noted.

388

Chapter 11

suspect that these Jews were those who said, upon seeing Jesus weep, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” (Jn 11:36–37). These are the unbelieving cynics. Not only did they at least know of his healing of the blind man, but also even now, having actually witnessed Jesus’ raising of Lazarus, their contemptuous hearts remain rigid in unbelief. This disbelief compels us to return to Luke’s account of Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for here we find its theological relevance in relation to Jesus’ raising of Lazarus. The rich man, having died and gone into the torment of Hades, asks Abraham, in whose bosom the dead Lazarus now resides, to send Lazarus to his five brothers to warn them that if they do not change their ways, they too will “come into this place of torment.” Abraham responds, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” In desperation the rich man pleads, “No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” Abraham assures him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Lk 16:19–31). This fictional parable has now been enacted for real in John’s Gospel. In one of his earlier contentious dialogues with the Jews, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Because the Jews do not believe him, Jesus at the end of the discussion says to them, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:25 and 5:45–47).44 The raising of Lazarus is the “now” of which Jesus spoke. (The last day is the “hour” that is yet to come.) Yet despite his raising of Lazarus, the present Jews do not believe in him. Thus Jesus’ response to the Jews from within the parable, where he virtually quoted Abraham verbatim, is now witnessed in the present lack of repentance and faith among some of the Jews. The point is proven—because they do not hear Moses, and believe what he writes, they do not now believe in Jesus even though he raised “someone,” Lazarus, from the dead.45 What 44.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus tells the Jews not to “marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who do good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:28–29). 45.  Interestingly, when Philip found Nathanael, he said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Although Nathanael was at first skeptical that such could be the case, given that Jesus was from Nazareth, he did come to believe and so declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel” (Jn 1:45–49). Nathanael’s response is in accord, then, with what Moses and the prophets had written. Because the Jewish leaders, having not believed Moses, refuse to believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son, they will refuse to accept him as their king (see Jn 19:19–22).

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

389

has taken place in the raising of Lazarus in relation to the parable concerning the fictional Lazarus is prophetic. The fulfillment of both the parable and the raising of Lazarus comes only when Jesus rises gloriously from the dead, and many of the Jews, even then, still will not believe.46 Now, having been informed that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, the response of the chief priests and Pharisees is calculated panic. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”47 The situation is desperate, but how to address it is confounding. Both their alarm and their frustration reside in Jesus’ enactment of “many signs.” That the chief priests and Pharisees speak of “signs,” rather than of “miracles,” is telling. The acts that Jesus performs are not simply miracles that may resemble those of their holy ancestors. Rather, they are wondrous visible deeds that signify something deeper, something beyond what is seen. What they signify, and what the priests and Pharisees themselves recognize, is that they identify who Jesus is—that he is the Christ, the Father’s Son. Such detection is the cause of their dread, and so they are desperate to resolve this intolerable situation. They realize that if Jesus continues to carry on in this manner, “everyone will believe in him.”48 But why should that belief so infuriate them? To their mind, if Jesus is himself the Spirit-filled Father’s Son, then their ancestral Jewish faith would radically alter, if not be shattered. It appears to them that Jerusalem would no 46.  At the time of his writing the Gospel, John would have been concerned about the disbelief of many of the Jews. Again, I believe that John, throughout the whole of chap. 11, is attempting to evangelize his Jewish brethren. They are to believe Moses, who will lead them to faith in Jesus, and the raising of Lazarus is the primary miracle that signifies that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. This being so, he is the Father’s Messianic Son—He Who Is. 47. The Greek does not have the word “holy” but simply “place.” Scholars debate as to whether “place” refers to Jerusalem, the land, or the temple. The RSV has opted for the temple—the “holy” place. Interestingly, after Peter and John healed the lame man, and the temple guard and the Sadducees arrested them, the Jewish leaders gathered and said, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 3:1–10, 4:1–3, and 4:15–16). Note that they speak of a “sign” that they “cannot deny.” The miraculous healing points to Jesus in whose name the man was healed, and it is this signification that cannot be denied. 48.  Later the Pharisees will say to one another, “You see that you can do nothing; look, the world has gone after him” (Jn 12:19). That they speak of “the world” is in accord with John’s comment that Jesus must die not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

390

Chapter 11

longer be the holy city, for their temple, their holy place, would become redundant. The temple would cease to be the very dwelling place of God wherein sacrificial worship is offered on behalf of the people and nation. What would become central is Jesus himself. The Romans, who presently had authority over them, would observe this and as a result would destroy their sacred place and their holy nation. Thus the chief priests and the Pharisees read correctly the meaning of Jesus’ miraculous signs. They are not ignorant of what Jesus is about. Ultimately, they are not intolerant of the signs, but of him to whom the signs refer—Jesus, He Who Is. In their refusal to believe what the miracles signify, they are terrified by the thought that everyone else will believe.49 But the more sober-minded and less panicky Caiaphas, “who was high priest that year,” offers the way forward. “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” After insulting his confidants’ 49. There is obvious irony present. Although the Jews will not believe in Jesus as their Messianic Savior, Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed by the Romans in August of 70 AD. Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, foretells the destruction of Jerusalem with its temple. In response to some noting the beauty of the temple, Jesus says, “As for these things which you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” And they asked him, “Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?” And he said, “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he [ego eimi]!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.” (Lk 21:5–8; see also Mk 13:1–6) Those who falsely claim to be the Messiah will declare that “I am he.” This implies that Jesus, who is the true divinely anointed Messiah, is “I am he.” Thus what is found within Luke, as well as in Mark, corroborates what Jesus himself declares in the Gospel of John—“I am he (ego eimi).” Notable, too, is the Jews’ distress over the temple’s possible destruction in relation to what Jesus declares at the onset of his public ministry. At the conclusion of his cleansing of the temple, the Jews ask, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” Jesus responded: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Because the Jews thought that Jesus was referring to the stone temple that took forty-six years to build, John comments, “But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this” (Jn 2:18–22). The sign that Jesus has authority to cleanse the temple will be his own resurrection, for in his rising, he will become the new and living all-holy temple in whom the Father will find true worship. Again, the irony is that in killing Jesus in order to save the destruction of their temple, the Jews have provided the prerequisite condition for his resurrection as the new and living temple, thus making the stone temple redundant. Thus the absence of the temple after it was destroyed by the Romans became a symbol, for Christians, that Jesus is himself the fulfillment of the old temple. Jesus, as the new high priest, offered himself as the perfect atoning sacrifice of the new covenant in his blood. Moreover, we once more perceive here that Jesus, being the resurrection and the life, as signified in the raising of Lazarus, is the foundational truth for his being the new and living temple in whom all who believe in him have access to his Father.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

391

ignorance, Caiaphas realizes that to save the nation from believing in Jesus, and in so doing saving it from perishing in its false belief, it would best, for the good of all, to kill Jesus, the perpetrator of this blasphemy. The evangelist immediately provides both the importance of who said this and the irony contained within what he said. “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” The Evangelist recognizes that Caiaphas did not make his proclamation simply as a Jewish priest, but as one who possessed the authority of high priest. Therefore it was prophetic in nature. But what Caiaphas meant and what he unwittingly prophesied are radically different. For Caiaphas, it is expedient for Jesus to die—his life must be sacrificed—lest the people and nation perish by succumbing to deadly beliefs and so forfeit their holy place. For John, Jesus must offer himself up as a sacrifice, lest the Jewish nation should perish in sin and death, and so lose its heavenly place.50 He must die so that Israel as a people may truly live. Moreover, John broadens the significance of Jesus’ death and thus the importance of Caiaphas’ prophecy. Not only will Jesus’ death save the nation of Israel, but also it will be for the gathering “into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” These scattered children of God probably are the Gentiles, “the other sheep, that are not of this fold,” and for whom Jesus, as the good shepherd, must also lay down his life (Jn 10:14–16; see also 17:21).51 John concludes the rendering of the raising of Lazarus and its consequences by stating, “So from that day on they took council about how

50.  So important are Caiaphas’ prophetic words for John that he references them again later at Jesus’ trial. Reminding the reader that Caiaphas was high priest that year, he says, “It was Caiaphas who had given council to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people” (Jn 18:12–14). 51.  Implied within John’s interpretation is the truth that, through Jesus, the Jew, salvation will come to the Gentiles. Such an understanding fulfills God’s word that all nations will be blessed in Abraham (see Gn 12:1–3 and 18:18). Again, I wonder if John’s interpretation of Caiaphas’ prophecy, and his expanding it to include the Gentiles, is not his attempt of winning over his contemporary Jewish brethren. The high priest himself, though unbeknownst to him, spoke of the necessity of Jesus’ death. Moreover, the Jews need not fear Gentile Christians, for they are but sharing in the blessings of the Jews. The conclusion to be drawn is that the present unbelieving Jews can also be a blessing to the Church, if only they would come to believe. On the importance of Christian Jews within the body of Christ, see my “The Jews and the Body of Christ: An Essay in Hope,” Pro Ecclesia 27, no. 4 (2018): 412–24. This essay is followed in the same issue by three responses, offered by M. S. Kinzer, G. R. McDermott, and G. D’Costa, along with my response to theirs (see 425–50).

392

Chapter 11

to put him to death.”52 Jesus’ raising of Lazarus becomes the direct cause of his death. In being the immediate cause of his death, however, it will become the direct cause of Jesus becoming the resurrection and the life. This is the supreme irony—Jesus must die so that he, in himself, might be the life-giving light in the world of sin’s darkness—a deadly darkness that did not overcome him but a darkness that he instead put to death. Even so, Jesus, being aware that the Jewish leaders wished to kill him, “no longer went about openly among the Jews, but went from there to the country near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim; and there he stayed with the disciples.” Given what follows, Jesus was preparing himself for his final Passover—a Passover wherein he would be the new and everlasting lamb of sacrifice. “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves.” The time frame between the healing of Lazarus and the Passover being at hand is not specified. With the approach of Passover, people made their way to Jerusalem to purify themselves prior to its arrival.53 This will be, in a sense, the last Passover for which purification will be necessary, for at this Passover Jesus will, through his death and resurrection, purify all those who believe and are baptized from the defilement of sin and the corruption of death. Now, those who came to Jerusalem to be purified “were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, ‘What do you think? That he will not come to the feast?’ ” Knowing that Jesus had made himself a persona non grata among the Jewish leadership, and for this reason was hiding away, the people were on the lookout for him—they sensed a final confrontation may be in the offing.54 That they are in the temple is significant, for it was there, during Jesus’ first Passover when he cleansed the temple, that the initial confrontation erupted between him and the Jews. Moreover, it was here that Jesus first prophesied his own death (the destroying of the temple that is his body) and his resurrection (the raising up of the temple that is his body) (see Jn 2:13–22). What was prophesied at the first Passover will be fulfilled in the course of this final Passover. Jesus will become the living everlasting temple in whom the offering of himself will be the perfect Passover sacrifice. In so doing, Jesus will pass over from death to life and thus become the resurrection and the life. While the people were speculating as 52.  This is the third time that Jews are said to be seeking Jesus in order to kill him (see Jn 5:18 and 7:1). Of course, they have already attempted to stone him (see Jn 8:59 and 10:31). 53.  For the tradition of purification prior to the Passover, see Ex 19:10–11, Nm 9:6–14, and 2 Chr 30:1–3 and 15–18. 54.  At the earlier Feast of Tabernacles, the people were also conjecturing as to whether Jesus would appear, but they did so quietly for fear of the Jews (see Jn 7:10–13).

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

393

to whether Jesus would come to the feast, “the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they could arrest him.” The one who will know where he is will be Judas, and he will be the escorting member of the arresting brigade. Conclusion Having completed our theological interpretation of the raising of Lazarus with its subsequent consequences, I wish to make two summary comments. First, as became more evident as our above study progressed, I believe that chapter 11 may contain the most important event in the whole of John’s Gospel, Jesus raising Lazarus. It obviously is not more important than Jesus’ death and resurrection, but its singular prominence lies in its prophetic hermeneutical nature. The raising of Lazarus not only manifests that Jesus is the source and summit of all his miracle signs, as well as the source and summit of all his “I am” sayings, and so is the key to understanding the entire Book of Signs, but it also prophetically anticipates Jesus’ high priestly prayer, and his death and resurrection, and so becomes the interpretive key for theologically interpreting them as well. The miracle sign of raising Lazarus thus brings together, and so embodies, the Book of Signs and in so doing peers into the future wherein all that was signified previously will be fulfilled. This miracle sign is therefore crucial for grasping properly the full theological content within the Book of Glory and the passion narrative. How what I have proposed here comes to be will have to await the third volume, when our doctrinal interpretation of John’s Gospel is completed. Second, the raising of Lazarus comprises four principal acting characters— Lazarus and Jesus, of course, but also Martha and Mary. Martha and Mary, in sending word to Jesus, emphasized that he who is ill is the one whom Jesus loves. Concern for their brother’s well-being in turn manifests their own love for him. The Evangelist notes that Jesus loved Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. From the onset, and as the story progresses, Martha and Mary clearly love Jesus. (We can presume that Lazarus loved the other three, though within the story he cannot express this love since he is dead.) In the midst of this entire event, love motivates the various loving participants to do what they individually do. Jesus, surprisingly, upon hearing of Lazarus’ illness, delays two days before setting off to Bethany, but he does so out of love—he wants to reveal that Lazarus’ illness is not unto death, but rather for God’s glory, which will redound to his own glory. Upon his arrival, Martha dashes out to meet him, and she does so out of love for her dead brother and for Jesus. That love motivates

394

Chapter 11

her request—demand—that Jesus do something to rectify the present intolerable situation. As to her brother rising from the dead, which she interprets as meaning that on the last day, Jesus, in love, declares to her that he is the resurrection and the life. To which declaration, Martha, in love, responds with her own declaration of faith. Jesus being the resurrection and the life, Martha professes him to be her Lord, who is the Christ, the Son of God. The mutual love between Jesus and Martha motivates Jesus to reveal himself to her, and for her to respond to that revelation with an ardent act of knowing faith. Upon being summoned by Martha, Mary quickly came to Jesus. She, too, expresses her faith in Jesus—that if he had been there, her beloved brother would not have died. Moreover, she does so within a supplicating love, having fallen at Jesus’ feet. It is Martha’s faith-filled love, along with Mary’s weeping supplicant love, and that of the weeping of those who accompanied her, that ultimately moved Jesus to weep in love as well. Within this manifestation of faith-filled love, Jesus resolutely sets off, with the weeping crowd in tow, to Lazarus’ tomb. Upon arrival, he lovingly raises the sleeping Lazarus from the dead, and so manifested, to his and to his Father’s glory, that he is the resurrection and the life. The entire raising of Lazarus is enfolded in love. For Martha and Mary, and at least for some of the crowd, that love is a loving faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Father’s incarnate Son, either expressed prior to or after beholding his glory as the resurrection and the life. Moreover, in his loving desire to manifest the glory of his Father, and in his love for Martha and Mary, as well as those he wishes to confirm in faith, Jesus lovingly calls forth Lazarus from his tomb. The raising of Lazarus is the fruit of faith and love. Here there is a perichoresis of mutual love, an intertwining love that is knitted together through faith. This weaving together of faith and love engenders the assurance of hope—confidence that Jesus, as the Spirit-filled Father’s Son, is the resurrection and the life, a hope that will be confirmed in Jesus’ own resurrection. To believe in Jesus is lovingly to abide in him, for in, with, and through him is the hope of eternal life. On the last day, this dim light of faith will give way to the splendor of liberated sight, and that which is unseen within hope’s assurance will be actualized in all of its glory—all that will then remain will be the perichoresis of life-giving and life-assuming love. Jesus, Martha, Mary, and the living Lazarus form, then, an iconic prophetic tableau of the last day wherein they together depict and prefigure the communion of everlasting love between all of the faithful and their risen Lord Jesus Christ. Within all of this, one final truth must be made evident. In order for love to triumph, both here on earth through faith and hope, and ultimately in

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

395

heaven in all of its fullness, Jesus, out of love, must die—he must be the loving sacrifice for sin, for only then will he loosen the bonds of death. As the good shepherd, Jesus will lay down his life for his sheep (see Jn 10:11). And, as Jesus will declare later in his high priestly prayer, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). Being friends of Jesus, the faithful sheep must “love one another as I have loved you” and thus lay down their lives in love as well (Jn 15:12).55 Love for Jesus and for one another is dependent upon his great love, for only within his saving love is humankind re-created, reborn, in his Holy Spirit so as to love him and one another as he himself has loved. Thus only as Jesus becomes Jesus, only as he enacts his love, does he become the resurrection and the life, and so reveal himself as the Christ, the Father’s Son—and again, the final act of love by which Jesus becomes fully who he is, YHWH-Saves, is when, at the end of time, he raises up those who believe into his resurrection so as to abide fully in his love. We come now to the last chapter of the Book of Signs—chapter 12. This chapter may be the most complex within the Evangelist’s Gospel. There is a multiplicity of scenes, each containing specific theological points, yet as one might expect, all of these various events, with their distinctive themes, interrelate. Moreover, like the raising of Lazarus, chapter 12 looks to the past and anticipates the future—Jesus’ proximate passion, death, and resurrection. The rapid approach of this hour unifies the whole of chapter 12. To it, then, we must now proceed.

55.  These same thoughts are found in 1 John. “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 Jn 4:9–10; see also 2:1–2).

12 n

The Coming of the Hour

C

hapter 12 of John’s Gospel, as mentioned at the conclusion of this volume’s chapter 11, is the final chapter of the Book of Signs. It is composed of what might be termed a series of intertwining mini-scenes, all of which pertain to the coming hour of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Significantly, in the light of the coming hour, the chapter begins six days prior to Passover, the Passover wherein Jesus will be crucified. As the Book of Signs began with a week of consecutive days, so it now concludes with the opening days of Passover week.1 These initial days will flow into the Book of Glory with its final days of Passover week—“when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father” (Jn 13:1).2 Within the initial week of the Book of Signs, all that was proclaimed will be revealed as true in this final Passover week. The Baptist testified that Jesus is the Spirit-filled Son of God (Jn 1:32–34). Andrew declared to his brother, Peter, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41). Philip announced to Nathanael, “We have found him whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (Jn 1:45). After his initial skepticism, Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (Jn 1:49). As we have seen throughout the entirety of our study of the Book of Signs, Jesus, through his miracle signs and within his contentious discussions with the Jews, particularly in his “I am” sayings, manifested and revealed the veracity of what was proclaimed in the course of that first week. Moreover, within his first miracle sign at the wedding feast of Cana, Jesus “manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (Jn 2:11). Now, as Jesus begins his final week, all that was prophetically proclaimed and enacted within the Book of 1.  For the initial week of consecutive days, see Jn 1:29, 1:35, 1:41, 1:43, and 2:1. 2.  For the last week of consecutive days, see Jn 12:1, 13:1, 18:28, 19:14, and 19:42.

396

The Coming of the Hour

397

Signs, and all that Jesus declared concerning his divine identity, will be fulfilled. Jesus will manifest the fullness of his glory in his death and resurrection, and in so doing, he will confirm that he is the expected Messiah of whom Moses and the prophets spoke, for he is the Father’s sent-forth Son in whom there is eternal life. The crucified Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, is therefore the life-giving King of Israel (see Jn 19:19). Thus the prophetic Book of Signs finds its fulfilled enactment in the Book of Glory. Chapter 12 of John’s Gospel is, then, both the end of the Book of Signs and the prelude to the Book of Glory. With the above in mind, we can take up the narrative itself. Mary’s Anointing of Jesus Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.3 Chapter 12 begins where chapter 11 ended—from the Passover being “at hand” to the week of the Passover beginning (see Jn 11:55). From this point on, all that is said or done must be theologically interpreted in the context of the forthcoming Passover, that is, in the framework of Jesus becoming the new and everlasting Passover. He will pass over from death to life with all of the salvific consequences that accrue to his passing over. 3.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 12:1–11 unless otherwise noted. The above passage is similar to the anointings narrated in Mt 26:6–13, Mk 14:3–9, and Lk 7:36–50. Because of the differences, however, it is impossible to sort out historically what actually took place. In my previous volume, I was of the mind that all of the accounts, both in the Synoptics and John, narrated the same event. I am no longer convinced of that judgment, though this change of mind does not in any way bring full clarity to the various accounts. I would now argue that Luke’s “anointing” is a different event than those described in Matthew, Mark, and John; John, like Luke, has the woman (a penitent woman in Luke and Mary in John) anoint Jesus’ feet, which she then wipes with her hair, whereas in Matthew and Mark the woman anoints Jesus’ head, and there is no relating of her wiping Jesus’ head with her hair. Within the later Christian tradition, all of these accounts were conflated into one Mary, often thought to be the sinner Mary Magdalene, but this is historically unlikely. For a fuller account of the differences and similarities among all of these various “anointing” narratives, see JBJ 1:289–97. Because in my first volume I treated the different theological emphases within the Synoptic accounts, I will not do so here when examining the Johannine narrative. The reader is advised to read the following theological interpretation of John’s “anointing” in conjunction with my theological interpretation of the Synoptic accounts.

398

Chapter 12

So, as the Passover week begins, Jesus returns to Bethany, having fled to Ephraim in the wilderness because the Jewish leaders had resolved that he must die (see Jn 11:54). The Evangelist not only indicates the town, Bethany, to which Jesus returns, but he also observes that it is where Lazarus was and then informs us that it was Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead. All of this detail is presented as if the reader was not already well aware of these now familiar facts. Why repeat this seemingly needless information? Similar to what we discerned in chapter 11, the Jesus-raised Lazarus from Bethany is now the prophetic sacramental living icon of the Passover, for he signifies Jesus, who as the new Passover will shortly pass over from sin’s death to life’s newness. (This interpretation will become more evident as the narrative progresses.) Moreover, Lazarus is the first to be identified within the present narrative, and not Martha or Mary, who previously in chapter 11 were identified first, for he, and not them, is now sacramentally conjoined to Jesus. There at Bethany, “they made him a supper,” that is, Lazarus, Martha, and Mary. One presumes it was a celebratory thanksgiving meal, a “eucharistic” meal, to honor Jesus for having raised Lazarus. (One can also imagine, since “Martha served,” that she, in keeping with who she is, actually prepared the meal—though this time gladly and without complaint.) Although it was a festive thanksgiving meal, it has a Passover character as well, for John again highlights that “Lazarus was one of those at table with him [Jesus].” The who signifies the Passover is at table with him who is signified—the Passover Jesus. Moreover, as this meal gives thanks for Lazarus’ passing over from death to life, so Jesus’ Eucharistic Last Supper will become the thanksgiving meal of his truly passing over from death to life. This Passover/Eucharistic signification is confirmed by what immediately ensues. “Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.” If Martha expressed her grateful love to Jesus by preparing and serving the meal, Mary, in keeping with who she is, expressed her thankful love by taking what must have been most precious to her, a pound of costly nard, and anointing Jesus’ feet and wiping them with her hair.4 Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet is an act of loving humility on her part, but it also designates the lowliness of Jesus, for the feet, unlike the head, are one of the body’s 4.  That the unnamed woman in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts anoints Jesus’ head indicates an anointing of a Spirit-anointed King after the manner of the Old Testament kings (see 1 Sm 10:1, 16:12–13; 1 Kgs 1:39). Nard or spikenard is an aromatic oil taken from a Himalayan plant. Therefore it was not conventional. That John notes that Mary used a pound of it, and that it was “pure” and not mixed with other oils, adds to its costliness.

The Coming of the Hour

399

lowlier parts. Mary’s concomitant act of wiping Jesus’ anointed feet with her hair conveys an affective, but pure, love, for a woman’s lengthy hair both coveys her femininity and renders her physically attractive. Mary was thus bodily expressing her tender love for Jesus in the most animated manner available to her as a woman.5 The Evangelist remarks, in conclusion, that the ointment’s fragrance filled the house.6 What Mary has unwittingly done in anointing the now fragrant Jesus, but which John perceives, is to transform her home into a prophetic sign of Jesus becoming the impending new temple. As the anointed Messiah, Jesus, the new high priest who will offer himself as the true Passover lamb, will become the new and everlasting fragrant sacrifice, and so, in himself, he will be the ever living temple. This is in keeping with the Old Testament where holy sacrifices rise up to God as a pleasing aroma. For example, in the Book of Exodus, Moses consecrates the priests by offering a sacrifice upon the altar that is outside the tent (tabernacle). The burnt ram is an “offering to the Lord; it is a pleasing odor, an offering by fire to the Lord” (Ex 29:17–18).7 Jesus will become the perfect, pleasing Passover sacrifice to his Father, and so he will pass over from bonds of death to the liberating newness of life. The aroma of fragrant, sacrificed Jesus will forever rise up into his Father’s presence and so fill the heavenly temple. Moreover, all who will abide in the risen Jesus, the living temple, will, in communion with him, share in the aromatic sacrifice that he is and so be a pleasing Spirit-filled fragrance to the Father. This present thanksgiving feast takes on, then, an ever more intense Passover quality. Not only does the living Lazarus sacramentally signify Jesus as the fulfilled Passover, but also Mary’s anointing of Jesus signifies the pleasing-­ aroma sacrifice that he, as the Christ, will become. The entire celebratory meal thus becomes a prophetic tableau sacramentally signifying the Eucharist—the thanksgiving sacramental banquet wherein the faithful share in Jesus’ Passover 5.  In Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts of the anointing, while the unnamed woman anoints Jesus’ head, she does not wipe his head with her hair (see Mt 26:7 and Mk 14:3). In Luke’s account, however, the sinful woman not only anointed Jesus’ feet but also washed them with her tears. She then kissed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair (see Lk 7:37–38). 6.  The beloved in the Song of Songs declares, “While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance (Song 1:12; see also 4:13–14). Mary enacts this verse, for Jesus will soon, in his resurrection, be her fragrant anointed king. 7.  Pleasing sacrifices to God in the Old Testament are often described as being fragrant odors (see, e.g., Gn 4:4, 8:21; Ex 29:17–18; Lv 1:9–17, 3:5; Ps 66:14–15; and Ezek 20:40–41). Thus these pleasing fragrant sacrifices prefigure and are realized in the sacrifice that Jesus is. In the New Testament, Paul speaks of fragrant offerings (see, e.g., 2 Cor 2:15–16, Eph 5:2, and Phil 4:18).

400

Chapter 12

sacrifice and, in so doing, come into living communion with him by partaking of his once-sacrificed and now risen body and blood. It is this celebratory Eucharistic meal that the Church, in the likeness of Martha, will serve to the world—a thanksgiving for Jesus’ death and resurrection that is, both for him and for the faithful, a passing over from death to life. With the fragrance of the anointed Jesus now filling the house, “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him)” indignantly asks, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” The Evangelist sees through what appears to be a noble protest. “This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.” What Judas used the stolen money for is unknown, but, as with all thieves, we can surmise that it was employed for his own selfish gratification.8 Jesus responds not by taking up the Evangelist’s condemnatory aside, but rather by defending Mary. “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you will always have with you, but you do not always have me.” Jesus rebuffs Judas—he is not to give Mary a hard time. Rather, he is to let Mary “keep it for the day of my burial.” What is Mary to keep? What is the “it”? What Mary is to keep is the anointing itself, for even though Jesus is yet to die, she has already done what would normally be done on the day of his death. She has already anointed his body, the humanity that would pass over from death to life. This burial anointing, and not the 8.  Since this is the last reference to Judas by name in the Book of Signs, I want to make a theological point concerning him in relation to the devil and the Eucharist. In total, there are six references to Judas by name in John’s Gospel, four prior to his leading the arresting band to the Garden of Gethsemane (see Jn 18:3 and 18:5). What is fascinating is that all of the four previous references to Judas and his future betrayal take place within Eucharistic contexts: at the end of Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse (see Jn 6:71), the present Eucharistic setting in Bethany (Jn 12:4), and at the Last Supper (see Jn 13:2 and 13:26). Moreover, Jesus, in Jn 6:71, says that Judas “is a devil.” In Jn 13:2 the Evangelist prefaces Jesus’ action by noting that “the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” (Jn 13:2). After Jesus dipped the morsel of bread and gave it to Judas, the Evangelist states, “Satan entered into him” (Jn 13:26). I think the Evangelist is indicating that the devil/Satan has a hatred for the Eucharist because the Eucharist is the sacrifice that conquers sin and destroys death, and it is the risen body and blood of Jesus through which one has communion with him and so possesses eternal life. Satan despises all of these because they are all his undoing. Later in chapter 12, Jesus declares, “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (Jn 12:31). Now, at this coming hour of Jesus’ passing over from death to life, the sinful world will be judged and so Satan, its ruler, will be cast out. The Eucharist is the ever present judgment of the world and the casting out of the sinful world’s ruler and is thus hated by Satan. It would appear that Judas himself, then, found the Eucharist distasteful and so was willing to become Satan’s accomplice. Of course, the irony is that the killing of Jesus made the Eucharist possible—only if Jesus died could he conquer sin and death, and then rise to be the bread of life.

The Coming of the Hour

401

costly nard, is what Mary is to relish. She should savor this anointing, for the body that will be buried by week’s end is the anointed body of the Messiah— the anointed humanity of the Father’s Son who will offer his humanity on the cross as the new Passover sacrifice, a fragrant sacrifice that will purge away the stench of sin’s death and impart the aroma of eternal life. It is this anointing that Mary will cherish the rest of her life and forever.9 One can always care for the ever present poor, but one can only anoint the humanity of the Son of God while he still abides on earth, and to do so is a privilege given to but one—she who has chosen the better part—Jesus.10 Jesus’ defense of Mary’s anointing confirms and further enriches the Passover character of the entire meal. Mary has already prepared Jesus, the soonto-be-Passover lamb of sacrifice, for his burial. That anointed burial will not, like Lazarus’, end in death. Rather, Jesus will realize what Lazarus sacramentally signifies—that he, by passing from death to life, is the resurrection and the life. Lastly, the faithful, symbolized in Lazarus (and Martha and Mary), who partake of the Eucharistic table with Jesus, will, as signified in Lazarus, pass over from death to life with him, for they have conjoined themselves to him who is the ever living Passover. They have eaten of his risen, sacrificed body and drunk of his risen, poured-out blood, and so abide in him who abides forever. For this, in accord with Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, the faithful will eternally give thanks in the heavenly Eucharistic banquet. In the midst of the celebratory meal of thanksgiving, a further event was also taking shape. “When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there [the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary], they came, not only on account of Jesus, but also to see Lazarus, whom he raised from the dead.” Once again, the Evangelist emphasizes that Jesus raised Lazarus. The two have become inseparable. The desire to see Jesus is now coupled with the curiosity to see Lazarus. To see Jesus is to see him who raised Lazarus, and thus to see the raised Lazarus is to behold the sacramental sign that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Lazarus is the conjoined sacramental hermeneutical key for unlocking Jesus’ true identity. Because of the sacramental nature of his signification, Lazarus’ bodily living appearance is essential. Likewise, since it was Jesus as the incarnate Son who raised Lazarus, the bodily incarnational living presence of Jesus 9.  John’s Gospel also tells of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus anointing the dead body of Jesus after his crucifixion (see Jn 19:38–42). 10.  In Matthew and Mark, Jesus concludes his defense of Mary by stating, “Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (Mt 26:13 and Mk 14:9). The Book of Deuteronomy states, “For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I [God] command you, you shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land” (Dt 15:11).

402

Chapter 12

is essential also. It is through their mutually living bodily expressions that they are sacramentally conjoined. What we now perceive here, in the sacramental union of Jesus and Lazarus, is a prophetic expression of what can be termed “the body of Christ,” that is, the living union of the risen Jesus with those who are united to him—those who share here on earth in his risen life and will do so fully in heaven. They form one living reality founded upon baptism, and most fully enacted, presently on earth, in the Eucharist.11 Because the raised Lazarus is inseparably conjoined to the raising Jesus, “the chief priests planned to put Lazarus also to death, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.” As a living sacramental sign of Jesus, Lazarus, in himself, embodies the Gospel, the good news of new life, and so his simply being alive is a call to faith in Jesus. Lazarus is a living sacramental light of him who is the light of the world. Because Lazarus is the sacramental living light, believing Jews are “going away” from the venerable beliefs of old and moving to Jesus as the promised Messianic Savior, he who is himself the light of life. This “going away” and “coming to” the chief priests cannot tolerate. Significantly, the chief priests grasped that it was necessary not only to kill Jesus but also to eradicate Lazarus, for as long as Lazarus is alive, he continues to signify Jesus as the resurrection and the life. To be rid of the sign is to eliminate the significance of him whom the sign signified. While Lazarus is never put to death, in the killing of Jesus, what Lazarus prophetically signified comes to be—Jesus, by passing over from death to life, becomes the resurrection into eternal life. Moreover, what John has done in bonding Lazarus to Jesus as the sacramental sign of Jesus’ identity is to provide a theology of what it means to be a Christian believer and, more specifically, what it means to be a persecuted, and possibly martyred, believer. Christians, by definition, are believers in Christ—they are living sacramental signs as to who Jesus is as the Father’s anointed saving-­­Son. Thus if one hates the Gospel, and so Jesus who embodies the Gospel, the only way now to expel the presence of Jesus is to persecute, and ultimately kill, those who make him sacramentally present. To eradicate Christians, and in so doing terminate the church, one obliterates Jesus’ sacramental presence within the world and thus makes him and his salvific work inoperable. 11. This is obviously more clearly articulated within Paul’s theological understanding of Christians being members of the risen Christ’s body, wherein, through baptism, Christians become members of the one body in Christ, of which Jesus is the head (see 1 Cor 12:12–27; Rom 12:4–5; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:13–18, 4:4; Col 1:18). In a sense, the living Lazarus is a prophetic sacramental sign of the church. Accordingly, Vatican II could speak of “the Church, in Christ” as “in nature a sacrament—a sign and instrument” of salvation (Lumen Gentium 1; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§774–76).

The Coming of the Hour

403

Such a strategy was operative at the time of John’s writing his Gospel; it has continued throughout the whole of subsequent history to our present day, and it will persist to the end of time.12 Blessed Is He Who Comes in the Name of the Lord, Even the King of Israel The next day a great crowd who had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him crying, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it; as it is written, “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold your king is coming, sitting on an ass’s colt!”13 The celebratory meal having ended the previous evening, word spread the next day among the multitude that was filling Jerusalem for the Passover that Jesus was going to make his way from Bethany to Jerusalem. Jesus would cross up over the brow of the Mount of Olives and proceed west downhill through the Kidron Valley, entering Jerusalem through the east gate. As Jesus made his way, the gathering crowd “took palm branches and went to meet him.” This taking of palm branches first alludes to the liturgical ritual surrounding the weeklong Feast of Booths or Tabernacles as found in the Book of Leviticus. “You shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of leafy trees, and willows from the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Lv 23:40). The people are to rejoice in the abundant harvest, but in the present instance, the people are delighting in Jesus offering them an abundance of life, for he is the one who raised Lazarus 12.  Later, Jesus will declare, “If the world hates you, know it has hated me before it hated you. . . . Remember the word I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.” (see Jn 15:18–25 and 7:7; see also 1 Jn 3:13 and Mt 10:22 and 24:9). 13.  All Scripture quotations in this section are taken from Jn 12:12–19 unless otherwise noted. John’s narrative of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is much abbreviated compared to that of the Synoptics (see Mt 21:1–9, Mk 11:1–10, and Lk 19:12–19). This is more than likely due to John realizing that his readers would have been acquainted with the one Gospel tradition as found in the three Synoptic Gospels. His purpose was to give his own theological interpretation of this triumphal event, thus leaving out extraneous details such as how Jesus obtained the donkey upon which he rode. John immediately proceeds to the heart of the occasion. For a theological interpretation of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry, see JBJ 1:243–79. I would advise reading that commentary in conjunction with what will be presented here.

404

Chapter 12

from the dead.14 (This will become evident later.) The palm branches also suggest the rededication of the desecrated temple in 164/5 BC at the time of the Maccabees. “The Jews entered it [the temple] with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel” (1 Mc 13:51). Likewise, the palms suggest the Feast of Tabernacles where the Jews, “bearing ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his holy place” (2 Mc 10:6–7). As the crowd met Jesus with the palms, they cried out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”15 The first part of this acclamation is taken from Psalm 118. This psalm is a liturgical hymn of praise and thanksgiving sung when the priests and people processed into the temple precincts. It first proclaims the Lord’s mercy (see vv. 1–4). Speaking in the first person, personifying Israel, the psalm thanks the Lord for coming to rescue “me,” setting “me” free, and so becoming “my salvation” (see vv. 5–14). The psalm rejoices in the Lord’s victory, and therefore “I shall not die, but I shall live, and recount the deeds of the Lord. The Lord has chastened me sorely, but he has not given me over to death” (see vv. 15–18). The people call out that the gates to the temple should be opened to them so that they may enter and give thanks to the Lord. They are pleased that “the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (vv. 20–24). It is at this point in the psalm that the crowds now acclaim, “Hosanna!” [translated: O Lord, grant salvation]. Blessed be he who enters in the name of the Lord!” (vv. 25–26). The psalm then proceeds: “We bless you from the house of the Lord. The Lord is God, and has given us light. Bind the festal procession with branches, up to the horns of the altar!” (v. 27). What we then find here, in Jesus making his way to Jerusalem amidst the palm-waving crowd along with its exultant proclamation, is the weaving together of a number of Old Testament allusions—all of which are presently being enacted. The enactment of these theological threads is prophetic, for they foretell what Jesus will finalize in his Passover death and resurrection. 14.  It must also be remembered that Jesus is the bread of life. 15.  In Matthew the crowds “shouted, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!’ ” (Mt 21:9). Mark has: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest!” (Mk 11:9–10). Luke renders it “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Lk 19:38).

The Coming of the Hour

405

First, this journey from Bethany to Jerusalem takes on liturgical significance. Jesus solemnly making his way to the temple, surrounded by the throng of people joyfully waving palms, denotes the Maccabean temple cleansing. Jesus, the high priest, is coming to Jerusalem to perform the rite of purifying the temple through the offering of himself as the true Passover sacrifice. Thus Jesus is presently fulfilling in this Passover the prophetic act that he enacted at the first Passover at the onset of his public ministry—the cleansing of the temple (see Jn 2:13–22). Moreover, in fulfilling that initial prophetic act, Jesus is also prophetically anticipating, in this present act, the imminent new covenantal sacrifice wherein he will cleanse the people of their sins and establish in himself a life-giving relationship with his Father—he will himself become the new, living heavenly temple. This is in keeping with Jesus’ previous declaration: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:18).16 Second, Jesus will be condemned and crucified by the Jewish leaders, yet in that very act he will become “the stone which the builders rejected” and so become the living cornerstone of the new temple. Although the Lord will “chastise” him, he will “set him free”; he will “not die” but “live.” On this present day the crowd is rejoicing in that future day—“the day which the Lord has made” and in which they will be glad. They are enacting the day when “the gates of righteousness,” “the gate of the Lord,” will be opened so that they, “the righteous,” may “enter through it.” Within John’s Gospel, this “gate of righteousness” through which “the righteous” will enter is Jesus himself, for to abide in him is to have access to his heavenly Father (see Jn 10:7–9). 16.  The Letter to the Hebrews provides a theology that is in accord with what Jesus prophetically enacts in his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and that will be fulfilled in his death and resurrection. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb 9:24–26) Because Jesus enters into the heavenly sanctuary, Christians are able to enter, in communion with him, into the presence of his Father. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Heb 10:19–22)

406

Chapter 12

Third, here we also grasp the significance of the final clause of the crowd’s declaration, “even the King of Israel!” This phrase must be interpreted also in conjunction with the statement that Jesus found “a young ass and sat upon it,” thus fulfilling the passage “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming sitting on an ass’s colt.” Within the Synoptics, Jesus sits upon the young donkey prior to the acclamations of the people, where John only tells of Jesus mounting the colt after the acclamations. Moreover, the Synoptics declare Jesus’ kingship in ways that differ from one another and from John. Matthew has the crowd speak of Jesus as “the son of David,” thus implying that his is the divinely promised king who will reign forever (Mt 21:9).17 In Mark the crowd declares, “Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!” (Mk 11:10). Such an assertion connotes that David’s everlasting kingdom will be established by Jesus, David’s son. The crowd in Luke’s Gospel announces, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Lk 19:38). Luke emphasizes that he who comes in the name of the Lord is the actual King, with the implication that he is David’s son (Matthew), who will establish David’s everlasting kingdom (Mark). Now John, by having the crowd 17.  God promised David: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sm 7:12–13). This promise is reiterated in Ps 89:3–4, 132:11–12; Is 9:7; Dn 2:44, 7:14. Significantly, the Synoptic Gospels, and Jesus within these Gospels, speak frequently of the kingdom of God and Jesus’ establishment of that kingdom. In John’s Gospel, “kingdom of God” is mentioned only twice in relation to baptism (see Jn 3:3 and 3:5). Prior to chap. 12 of John’s Gospel, there are only two references to Jesus and his kingship: Nathanial declares Jesus to be the King of Israel (see Jn 1:49), and the people want to make Jesus their king after the multiplication of the loaves (see Jn 6:15). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem marks the beginning of an emphasis on Jesus’ kingship, a prominence that will culminate at Jesus’ trial and crucifixion (see Jn 18:33–37, 19:2, 19:12–15, and 19:19–22). Why is there this discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and John’s? In keeping with my thesis that John is writing a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition as found in the Synoptics, John is clearly specifying that Jesus, as the Messianic Father’s Son, embodies the kingdom of God and so is the King of the kingdom that he embodies. Such an understanding is found in the seven miracle signs and particularly in the “I am” sayings. To abide in God’s kingdom is to abide in Jesus, who is the bread of life; the light of the world; the door to the sheepfold; the good shepherd; the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth, and the life; and the true vine. Having established that Jesus embodies the kingdom, John can now emphasize the manner in which he becomes the kingdom—through his death and resurrection. His present kingly entry into Jerusalem prophetically anticipates his kingly enthronement upon the cross and his glorious enthroned resurrection and ascension into heaven, that is, his becoming, in himself, the everlasting kingdom, the new heavenly Jerusalem wherein there is no temple other than Jesus himself (see Rv 21:22). To this end, the divine promises made to David are fulfilled.

The Coming of the Hour

407

first declare Jesus to be blessed because he comes in the name of the Lord (in the name of his Father) and then by adding the clause beginning with the word “even,” accentuates that the blessed one coming from God is none other than the expectant “King of Israel.” This emphasis is here enhanced, and not before, by John speaking of Jesus finding an ass and sitting upon it, for only then can John quote a combined shortened and altered rendering of passages from Zechariah and Zephaniah, both of which emphasize kingship. The difference between what John quotes and the full rendering in the Zechariah and Zephaniah passages is significant and so purposefully done on John’s part. This is the passage from Zechariah: Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. (Zec 9:9) This is the passage from Zephaniah: Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! The Lord has taken away the judgment against you, he has cast out your enemies. The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst; you shall fear evil no more. On that day it shall be said of Jerusalem: “Do not fear, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. The Lord your God is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory; he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult you with loud singing as on the day of festival.” (Zep 3:14–18) John’s rendering is: Fear not, daughter Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on an ass’s colt. Thus the “fear not” is taken from Zephaniah. The remainder is a truncated version of Zechariah. What is missing from both is the triumphant rejoicing over the conquest of evil, the shouting for joy of the daughter Zion and of the daughter Jerusalem. Why stress the need not to fear, conjoined with the king riding on the donkey? Why is there no mention of gladness and joy at the coming of the King of Israel? There is one overarching complementary twofold reason. The triumphal victorious joy is found in the palm-waving,

408

Chapter 12

“Hosanna”-shouting crowd because the Lord God is in their midst—blessed Jesus, YHWH-Saves, the Son sent in the name of his Father—“even the King of Israel!” The crowd is the singing daughter of Zion and the exulting daughter of Jerusalem. Now it is Jesus, with his animated exuberant crowd of believers, that the Jewish leaders fear, but they (Jerusalem) should “fear not” because “even the King of Israel” is riding humbly on a fledgling donkey. His kingdom is not the destruction of Israel but its saving judgment—for the king is a warrior who brings freedom from the primordial evil of sin’s death and establishes a kingdom of everlasting life. But while it may appear that John is addressing the present fearful Jews who are out to kill Jesus, I do not think that is his intended audience. John knows that, out of fear, the Jews did put Jesus to death. While “pretending” to speak to them, John is again addressing his contemporary Jewish brethren and all future unbelieving Jews. They need not fear their humble king, Jesus, for his kingdom does them no harm but instead affords them abundant divine blessings. They should therefore joyfully join the boisterous chorus of their believing brethren—Hosanna! O Lord, grant salvation! Blessed is Jesus Christ who comes in the name of his Father—even the King of Israel! After narrating Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the back of a young ass, accompanied by the crowd’s jubilant proclamation, and having remarked on how this event fulfilled what was written, John inserts a few explanatory asides. First, John states, “His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.”18 So, the revelational significance of what John just narrated was not grasped at the time of its enactment. Only after Jesus rose gloriously from the dead did his disciples reflect on what had taken place and come to realize that such an event was previously foretold. Jesus’ glorification is the interpretive key to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In rising gloriously, Jesus, as the King of Israel, entered victoriously into the heavenly Jerusalem to the joyous shouts of those who believed in him. Jesus’ triumphal entry into heaven, then, illuminates the unseen meaning of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Only in the full enactment of what was prophesied in Scripture did the disciples perceive that his entry into Jerusalem was itself a prophetic intermediate enactment of Scripture. Thus Jesus’ glorification gives to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem its full meaning, and reciprocally, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem provides theological content to his glorification— his kingly entry, through his passion and death, into the heavenly Jerusalem. 18.  John makes a similar aside concerning what Jesus declared: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (see Jn 2:19–22).

The Coming of the Hour

409

Moreover, this realization confirms our above theological interpretation. John, having come to recognize, in the light of Jesus’ glorification, the theological significance of Jesus’ triumphal entry, wrote his account from within that proper interpretation. Thus he perceived that the entire event is the fulfillment of what was written—Jesus’ humbly riding on the donkey and the joyous, proclaiming crowd being the jubilant daughters of Zion and of Jerusalem. The whole of Zechariah’s and Zephaniah’s passages were enacted by all participants—Jesus and the crowd alike. Second, John comments further on the significance of the delighted crowd. “The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead bore witness. The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign.” There appear to be two crowds. The first crowd is the one that followed Mary to the tomb and were present when Jesus raised Lazarus. The people composing this crowd bore witness that Jesus had performed such a miracle. The second crowd includes those to whom the first crowd bore testimony. This second crowd, having heard from the first crowd that Jesus performed this sign, went out with the first crowd to meet Jesus as he made his way to Jerusalem. Significantly, the above is the last reference to Lazarus within John’s Gospel. To the end, Lazarus remains the sacramental sign of who Jesus is, and in so being, he engenders faith in others. Those who witnessed Jesus raising him from the dead continue to testify to this good news. Those who hear this testimony perceive that Lazarus is a sign, and what he signifies is that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and so the Father’s Messianic Son. The witnesses and those to whom witness is given together joyfully proclaim their faith in Jesus as he makes his way to Jerusalem to become, on this Passover, what they proclaim him to be—the blessed one who comes in the name of the Lord, “even the King of Israel.” Lastly, John provides the Pharisees’ reaction to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. “The Pharisees then said to one another, ‘You see that you can do nothing; look, the world has gone after him.’ ” This alarmed frustration echoes what was said previously: “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our place and our nation” (Jn 11:47–48). They can do nothing even if they kill Jesus, as proposed by Caiaphas (see Jn 11:49–50). Though unbeknownst to them, the reason they can “do nothing” is the darkness of evil’s unbelief cannot overcome Jesus, the Word made flesh (see Jn 1:5). What they behold, to which they have now resigned themselves, is that not only are their Jewish compatriots believing in Jesus, but also the entire world is also going after him. In speaking of “the entire world,” the Pharisees, again

410

Chapter 12

without realizing it, are acknowledging that Jesus’ saving work is universal, for both Jews and Gentiles will indeed “go after him.”19 That the Gentiles will “go after him” is immediately proved true in the next scene, where some Greeks approach Jesus. The Hour Has Come for the Son of Man to Be Glorified The Evangelist initiates a new scene, one that logically flows from the one preceding: “Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.”20 These Greeks would have been Gentiles who had converted to Judaism and so, as “Jewish” believers, would have come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover (see Acts 10:2 and 11:20). They “came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, ‘Sir, we wish to see Jesus.’ Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus.” In the calling of his disciples, Jesus, having decided to go to Galilee, sought out Philip and told Philip to follow him. Philip was from Bethsaida along with Andrew and Peter (see Jn 1:43–44). “Philip” and “Andrew” are both Greek names, and Bethsaida was known to be a bilingual town where both Hebrew and Greek were spoken. Philip, as suggested in chapter 2, may have himself been Greek. Because he was a Gentile, some of the visiting Greeks would have felt comfortable approaching Philip with their request to see Jesus. But the fact that Philip went first to tell Andrew of their request implies that Philip was unsure whether such a Gentile entrée to Jesus was appropriate. In the end, together they went to Jesus, and together “they told Jesus.” It would appear that they decided that such a request was fitting, and, if not, that it would be harder for Jesus to fault two rather than the one—that they had strength in numbers. At this juncture, nonetheless, we once again find an instance where Jesus’ response seems completely disconnected from what immediately precedes it.21 19.  This is in accord with what was declared earlier, either by Jesus or John: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:17). Moreover, the Samaritans profess, “We know that this [Jesus] is indeed the Savior of the world” (Jn 4:42). Also, Jesus affirms not only that he is the good shepherd of the Jews but also that “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice” (Jn 10:16; see also Jn 11:52). He will go on to speak of drawing all men to himself (see Jn 12:32). 20.  All Scripture quotations within this section are taken from Jn 12:20–36 unless otherwise noted. 21.  See, e.g., Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ opening statement (Jn 3:1–3); Jesus’ response to the Samaritan woman who asks for the water of eternal life that he can provide (Jn 4:15–16); and his response to those who asked him how he crossed the Sea of Galilee (Jn 6:25–26).

The Coming of the Hour

411

So much is this the case that the Evangelist never informs the reader whether the requesting Greeks ever did personally meet with Jesus, although Jesus will himself inform them shortly as to the true manner in which they do need to see him. Having been told that some Greeks wish to see him, Jesus proceeds to speak of his death and its meaning, that is, the significance of “the hour.” Jesus first says: The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am there shall my servant be also; if anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. With the arrival of the Greeks, with the entire “world” now going “after him,” Jesus’ hour “has come” (Jn 12:19).22 The hour that commenced at the wedding feast of Cana has now arrived, and as Jesus first displayed his glory in the changing of the water into wine, so now at the finale of that hour, in his death and resurrection, Jesus will fully manifest his glory. To behold the transfigured glory of the Son of man is to behold the splendor of the incarnate Son of God. Moreover, the commencing-hour miracle signified the abundance of new life that Jesus would make available through his baptizing in the Holy Spirit, and in his giving himself completely within the life-giving new wine of the Eucharist. Now, Jesus, at this climatic hour, will enact the reality of what that commencing-hour sign signified—that through his death and resurrection, he would become the baptizer in the Holy Spirit, and he himself will become the food and drink unto eternal life.23 The glory of the commencing hour is but the dim prophetic foreshadowing of the glory of the final hour. 22.  The Evangelist will shortly note that Jesus knew that his hour had arrived (see Jn 13:1), and Jesus begins his high priestly prayer by telling his Father that “the hour has come” (Jn 17:1). Earlier, Jesus spoke of his “time” as not yet having arrived (Jn 7:6–8). 23.  The fulfillment of what is prophetically signified in the miracle of Cana is perceived in the water and blood that pours forth from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus, that is, the sacramental signs of baptism and the Eucharist. All of the other miracle signs related to baptism are similarly fulfilled—the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethsaida (Jn 5:2–9) and the healing of the blind man wherein Jesus becomes the life-giving light of the world (Jn 8:12 and Jn 9). Also, it is in this final hour that all of the “I am” sayings are definitively enacted, for Jesus becomes the resurrection and the life.

412

Chapter 12

Jesus then declares the manner in which his glory will be manifested. “Truly, truly, I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Until his death, Jesus is but a single living grain, but through his death he will bear the fruit of the world’s salvation.24 This fruit-bearing salvation is the glory of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus’ “grain” analogy must be interpreted properly. When a seed is planted, it does not die. It ceases to be a single grain, but this “ceasing” to be a grain is not in its dying but in its sprouting into new life—a new life that bears fruit. No death occurs. If the seed died, it could not engender new life. Rather, the single grain “gives itself ” so that through the giving of itself, by which it ceases, it gives rise to a new abundance of living fruit. Jesus’ death on the cross is not, then, his demise but his sprouting into the new life of his resurrection. Jesus’ death and resurrection are progressive acts that transform the old creation of sin and death into the new creation of holiness and eternal life. In other words, as the present feast celebrates the hour that is at hand, Jesus’ death and resurrection are a passing over from death to life.25 Jesus himself makes the above clarification in what he declares next. “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” Jesus here is speaking both to himself and, as will become immediately evident, to those who follow him. If a “seed” selfishly loves “his” life, that “seed” will lose “his” life, for that “seed” will “die” having never borne fruit. Jesus is telling himself that he must “hate” his present life. He must not preserve it but lose it, for only in losing his present life, in dying, will he keep it, that is, rise to eternal life. The same is true of his disciples. “If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if anyone 24.  The Suffering Servant Song of Isaiah 53 states that while God’s servant will be bruised and made an offering for sin, “he shall see his offspring” because the Lord will “prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his and be satisfied” (Is 53:10–11). Through his suffering and death on the cross, Jesus will bear the fruit of his resurrection and so prosper in the hand of his heavenly Father. 25.  Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, when answering the question as to how the dead are to be raised, states, “What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.” Concerning human beings, “There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It [the body] is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:35–44). As the seed gives rise to a new plant, so the earthly perishable body gives rise to a new heavenly imperishable body for it shares in the risen heavenly man, Jesus (see 1 Cor 15:45–50).

The Coming of the Hour

413

serves me, the Father will honor him.” To serve Jesus, to serve the cause of the world’s salvation, one must follow Jesus, and to follow Jesus, YHWH-Saves, demands that one hate his life in this world so as to die to this world, along with him, for the salvation of others—the bearing of fruit for eternal life.26 In following Jesus unto his saving death, one will come to be where Jesus is—in the re-created life of the new creation. Jesus is here making a word play on his divine name “YHWH.” Jesus says, “where I am [eimi ego, literally ‘where am I’], there shall my servant be also.” To be a follower of Jesus will result in being where he is (eimi ego), and to be where Jesus is is to abide with him who is “I Am (ego eimi).” Moreover, if anyone serves Jesus in the salvific dying for the life-giving work of the world’s salvation, “the Father will honor him.” The Father will honor those who follow Jesus and so serve him, with the same honor that he bestowed upon Jesus, his Son—the new abundant life of the resurrection. They will then have ascended where Jesus (I Am-Saves) ascended, that is, into the very presence of his Father, He Who Is. The abundant fruit of eternal life is to live in union with Jesus, the risen incarnate Son of God, and so to live in communion with his Father, for one has been fully reborn into divine life of the Holy Spirit. One has passed over in, with, and through Jesus, into the everlasting Trinitarian kingdom of God. Despite what Jesus has just confidently declared, that by dying one gains life eternal, and that one must lose one’s earthly life in order to gain one’s heavenly life, the disquieting “hour” is upon him. “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Here we find the Johannine portrayal of Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. As in the Synoptics, confronted with the pending hour of his death, Jesus’ inner being, his heart and mind, is filled with anguish. A reluctance wells up within him. It was one thing, as the resurrection and the life, for him to stand resolutely against the death 26.  Here again we find John, through the words of Jesus, articulating his theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition as found in the Synoptics. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says that those who do not take up their cross and follow him are not worthy of him. Moreover, “he who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Mt 10:37– 39). Likewise, “If any man would come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Mt 16:24–25). Mark’s Gospel is similar: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk 8:34–35). Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, also expresses these same thoughts (see Lk 9:24, 14:26–27, and 17:32–33). If one is to be an authentic follower of Jesus and so serve him, one must take up one’s cross, as did Jesus, and so die for his sake and that of the Gospel. Only in so doing will one keep one’s life for eternity, for one will share in Jesus’ resurrection as an honored servant of the Father’s Son.

414

Chapter 12

of Lazarus, but quite another for Jesus, realizing that his own death is now approaching, to stare defiantly at death’s grim and smirking face. Should he not ask his loving Father to save him from the anguish of death? From within his tormented soul, Jesus adamantly says “no,” for the very reason that he was sent by his Father. The very purpose for which he, as the Father’ Son, became man was to “come to this hour.” If Jesus retreated from this hour now, all of his previous declarations of doing his Father’s will would prove to be lies—that he was not the Father’s obedient and faithful Son. So, within that resounding “no,” Jesus rejects his “will” and prays, “Father, glorify your name.”27 Some ancient manuscripts have “Son” in place of “name.” Is the Father to glorify himself, or is he to glorify his Son? I think that the variant “Son” is not the original but that some ancient scribe replaced “name” with “Son” because it would seem more logical that Jesus would pray that his Father glorify him in the midst of his death. Such a scribe missed the point that Jesus is making.28 Jesus prays that the Father would glorify his own name, and the act that would glorify the Father is for Jesus to offer his own life as a holy and loving sacrifice to his Father for the forgiveness of sins. Thus Jesus is praying that the Father would strengthen him in the midst of his anguish, so that, in being so fortified, he would glorify his Father through his death.29 Moreover, it is in Jesus glorifying his Father that he himself is glorified, for the Father glorifies Jesus, his Son, in the self-same act that Jesus, the Son, glorifies his Father. Jesus’ glory is in glorifying his Father, and the Father’s glory is in his glorifying Jesus, his Son. And this reciprocal glorification is enacted upon the cross—Jesus glorifying his Father and the Father glorifying his Son. This reciprocal cruciform glory efficaciously culminates in Jesus’ resurrection wherein the risen, crucified Jesus will forever 27.  Later, when he is arrested in the garden, and Peter drew his sword and cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” (Jn 18:10–11). Jesus’ words are an obvious allusion not only to what he now declares here, but also to the Synoptic account where he declares, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Mt 26:39; see also the parallels in Mark and Luke as well as Heb 5:7–8). 28.  It is more likely that “Son” was inserted in place of “name,” rather than that a scribe excised “Son” and replaced it with “name.” 29.  Later, Jesus would pray, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (Jn 17:1). The glorification of Jesus, the Son, is in his glorifying his Father, and the manner in which the Father glorifies his Son such that the Son glorifies him is through the cross. The Father is always the source of divine glory, and the Son is able to glorify him only if the Father bestows upon his Son the ability to glorify him—presently through his death on the cross. But, again, by bestowing upon his Son the ability to glorify him is to the Son’s own glory—presently through his death on the cross.

The Coming of the Hour

415

glorify his Father and the Father will forever glorify his risen, crucified Son.30 In response to Jesus’ prayer that the Father glorify his name, “a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.’ ” This heavenly voice echoes the heavenly voice found within the Synoptic Narratives of Jesus’ baptism as well as their accounts of his transfiguration. At Jesus’ baptism “a voice from heaven” declared, “This is [You are] my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11, and Lk 3:22). Within the Father’s outpouring of his commissioning Spirit, the Spirit in whom, with whom, and through whom Jesus would enact his Father’s saving work, the Father declares that Jesus is his beloved Son, for he has willingly accepted, in receiving the Father’s Spirit, his Father’s salvific task.31 Within John’s Gospel, it is John the Baptist who confirms what the Father declares in the Synoptics. Having witnessed that the Spirit descended like a dove and remained on him, John testifies that Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit, for he is “the Son of God” (Jn 1:32–34). Likewise, at the Transfiguration, “a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.’ ”32 The transfigured glory of Jesus is a prophetic enactment of his passing over, his exodus, through the glory of the cross into the glory of his resurrection. Again, the Father is pleased in his beloved Spirit-filled Son, for he is willing to undergo such a salvific passover. For this reason, his disciples should listen to him. John’s Gospel does not narrate the Transfiguration. Rather, the entire Gospel is a continual “beholding” of Jesus’ glory, “glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14). Jesus’ filial glory is initially manifested through his seven miracle signs. Now that the “hour” has arrived, his filial glory will be manifested in his glorifying his Father through his saving death on the cross. In this light, we can grasp the full meaning of the Father’s heavenly voice declaring, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” The Father has eternally glorified his name “Father” in eternally begetting of his Son, and his Son, by being God as his Father is God, is eternally glorified, for he shares fully in his Father’s eternal divine glory.33 Moreover, the Father will glorify his name again through Jesus’ 30.  That Jesus addresses his Father as “Father” concurs with the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane, particularly with regard to Mark’s account. There Jesus addresses his Father as “Abba.” Even in the midst of anguish and in his desire that his Father “remove the cup,” he affirms that his Father is his loving “Abba” (see Mt 26:27, Mk 14:36, and Lk 22:42). 31.  For a theological interpretation of the baptism of Jesus within the Synoptics, see JBJ 1:70–104. 32.  See Mt 17:5; see also Mk 9:7 and Lk 9:35. 33.  The above is keeping with what Jesus will later pray. “Father, glorify you me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made” (Jn 17:5).

416

Chapter 12

salvific death, for his incarnate Son will glorify his Father upon the cross, and in turn the filial glorification of his Father will redound to his own glory as the Father’s beloved Son in whom his Father is well pleased. This pleasure is manifested in the Father raising his beloved Son, Jesus, gloriously from the dead. What immediately follows confirms what has just been expressed. The crowd standing by heard it [the voice] and said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine. Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” He said this to show by what death he was to die. While some of those present mistook the Father’s voice for thunder, such an audible mistake is significant, for within the Old Testament, “thunder” is a sign of a theophany. When the Philistines threatened Israel, the people prayed, and Samuel offered a lamb as a sacrifice to the Lord. As he offered the sacrifice, “the Lord thundered with a mighty voice that day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion” (1 Sm 7:7–10). In his song of praise for having been delivered from all of his enemies, David sang, “The Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent arrows, and scattered them; lightening, and routed them” (2 Sam 22:14–15).34 Through the cross, the reciprocal glorification of the Father and the Son, “God” is thundering his victory over humankind’s enemies—sin and death. Others present thought that “an angel” spoke to Jesus. Remembering that this present scene began, in accord with his agony in the garden, with Jesus being troubled because his hour has come, the view that an angel spoke to Jesus is not entirely incongruous. In Luke’s Gospel, in the midst of Jesus’ agony, “there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him” (Lk 22:43). The Father’s declaration “I have glorified it [his name], and I will glorify it again” is the Father’s “strengthening” words given to his Son in the midst of his anguish. The Son is strengthened so as to glorify the name of his Father, and in so being strengthened, he will be glorified by his Father. While the above pertains to what the heavenly Father’s words mean for Jesus, Jesus redirects the significance of his Father’s word to those around him. “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine” (see also Jn 11:42). In a sense, Jesus is saying that what his Father declared that he already knew. Thus his disciples must know that the purpose and goal of the “hour”—Jesus’ death—is 34.  Psalm 18 is a variant version of David’s song; see v. 13. See also Ps 29:3 and Jb 37:4.

The Coming of the Hour

417

for Jesus to glorify his Father, and for the Father to glorify him. Jesus confirms this understanding in what he immediately states next. “Now [in this hour] is the judgment of this world, now [in this hour] shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth [in this hour], will draw all men to myself.” The present hour is the judgment of this world, for in the hour of Jesus’ death, he will condemn the sin that resides within the world. The crucified Jesus judges the world of sin by manifesting the evil of sin and sin’s condemnation. So entrenched is sin within the world that it would attempt to kill him who is devoid of all sin and who is sealed with the Spirit of holiness, all in the hope that sin’s worldly reign would be everlastingly established. Simultaneously, however, the sin that crucified Jesus is sin’s undoing, for on the cross Jesus offers, in love, his holy and innocent life to his Father. In so doing, Jesus condemns sin, those arrogant evil acts that are an affront to the all-holy God and that stand in stark disparity to his all-consuming love. The world of sin, the conceited world of defiant self-love, is slain by humble, obedient selfless love—the all-consuming love of the Father’s all-holy Son. Moreover, in his cruciform condemnation of sin, Jesus simultaneously casts out the ruler of this world of sin—Satan himself, the father of lies and the author of all sin (see Jn 8:44).35 Satan is the orchestrator of Jesus’ death. He wants to rid his evil kingdom of all that is good, and thus he perceives Jesus, God’s holy Son, as his greatest enemy. To destroy Jesus, he feels assured, will bring everlasting victory to his worldly domain of sin. But as sin is rightly condemned in Jesus’ crucifixion, so the author of sin is justly deprived of his foul kingdom. Again, Jesus’ loving sacrifice of himself puts to death the fallen world of sin, and his resurrection creates it anew—allowing sinful humanity to once more live in righteousness. Satan’s sinful world is consumed, and so transformed, into Jesus’ risen humanity, and in communion with his life-giving Spirit, the re-created world is able to obtain fellowship with his Father.36 Having judged the world and having cast out its ruler by means of the cross, Jesus could then conclude by declaring, “and I, when I am lifted up 35.  Later, Jesus states that “the ruler of this world . . . has no power over me” (Jn 14:30–31). The Book of Revelation also speaks of Satan, “the deceiver of the world,” being thrown down (Rv 12:9; see also Rv 20:1–6). 36.  Again, later, Jesus says that when he sends “the Counselor,” “he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (Jn 16:7–11). The Holy Spirit will convict of sin those who do not believe in Jesus, for Jesus is the anointed Son of the Father. Jesus’ holy righteousness is manifested in his being taken up into the presence of his all-holy Father. Lastly, the Holy Spirit will condemn the ruler of this world, for he is devoid of all holiness.

418

Chapter 12

from the earth will draw all men to myself.” Jesus will draw all men to himself because he, he who is the Father’s Son (the emphatic double “I”), will triumphantly be lifted up from the earth upon the cross, the cross that condemns sin and casts out Satan. This triumphal judgment and casting out will result in his being lifted up into the heavenly glory of his ascended resurrection.37 This one sequential efficient causal act, the lifting up that conquers all evil and the lifting up that inaugurates eternal life will in turn be the final cause that draws all of humankind to Jesus. The risen, ascended, lifted-up Jesus is the goal to which all of humankind is drawn. Those with believing eyes will perceive that only in Jesus is one lifted up out of this world of sin and death, and only in him is one lifted up so as to ascend with him into his Father’s kingdom of holiness and life. Thus the Greeks who wanted to see Jesus, and all of the faithful, will be drawn to him—the crucified, risen, ascended Jesus—for then they will see him as he truly is, YHWH-Saves.38 The Evangelist immediately interprets the significance of Jesus’ words. “He said this to show by what death he was to die”; that is, the “lifting up” would be his death upon the cross. John may have discerned this meaning at the time it was spoken, or he could have come to grasp its meaning only in hindsight. The present crowd nonetheless appears to have intuited that Jesus was speaking of his future death on the cross. “We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?”39 The crowd believes that the law has taught them that the Christ will remain forever.40 Now, Jesus confessed to the Samaritan woman that he is the Christ 37.  The prophet Isaiah states that God’s suffering servant will be lifted up on high: “Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be very high” (Is 52:13). 38.  At the conclusion of John’s Passion Narrative, a soldier pierces Jesus’ side, from which blood and water came forth. John comments that this was done in order to fulfill the Scripture: “They shall look on him whom they have pierced” (Jn 19:36–37, quoting Zec 12:10). To see Jesus, to behold and know him as he truly is, is to believe that the lifted-up Jesus is the Messiah, the Father’s Son, He Who Is—YHWH-Saves. 39.  A question arises: How could the crowd have intuited such a conclusion? The answer to this question is difficult to discern. The reader already knows that the unbelieving Jewish leaders want to kill Jesus and that they have attempted to stone him, but up until this point there has been no mention of the Jews wanting to crucify Jesus (see Jn 7:30, 7:44, 8:59, 10:31, 10:39, and 11:8). But the questions and the concerns that the crowd raises are significant. The crowd appears to want to establish that Jesus cannot be the Christ, yet the answers to their questions prove that Jesus is the Christ. 40.  There is no exact biblical reference to the Christ remaining forever. The closest allusion to such a belief may be found in Ps 89:35–37, which references David’s everlasting kingdom. “Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His line shall endure forever,

The Coming of the Hour

419

(see Jn 4:25–26). Moreover, even as the Jewish leaders want to kill him, there have been discussions among the people as to whether Jesus is the Christ (see Jn 7:25–31 and 7:40–44). Likewise, the Jewish leaders had decided that anyone who confesses Jesus to be the Christ would be cast out of the synagogue (see Jn 9:22; see also 12:42). Thus if Jesus is the Christ, and so must remain forever, how can “the Son of man” be lifted up and die on the cross? The Jews assume that the Son of man is the Christ. But Jesus does not presently say that the Son of man must be lifted up. Rather, he says, “I, when I am lifted up.” Earlier, Jesus stated that “the hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23). Here the Jews final question becomes crucial: “Who is the Son of man?” If the Son of man is the Christ, then who is the Son of man? Jesus is the Son of man, and as the Son of man the hour has come for him to be lifted up, but this hour is not to his demise, his not remaining, but it is to his everlasting glory, his remaining forever; he is therefore the Christ to whom all will be drawn. The testing questions that the disbelieving Jews ask extract the deeper significance of who Jesus is and the salvific nature of his being “lifted up.” Moreover, this is the last of the three “lifted-up” declarations and as such assumes into itself the previous two, which now find their theological culmination. Early in the Gospel, when speaking with Nicodemus, Jesus stated, “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:13–14). Later, Jesus declared, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he (ego eimi), and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me” (Jn 8:28). Jesus will ascend into heaven, for he is the Father’s heavenly Son who descended from heaven by becoming incarnate as the Son of man. As all the Israelites were drawn to look upon the serpent that Moses lifted up in order for them to be saved from death, so will all men be drawn to look upon, in faith, the lifted-up Son of man so as to be healed of death and obtain eternal life. Such will take place when the present Jewish leaders (the “you”) lift up the Son of man upon the cross, and in so doing they will come to know that Jesus, as the Father’s obedient Son, is He Who Is (ego eimi), he who says and does all in accordance with his Father’s will. Thus when Jesus presently states “I, when I am lifted up,” he is accentuating, as intimated above, that he, the man Jesus, is “I Am” (ego eimi). Because He Who his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever; it shall stand firm while the skies endure” (see also Is 9:7 and Ezek 37:25). Likewise, Psalm 110 speaks of the Lord speaking to David’s Lord: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek’ ” (Ps 110:4).

420

Chapter 12

Is is being lifted up upon the cross and into the ascending glory of heaven, he will draw all nations, through his cross, into his heavenly abode. The only conclusion to be drawn in response to the crowd’s quizzing questions is that Jesus is God’s Messiah who, as the ever remaining resurrected and ascended Son of man, is the Father’s Son. Thus to know who the Son of man is, as the Jews wish to know, to know that Jesus is the Christ, the Father’s anointed incarnated Son—He Who Is. The “lifting up,” then, not only manifests who Jesus is but is also the causal event in and through which Jesus becomes Jesus, the acts whereby he enacts his name—YHWH-Saves.41 In response to the crowd’s questions, Jesus states: The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of the light. Again, Jesus does not appear to address the crowd’s concerns directly. He does not unravel the quandary as to how the Son of man can be lifted up and yet remain forever. He does not identify the Son of man. Rather, he addresses the deeper issue, an issue that, if understood, would bring light to the crowd’s questions. Jesus recalls one of his “I am” sayings. Because he is the incarnate “I Am,” Jesus is the light who is with them, a light that will be with them for only a little while longer, for his hour is at hand.42 As Jesus previously declared, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:5). If they would walk in the light that is Jesus—that is, if they would believe in him—their darkness of unbelief would not overtake them. At present, they are in darkness, and their very questions demonstrate that they are confused and do not know where they are going. As 41. Here, once again, Daniel’s vision is significant in providing a fuller theological interpretation. I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dn 7:13–14) Jesus, as the Christ, will draw all men, peoples, nations, and languages to himself because, in being lifted up in his death and resurrection, he will be established by his Father, the Ancient One, as the ever living ruler of an everlasting kingdom. 42.  The Prologue declares that “the true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world” (Jn 1:9). The manner in which the true light came into the world was through God’s Word, the life-giving light, becoming flesh (see Jn 1:4 and 1:14).

The Coming of the Hour

421

Jesus stated earlier, “If anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him” (Jn 11:10). Since Jesus, the light of world, is presently with them, they therefore ought to believe in the light of life that he is. “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (Jn 8:12).43 If they do walk in the light that Jesus is, they will become sons of the light, for their belief in him who is the Father’s life-giving light, his eternal Son, will take them out of the darkness of sin and death, and re-create them into his own divine luminous likeness.44 Only by living within the light of Jesus will they know that he, as the lifted-up Son of man, will remain with them as the life-giving light, for he is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son—the Christ. Thus even though Jesus, as the light, is with them only for a little while longer, if they come to believe in him here on earth and so walk in his light, they will remain in his life-giving light forever.45 The Evangelist concludes this episode by stating, “When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.” As he earlier departed the temple and hid himself, so now Jesus does the same here (see Jn 8:59). He departed from the crowd, and in so doing hid himself. This “hiding” is not simply his physically removing himself from the crowd and secretively concealing his whereabouts, even though he did that. Rather, his physical departing from the crowd denotes that he who is the light of the world is abandoning them to the darkness of their unbelief. This is confirmed by what John immediately states as he moves to his own theological interpretative summary of the Book of Signs. Disbelief in the Midst of Glory Having noted that Jesus departed and hid himself from the crowd, John laments, “Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not 43.  In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells his disciples not to be concerned about the Pharisees: “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit” (Mt 15:14; see also Mt 23:16 and 23:24 and Lk 6:39). 44.  Paul tells the Ephesians that they “once were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light” (Eph 5:8). 45.  The above is in keeping with the Prologue. There the eternal Word of God, who is God, is the life-giving light of all men—the light that dispelled the darkness of nothingness (see Jn 1:1–5, 1:9). As the incarnate Word of God, Jesus is the life-giving light that dispels the darkness of sin and death and re-creates all men. Those who believe in Jesus, as the Father’s Son, are assumed into the life-giving light of Jesus’ resurrection and so transformed into his luminous filial likeness (see Jn 1:12).

422

Chapter 12

believe in him.”46 Though the Evangelist narrated only seven signs, the reader is aware that Jesus enacted many more.47 What follows is John’s last attempt, within the Book of Signs, to elicit faith from his readers, specifically, I believe, his Jewish brethren. He immediately quotes passages from Isaiah that illustrate the disbelief among the Jews throughout their long history, but in so doing, he wishes to draw them to faith so that they would not be like their unbelieving ancestors. Rather, he wants them to behold the glory of Jesus, the glory seen by their Jewish forebear, Isaiah. The present disbelief among the Jews is, then, the fulfillment of what the prophet Isaiah himself lamented. “ ‘Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ Therefore, they could not believe.”48 This Isaiah passage is taken from the last “suffering servant song” (see Is 52:13–53:12). The report that has not been believed is that the Lord’s servant “shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.” Such an exalted lifting up on high is achieved even though “many were astonished at him.” The reason for such bewilderment is that “his appearance was so marred, beyond human resemblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men . . . he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” Yet this same man “bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we were healed.” The Lord made him “an offering for sin,” and therefore the Lord “will prolong his days.” He “shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied,” for “the righteous one, my servant, will make many to be accounted righteous” (all the above quotes are taken from Is 52:13–53:12). This is “the report” that is not believed. 46.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 12:37–43 unless otherwise noted. 47.  See Jn 2:23, 7:31, and 20:30. 48.  John is quoting Is 53:1. Moses expresses this same lament. “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders; but to this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (Dt 29:2–4). Within the Synoptics, Jesus himself expresses the same: “To you [his twelve Apostles] has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mk 4:10–12; see also parallels). In his Letter to the Romans, Paul quotes the same passage from Isaiah (see Rom 10:16).

The Coming of the Hour

423

Here we perceive that John, in quoting the Suffering Servant Song, is both looking back and looking forward. He is looking back to what Jesus has said previously and looking forward to what will ensue in the remainder of his Gospel. For John, Jesus is the servant whose hour of suffering is at hand. Within this hour of travail, however, he will glorify his Father and so will himself be glorified. In this hour, Jesus’ soul will be troubled, yet he will bear humankind’s grief and be bruised for humankind’s offenses, for this is the hour for which he has come—for his Father has made him an offering for sin. He is the grain of wheat that will die and so bear the fruit of righteousness for many. In being lifted up upon the cross, he will be marred beyond human resemblance, a man from whom others will hide their faces. He will be despised and rejected, a man smitten by God. Yet he will draw all men to himself, for he will condemn the world of sin and cast out its ruler. In so doing, Jesus’ cross and resurrection will be the light of the world by which, through which, and in which he will lead humankind out of the darkness of sin and death and into the glory of his Father’s presence. For John, all that Jesus had previously said is but his embracing Isaiah’s prophecy—“to show the type of death he was to die” (Jn 12:33). As the Father’s suffering servant Son, Jesus will be lifted up upon the cross and pass over into the glory of his ascending resurrection, and his days will be prolonged forever. John’s looking back to what Jesus declared through the prophetic eyes of Isaiah is simultaneously a looking forward. John has taken Isaiah’s prophetic words and made them the hermeneutic for interpreting the remainder of his Gospel—Jesus’ high priestly prayer and the passion narrative. All that follows will be but Jesus acting out, and so fulfilling, all that Isaiah had foretold. To behold Jesus, YHWH-Saves, on the cross is to behold the glorious triumph of God’s obedient and faithful messianic suffering servant Son. Now, in fulfillment of Isaiah, this revelation is not believed by the present Jews, yet for John, that does not necessitate that it cannot be believed by his fellow contemporary Jewish readers. In quoting Isaiah, John is explicitly exhorting them to believe, for in their belief they would believe what the Lord their God himself revealed to their own ancestor Isaiah. John emphatically makes this point with his next passage from Isaiah. “For Isaiah again said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and turn for me to heal them.’ ”49 49.  John is quoting Is 6:10. In Isaiah, however, it is God who is telling him, “Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” Thus God is not directly blinding the eyes and closing the ears of the Israelites, but he is working through Isaiah. Nonetheless, the effect is the same.

424

Chapter 12

God blinded the eyes of many of the Jews during Jesus’ earthly life. Their hearts were hardened in unbelief, and thus they could not turn to God who would heal them. There is an unfathomable mystery here, yet what was enacted within the above interchange between Jesus and the Jewish crowd, and which the Evangelist is now interpreting, bears upon what John/Jesus states early on.50 God so loved the world that he sent his only Son. All who believe in him will not perish but will have eternal life. But those who do not believe in him are condemned. This is the judgment that the light has come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God. (Jn 3:16–21) In response to the Jews wanting to know who is the Son of man, Jesus spoke of himself as the light in which the Jews should now walk, lest they be overcome by darkness. If they believe in the light, they will become sons of the light. For John, however, many Jews, in their heart-hardened unbelief, freely love darkness more than they love the light because their deeds are evil—they desire to kill Jesus. Thus they hate the light that Jesus is as the Father’s beloved Son. While such is the case during Jesus’ earthly life, however, it again does not necessitate, for John, that the contemporary Jews must remain in the darkness of unbelief. Their deeds need not be evil, and so they need not fear to come into the light, that is, believe in Jesus, the beloved Son whom the Father sent in love so as to give them eternal life. Such an understanding is corroborated by John’s rather enigmatic concluding statement, “Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” John had just quoted from Isaiah 6:10, but chapter 6 begins by narrating Isaiah’s divine vision. He saw “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.” Above the Lord stood the seraphim covered with six wings, and they called to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” Isaiah is filled with woe, for he who is unclean and dwells in the midst of an unclean people has “seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” God sends one of the seraphim with a burning coal to purify Isaiah’s lips and forgive his sins. The Lord then asks whom he shall send. Isaiah 50.  Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, addresses more fully the “mystery” of the Jews’ disbelief in Jesus (see Rom 9–11).

The Coming of the Hour

425

responds, “Here am I! Send me” (Is 6:1–9). Only then does God instruct Isaiah to make fat the hearts of the Israelites and the like (Is 6:10). Thus it was because he beheld the glory of the Lord and was anointed to speak that Isaiah declared what he did. Now, for John, Isaiah did not behold God simply as God, but the one whom he prophetically beheld is the glorious Jesus, the Father’s Spirit-filled Son, high and lifted up—he who is the King and Lord of hosts.51 What Isaiah beheld is what the unbelieving Jews do not see, for their eyes are blind and their hearts are hard. Thus they will not be healed. For John, his fellow Jews are nonetheless capable of beholding what Isaiah beheld, for what he prophetically beheld is now a reality. The glorious risen Jesus is in their midst, he who is the Father’s messianic Son. He is their King and Lord who can purify them of sin and give them eternal life with the heavenly seraphic hosts.52 Having bemoaned the lack of faith among the Jews, what John says next may at first sight appear surprising. “Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him.” Yet if I am correct that John, in the above, is addressing his contemporary unbelieving brethren, he now underscores that many Jews, even among those in authority, do believe in Jesus—in order to encourage those who read his Gospel to dos so as well. But he gives expression as to why they may not be willing to do so—“but for fear of the Pharisees, they did not confess it lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise 51.  Within the Christian theological and liturgical tradition the seraphic thrice-proclaimed “holy” is perceived as a prophetic expression of the Trinity. The incarnate Jesus embodies this threefold holiness—He is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son. Thus he is the revelation of the eternal all-holy Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 52.  John’s theological interpretation of Isaiah prophetically beholding the glorious Jesus as the Father’s incarnate Son is in keeping with what Jesus earlier declared to the Jews: “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” In response, the Jews note that Jesus is not yet fifty years old, so how could he have seen Abraham? To this objection Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi).” Because Jesus is He Who Is as the Father’s eternal Son, Abraham could rejoice in foreseeing his day and Jesus could have seen Abraham (Jn 8:56–58). Thus Abraham rejoiced in foreseeing the day of Jesus’ resurrected glory, and Isaiah prophetically beheld his resurrected glory. Moreover, as Jesus situated himself within the origins of the Jewish nation and its subsequent history, so John places him within the prophetic tradition. This is, then, similar to the Synoptic narratives of the Transfiguration where Jesus, in his transfigured glory, appeared along with Moses (representing the law) and Elijah (representing the prophets). Likewise, as the Transfiguration prophetically portrayed Jesus passing over from death to life (his exodus), so John now tells “by what death he was to die,” that is, a crucified death wherein he will pass over into the glory of his resurrection. Again, the whole of John’s Gospel is a transfiguring narrative—“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn 1:14).

426

Chapter 12

of men more than the praise of God” (see Jn 9:22). Fear, not faith, prevails. The loss of good standing among their Jewish peers and the threat of being ostracized from their Jewish community compel them to silence. For John the reluctance, bred on fear, to confess faith in Jesus among the present Jews is the same unwillingness that he perceives among his contemporary Jewish fellowmen. By noting it so blatantly, he hopes to spur them on to a courageous profession of faith. Lastly, John observes that the heart of the problem is their love of human praise more than their love of God’s praise. Only if they would simply desire and love being praised by God more than anything else, then, without any hesitancy, would they step forth in faith by believing in Jesus, his Son. For John, what Jew would not want to be praised and honored by their very own all-good and loving God—YHWH?53 Jesus Cried Out Although he said that Jesus had departed, having hid himself, the Evangelist now has Jesus once more, seemingly out of nowhere, step out upon the stage. He is giving Jesus the last word as he concludes the Book of Signs, and Jesus’ last words are once more a desperate cry for faith. “Jesus cried out and said, ‘He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me.’ ”54 Given the context of the entire Book of Signs—that is, his continuous contentious dialogues with the Jews wherein he attempts to reveal himself to them only to have them reject him—Jesus is presently making one last effort. Moreover, he is doing so following upon the Evangelist’s own final effort. Likewise, as John was addressing not only the Jews within the Gospel itself but more so his contemporary unbelieving Jewish brethren, so now John has Jesus addressing this same Jewish audience. Thus Jesus stresses that anyone who believes in him believes not in him but in him who sent him. To believe that Jesus is the Father’s Son is ultimately to believe in the Son’s Father, for it is the Son’s Father who sent the Son. His Father is the initiator of his Son’s sending and, therefore faith ultimately is in 53.  Earlier, Jesus himself asked his Jewish interlocutors, “How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (Jn 5:44). Interestingly, Jesus continues by saying it is not he who will accuse them of disbelief. “It is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:45–46). For John, Jesus is not simply addressing those present, but all Jews in subsequent generations. 54.  All Scripture passages in this section are taken from Jn 12:44–50 unless otherwise noted.

The Coming of the Hour

427

him who is the sender.55 Moreover, those who truly see the man Jesus through the eyes of faith, and so believe that he is the Father’s Son, behold him who sent him, that is, the Father. To see Jesus, the incarnate Father’s Son, is to see the Father, for the Son is by nature the perfect image of his Father.56 Jesus wants the Jews to recognize that to believe in him is to believe fully in their ancestral God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the God of Moses and the prophets. Likewise, to see truly and fully the one true God of Israel is to see in faith that Jesus is God’s Son, for God is the one who sent him precisely so that they might come to such fullness of faith and knowledge. The end for which God sent his Son into the world is to provide the Jews, and humankind, access to him through his Son, so that he could be their loving Father. Jesus here is professing what the Evangelist proclaims in the Prologue. “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). Jesus continues by taking up again the theme of light: “I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness” (see also Jn 8:12 and 9:5). Prior to his departing, Jesus emphasized that the light is with the Jews for a little while longer, and if they believe in the light, they will become sons of the light (see Jn 12:35–36). As the one who was sent into the world by the Father, Jesus has come as the light of the world. As the light through which God gave life to the world, the life-giving light that dispelled the darkness of nothingness, so Jesus is now sent by his Father into the world as 55.  Later, Jesus will tell his disciples, “Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me” (Jn 14:1). Jesus also later expands the order of reception. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (Jn 13:20). Thus he who receives those who preach the Gospel, and so believes in Jesus, receives not only Jesus but also the Father who sent him. Jesus states the same within Matthew’s Gospel. “He who receives you [his disciples] receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (Mt 10:40; see also Lk 10:16). 56.  Again, later, in response to Philip’s request that he show them the Father, Jesus responds, “Have I been with you so long, and you do know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves” (Jn 14:8–11). The Son, being the Father’s Son, dwells in the Father; and the Father, being the Son’s Father, dwells in the Son. This mutual indwelling, this perichoresis, is perceived in that the salvific works that the incarnate Son enacts are the saving acts of the Father dwelling in communion with him. If Philip does not believe what Jesus says, he should believe because of the saving works, for such works can only be performed by the Father. That the Father does them through the human acts of Jesus manifests that Jesus is the Father’s Son, and thus they together act in unison—as one. “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30).

428

Chapter 12

the re-creating life-giving light, so that those who believe in him will not persist in the darkness of sin and death but have eternal life. Jesus also returns to the theme of judgment. “If anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” Here, in conjunction with his being the light of the world, we find Jesus reiterating that to which the Evangelist himself previously alluded. So much did God love the world, that he “sent his Son not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:17). Those who believe in the Son are saved, but those who do not believe are “condemned already.” They are judged not by Jesus but by their own unbelief—they have “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (Jn 3:18–19). Thus Jesus concludes: He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me. At the onset of his final words, Jesus said that the person who believes in him “believes not in him, but in him who sent him,” that is, the Father. So now the opposite is equally true. The person who rejects him by not receiving his sayings will be condemned on the last day by the words he has spoken, for the words he has spoken are not his own but those given to him by his Father. Thus to reject Jesus, he who is God’s Word incarnate, and so to discard his words, is to reject the Father, for the words Jesus speaks are spoken by the Father’s Word. Now the Father has commanded him what he is to say. Jesus knows that this commandment is eternal life.57 What is, then, the commanded word that the Father has given to Jesus to speak—a commanded word that is eternal life? We could answer that everything that Jesus says is the commanded word that is eternal life. But this commanded word that is eternal life is Jesus’ revelation of himself—he is the Father’s commanded Word of eternal life. His being the commanded Word of eternal life is what Jesus knows, and this is what he has been commanded to reveal—himself, for in the revelation of himself he 57.  Earlier, Jesus similarly declares, “He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (Jn 5:23–24).

The Coming of the Hour

429

reveals his Father, who is the source of eternal life. All of the enacted seven miracle signs bespeak that in him is eternal life: the miracle signs of rebirth in the Spirit through baptism; the multiplication of the loaves, which signifies Jesus’ life-giving bread-given risen body; and the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which denotes that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Moreover, Jesus is the Father’s commanded Word, for he is the bread of life, the life-giving light of the world, and the door that gives entrance to his life-giving Father. He is the good shepherd who leads his sheep to life-giving pastures; the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth, and the life through whom alone all come to the Father; and the true vine who nourishes the branches on the divine life of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the coalescence of the seven miracle signs and the seven “I am” sayings find their source in the truth that Jesus, as the Father’s Son, is He Who Is (ego eimi). As the incarnate He Who Is, Jesus is the Father’s commanded Word, his sent Word, of eternal life. All of the above is what the Father has bidden him to say and do—and this commanded Word of eternal life will find its completion when Jesus’ work is finished upon his being lifted up upon the cross and into the glory of his resurrection. Then Jesus will be the definitive commanded Word of eternal life, for he will be the resurrected, commanded, life-giving Word in act. He will have actualized his name—YHWH-Saves. Conclusion Chapter 12 of John’s Gospel, being composed of five intertwining scenes, is complex not only in structure but also in theological content. By way of conclusion, for the sake of clarity, I simply want to highlight a number of the theological themes and the manner in which they are woven together. First, the central theological context of the entire chapter is that of the imminent Passover—six days hence (see Jn 12:1). With the impending Passover, Jesus’ hour has arrived—the hour of his passing over from death to life. Thus Jesus will become the new Passover, the fulfillment of what the Mosaic Passover anticipated. In keeping with John’s overarching theme of re-creation, Jesus is passing over from sin and death into the resurrected and liberating life of the new creation, wherein one obtains eternal life. Second, the celebratory thanksgiving meal given for Jesus at Martha’s and Mary’s house on the occasion of Lazarus being raised from the dead actuates this Passover theme. The meal, where Jesus holds pride of place, is itself a prophetic Eucharistic festive banquet, and Lazarus is the living sacramental sign of Jesus being the resurrection and the life. Mary’s anointing of Jesus signifies that, as the Christ, his death will be a fragrant sacrifice to his Father

430

Chapter 12

by which death will be put to death and new Spirit-filled life will arise in his heavenly resurrection. Third, Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is occasioned both by Lazarus being raised from the dead and by Jesus being the cause of such a life-giving sign. Moreover, this triumphal entry prophetically enacts that Jesus will establish the new Jerusalem, for within Jerusalem he will become the new high priest who will offer the perfect Passover sacrifice of himself and so, in his resurrection, literally embody the new, living, and everlasting temple. To the jubilant crowd Jesus comes in the name of their Lord God, YHWH—“even the King of Israel” (Jn 12:13). Jesus will become Israel’s everlasting king, for he will establish Israel’s never-ending kingdom of life, which the risen Lazarus presently symbolizes. It is to this sign that the crowds bear witness. The frustrated Pharisees, in turn, bemoan the fact that they can do nothing, for the whole world is going after Jesus (see Jn 12:17–19). Fourth, while some Greeks wish to see Jesus, they will only properly come to know who he is when Jesus, like a grain of wheat, dies so as to bear the fruit of salvation (see Jn 12:20–27). Despite the fact that he must lose his life in order to gain eternal life, Jesus is troubled by the approach of his impending crucifixion. Should he ask his Father to save him from this hour? No, for it was for this hour that the Father sent him into the world and for which he became the Son of God incarnate. Thus Jesus prays that the Father would strengthen him so that he can glorify his Father and in so doing be glorified by his Father. Jesus’ crucifixion, the hour of his glorifying of his Father and of his Father glorifying him, is at hand, when the sinful world will be judged and the ruler of this iniquitous world will be cast out. Thus Jesus, in being lifted up upon the cross and into his glorious resurrection, will draw all of humankind to himself, including the Gentiles represented by the present Greeks, for they will, in beholding Jesus, see their liberation from sin and death and the source of their new and eternal life (see Jn 12:27–32). While Jesus, as the light of truth in the midst of the darkness of unbelief, will remain for only a little while longer, those who believe in him will become sons of the light, for they will partake of his risen glory as the Father’s ever remaining Christ, the Father’s incarnate Son (see Jn 12:34–36). We perceive in all of the above that, within the pending Passover, Jesus will pass over from death to life and in so doing bear the fruit of salvation, for he will become the resurrection and the life of all who behold him in the light of faith. Fifth, with Jesus’ departure from the crowd, the Evangelist addresses, in the final two scenes, the issue that has been intensifying throughout the Book of Signs—the belief and unbelief of the Jews. Despite having worked many signs,

The Coming of the Hour

431

many Jews, particularly the Jewish leaders, do not believe in Jesus. For John, such disbelief fulfills the words of Isaiah the prophet. As their ancestors refused to believe what God revealed in the past, so the present Jews refuse to believe what he is doing through Jesus, his Son. Because of the hardness of their hearts, they refuse to be healed of the sin that enslaves them. Unlike Isaiah, they have not seen the glory of Jesus, the very one of whom Isaiah spoke. The Evangelist notes that some of the Jewish authorities do believe, but because of fear they remain silent and refuse to confess their faith, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (Jn 12:36–43). Sixth, John has Jesus himself cry out. Jesus assures the Jews, both the ones to whom he speaks and those in the future, that those who believe in him actually believe in the one who sent him—the one true God of Israel, YHWH. Jesus again underscores that he is the light that has come into the world, and that those who believe in him will not walk in the darkness of sin and death. He will not judge those who disbelieve because he has come not to judge, but to save the world. Their judge will be his word, for he has spoken not on his authority but on his Father’s. His Father’s commandment is that he is to reveal himself as the Father’s Son and in so doing reveal the Father himself. To believe that Jesus is the Father’s incarnate Son is to possess eternal life, for he, as is his Father, is He Who Is (see Jn 12:44–50). What we perceive, then, throughout chapter 12 is the intertwining scenes wherein the narrative is revealing the manner in which Jesus is and will enact his name. The raising of Lazarus, his passing from death to life, prophetically anticipates what will ensue in the coming Passover hour—Jesus himself passing over from death to life. His passing over from the cross to the resurrection will initiate the re-creation of all who believe in him. Jesus will become the resurrection and the life, and so be the life-giving light of the world. Jesus will be Jesus, YHWH-Saves. Those who believe in him will no longer walk in the darkness of sin and death but will walk in the life-giving light that is Jesus himself. These saving works are not enacted by Jesus alone, nor do those who believe in him abide alone. His works are the works of his Father, and they are performed in communion with the Holy Spirit, for Jesus is the Father’s Christ. Thus to abide in Jesus the Christ is to abide in his Father and so to live within the Trinity. To abide with the Father, within the risen humanity of his Son, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is to possess eternal life, for together they are the one YHWH-Saves.

n

Conclusion

W

e have come to the end of the first twelve chapters of John’s Gospel, and so to the conclusion of the first volume of my theological interpretation of his Gospel. In the introduction, as a preliminary bookend to our present study, I provided a brief preview of what we would find in our theological interpretation of John’s Gospel. In this conclusion, I draw together the major various intertwining themes that we have identified thus far within the Gospel. This concluding complementary bookend will help the reader summarily retain and gratifyingly appreciate all of the interrelated theological motifs we have now found, as well as the manner in which they together enhance and illumine one another, and so John’s entire Gospel. The Historicity of John’s Gospel First, I want to address, briefly, the historicity of John’s Gospel. We readily saw in the introduction that this Gospel differs from that of the Synoptics. On the one hand, many of Jesus’ teachings and actions that make up the Synoptics are absent in John, for example, Jesus’ parables, many of his miracles, Peter’s profession of faith, and the Transfiguration. On the other hand, much of the content in John’s Gospel does not appear in the Synoptics; for example, all of his miracles, except for the multiplication of the loaves, are unique to John. Moreover, Jesus, in John’s Gospel, speaks in a more stylized manner and on topics that differ from the Synoptics. In John, Jesus speaks and acts with a divine gravitas that is often absent in his more down-to-earth Synoptic persona. Although the reader recognizes that it is one and the same Jesus who is speaking and acting in all four Gospels, in John, he is more formally solemn, forthright, and authoritative. 432

Conclusion

433

Likewise, John’s “Jesus” intentionally focuses more, in his words and actions, in revealing who he is in relation to his Father as the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son. Because of these dissimilarities between the Synoptics and John, the question arose as to whether John’s Gospel and “his” Jesus are historical in nature or “theologically created.” I have answered that both are true. That John’s Gospel presents historical events is perceived in the detail that he provides, detail that is often absent or more generalized in the Synoptic accounts. For example, John provides much more detail as to the setting of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple than do the Synoptics. Also, where the Synoptic narratives of the multiplication of the loaves and fish speak of unnamed disciples coming to Jesus with their concern about the crowd needing to go to the villages to purchase food, John provides a dialogue between Jesus, Philip, and Andrew. Similarly, John’s Gospel includes conversations that are theologically stylized, that is, narratively structured so as to make a theological point but are nonetheless narrated as historical encounters and should be read as such. Some examples are his conversation with his mother at the wedding feast of Cana; with Nicodemus concerning baptism; with the Samaritan woman; and with Martha and Mary about the possibility of raising Lazarus from the dead. Likewise, as is evident in the above examples, historical individuals within the Gospel are allotted much fuller speaking roles. This is especially true of the Apostles. Where Peter has the major speaking role in the Synoptics, in John, we also frequently hear the voices of Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, James, Thomas, Judas Thaddaeus, and even Judas Iscariot. The same is true with regard to the multiple contentious dialogues between Jesus and the unbelieving Jewish leaders. The “Jews” are permitted to express their arguments at length as to why Jesus cannot be the Christ, the Son of God. Again, these may be theologically formalized, but that such verbal conflict historically took place cannot be denied. Thus, unlike the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, whose authors were writing from within a common oral Gospel tradition and were thus dependent upon the shared abridged witness of others, John, in the above examples and others, is describing events in which he himself was a participant. He tells us, often in some detail, what he saw and heard.1 The one voice we do not hear is that of John himself—the beloved disciple. Such an absence brings us to John’s inspired theological creativity, a creativity that resides within his historical narrative. In the introduction and throughout our study, I have argued that John is providing his own theological interpretation of the one apostolic kerygmatic 1.  The historicity of John’s Gospel is also seen within his description of places and locations within Jerusalem, such as the temple, the Pool of Bethsaida, and the Pool of Siloam.

434

Conclusion

Gospel tradition, an oral tradition that finds its threefold written expression within the Synoptic Gospels. Thus within his Gospel the Evangelist offers a more profound theological reading of Jesus’ words and actions—often different from what is commonly found within the Synoptics. He accomplishes this by interweaving history and theology. The events are historical, but John recounts them in a manner that brings to the fore their full theological meaning and revelational significance. Moreover, when Jesus speaks in John’s Gospel, what we hear is Jesus’ voice, but the content of what he says derives from John. Because John is confident, being inspired by the Holy Spirit that he has grasped the fuller truth of Jesus’ words and actions, he places in Jesus’ mouth the meaning of those truths that he himself has ascertained. John unapologetically does so because he grasps, as the beloved disciple, that these revealed truths originate, find their source, in Jesus himself. He is merely attributing to Jesus what Jesus himself rightly revealed within his own historical words and actions. Thus we may not always hear the ipsissima verba of Jesus, his exact historical words, but what we do hear is the enriched theological meaning contained in Jesus’ historical words—the fuller ipsissima sententia of Jesus that John now provides. Such an understanding accounts for why Jesus’ manner of speaking in John’s Gospel differs from the way he speaks in the Synoptics. In his Gospel the Evangelist does not portray himself as the theologian, but Jesus as “the theologian,” the incarnate Word of God, who now articulates in his own words the inherent truth of who he is as the Father’s Son, the one sent by his Father so as to enact, as the Messiah, his Father’s saving works.2 What must always be kept in mind, then, when reading and interpreting the Gospel of John, is the Evangelist’s goal. He has so written his Gospel, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31).3 Thus there is within John’s Gospel a weaving together of historical narrative and theological interpretation, a theological interpretation that John often attributes to Jesus himself. Importantly for John, this interweaving of history and theology grounds divine revelation within history, as manifested in Jesus as the Father’s incarnate Son. The Gospel is therefore genuinely historical and 2.  Because John’s Gospel is a theological interpretation of the one Gospel tradition, I have argued that John’s Gospel becomes a hermeneutical tool for interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels contain revelatory material absent from John, and so contain their own theological importance apart from John, they can also, in many instances, be interpreted in light of John’s Gospel. Ultimately, the full revelation of who Jesus is, what he teaches, and the saving actions he performs are found in the fourfold telling of the one Gospel. 3.  Although John’s Gospel does not contain Peter’s profession of faith, the entirety of his Gospel is written to foster such faith in the reader and so profess, in union with Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Conclusion

435

not the result of some cleverly concocted ahistorical myth. The historical Jesus is the saving Christ in whom we believe. The Prologue As John, in his Gospel, weaves together history and theology, so in the Prologue he conjoins eternity and time. Before time began, “the beginning,” the Word eternally existed because he eternally was with the eternal God. Being eternally with God, the Word, before “the beginning” began, was eternally God. Such is John’s declaration of eternity—the eternal living communion of God and his Word. It was through his eternal divine Word that God created all that came to be, “the beginning” that began. What is eternal is the author of time, for what came to be through the eternal Word had a beginning and thus exists in time and progresses throughout history. The act of creation, then, is the act that differentiates God and creation, eternity and time. God and creation exist in distinct ontological orders. Yet, simultaneously, the act of creation is the ontological bonding of eternity and time, and the bond that binds together eternity and time is God’s eternal Word, the Word through whom God created all time-bound creatures. For John, while God and creation exist in distinct ontological orders, they are nonetheless ontologically inseparable, for his eternal Word keeps all creation in being, and in so doing he keeps all creation united to God whose Word he is. Moreover, for John, this eternal Word is life, and this life is the light of men. The first light that shone in the darkness of nothingness was the created manifestation, the “Let there be light” of the Book of Genesis, of the eternal abundant life of the Word himself. Through this primordial life-giving light of God’s Word, all else comes to be, and what men behold, when they come to be, is the light of the Word, the Word who gave them life. Simultaneously, in beholding the light of God’s Word, humankind would perceive God’s full Truth, he who truly is—the eternal I Am. Thus, possessing the fullness of life and truth, the Word dispels both the darkness of nothingness and the darkness of ignorance, a twofold darkness that can never overcome him. The eternal Word, the true light that enlightens humankind was coming into the world, the world that he himself had created. But the world that the Word created did not recognize him. Even though he came to his own covenanted people, the Jews, he was not received by them. This lack of recognition and of reception denotes the darkness of sin. What God created through his Word and those whom God covenanted to himself through his Word are now

436

Conclusion

in the grip of sin’s dark death. Nonetheless, the Prologue declares that those who received the Word, by believing in his name, become children of God and are thus born anew not by human will nor of human causality but by God himself. Here the Evangelist is asserting the principal theme of his Gospel. The eternal Word through whom God created all that is, the Word who is the life-giving light, is the same Word through whom God will now re-create the world and transform men and women, through the Holy Spirit, into his children. How will God, through his Word, in communion with the Spirit, obtain this goal? This salvific end is initiated by the Word coming to exist as man, in the weakness of human flesh (sarx) and dwelling among humankind. Thus the eternal Word of God came to exist as man, a son of fallen Adam, and so tabernacled, pitched his tent, in the world and among the people he himself had created. He did so to re-create all that he had made, for he came full of grace and truth. The incarnation of God’s Word enabled human beings to see his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father. Although the law was given through Moses, grace upon grace is given through Jesus Christ. The Father re-creates humankind through the man named Jesus (YHWH-Saves), he who is his Spirit-anointed Son. Moreover, being the Father’s ever bosomabiding Son, Jesus will make his Father known and so reveal that his Father is truly humankind’s loving and merciful Father. Significantly, John’s Prologue, and particularly his declaration concerning the Incarnation that the Word became flesh, is the ontological basis for why Jesus is named Jesus—YHWH-Saves. First, Jesus is truly YHWH-Saves because his identity, who he is, is that of the eternal divine Word of God, the only Son from the Father. If Jesus were not such, he would not be truly YHWH and so would be incapable of saving humankind. Second, as YHWH, Jesus is able to save humankind because he is fully a member of the human race—he is genuinely man/sarx. If he were not an authentic human being, he would not be able to save those who are human. Third, the incarnational “becoming” is such that it terminates in the Word/Son ontologically existing as man. Only in existing as man is the Word/Son/YHWH able to save those who exist in a human manner. Thus Jesus’ human name, YHWH-Saves, bears within it the entire threefold truth of the Incarnation, that he who saves is truly God who truly exists as truly man. I have summarized John’s Prologue at some length because it is rightly the preamble to all that will follow. All that it declared will be advanced and enacted, and so confirmed, within the body of the Gospel. The reader will see the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father, and this glory will be

Conclusion

437

beheld in, with, and through Jesus’ flesh. Because God’s Word exists as man, the glory of the Father’s Son shines forth from his frail humanity—the eternal life-giving light that the darkness of sin and death cannot overcome. Jesus will be seen as Jesus—YHWH-Saves. John the Baptist and the First Disciples John introduces Jesus not only through his Prologue but also through John the Baptist and the calling of Jesus’ first disciples. The Baptist is adamant that he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. Rather, he declares that he is the one sent by God, in accordance with Isaiah, to prepare for the coming Lord, he who is the anticipated Christ and the foretold prophet. Although John baptizes with water, there is one coming after him who is greater, one who existed before him. That man, Jesus, is the Lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world. Moreover, because the Baptist saw the Spirit descend and remain upon Jesus, he can assert that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit, for he is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son. Following upon the Baptist’s declaration, the Evangelist narrates the calling of Jesus’ first disciples. Two men who heard John followed Jesus, wanting to know where he resided. Jesus invites them to come and see. Upon staying with Jesus for the day, one of them, Andrew (the unnamed other is probably the Evangelist himself ), went to his brother, Peter, and announced that they had found the Messiah. As God’s anointed one, Jesus abides not simply in some earthly domicile but with his Father. In coming to Jesus, this is what the disciples saw. Jesus then seeks out Philip, who may be a Gentile, and invites him to follow him. Philip, in turn, finds Nathanael and informs him that they had found him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael is skeptical that anything good could come from Nazareth, but upon meeting Jesus, who declared him to be a true Israelite and that he saw him under the fig tree, Nathanael professes that Jesus is the Son of God and the King of Israel. Thus the Evangelist portrays Jesus’ first followers as avowing, by means of various titles, who Jesus is. He is the Messiah, the prophetically foretold prophet, the Son of God, and the King of Israel. The remainder of the Gospel will confirm, in the midst of Jewish denial, that Jesus is indeed all that the Baptist proclaimed and the disciples professed. This confirmation will be witnessed, within the Book of Signs, in Jesus’ miracles, his fulfilling of various liturgical feasts, and in Jesus’ own declarations of who he is—his “I am” sayings.

438

Conclusion

Signs, Feasts, and Sayings The Book of Signs is designated as such because it contains Jesus’ seven miracle/signs. Within all of these signs, as the Prologue anticipated, the reader beholds the glory of Jesus as the Father’s Son. Thus, although John’s Gospel does not contain Jesus’ transfiguration, his entire Gospel is an ever progressing narrative in which the reader beholds his glory. Moreover, all of these miracle signs prophetically reveal and manifest Jesus’ saving ministry, a ministry that will find its fulfillment in his death and resurrection—the transfiguring hour of his glory. Jesus’ first miracle sign is that of changing water into wine at the marriage feast at Cana. This sign, which initiated his public ministry and so the onset of his hour, signifies both the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Not only does the water allude to the cleansing of sin and the new life of the Holy Spirit, but it also progresses, through the miracle of becoming wine, to the partaking of the Eucharist, the abundance of life that is found by abiding in Jesus through sharing in his risen body and blood. Two further miracles likewise manifest the rejuvenating life that comes through baptism—the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethsaida and the healing of the man born blind at the Pool of Siloam.4 Textually interwoven within these two miracles is Jesus’ exchanges with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. Jesus informs Nicodemus that only if one is born anew of water and the Holy Spirit can one enter the kingdom of God. To the Samaritan woman, Jesus declares that he has water to give that will well up to eternal life. Thus the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethsaida and the healing of the man born blind at the Pool of Siloam signify, and so confirm, Jesus’ ability to re-create, to make new, those who are born anew in the Spirit-filled waters of baptism—the welling up of eternal life. As the Father’s Spirit-filled Son, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as the Prologue attested, those who believe in the name of Jesus will become, by the power of God, the Father’s children. With the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, John’s Gospel proceeds to Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse. The abundance of bread signifies the bounteous life that abides in Jesus himself. In this context, we find the first of seven “I am” sayings—“I am the bread of life.” Jesus himself, as the incarnate Father’s Sent Son, is the true bread that has come down from heaven, and those who partake of his body and drink of his blood, even though they die, will live forever. By consuming the risen body and blood of Jesus, one comes into 4. For the sake of brevity, I will not comment on all of Jesus’ miracle signs within this conclusion.

Conclusion

439

communion with the risen gloried Jesus himself and so shares not only in his resurrection but also in his divinity. By abiding in the risen Jesus, the Messiah, one comes to abide in He Who Is (the I Am) and so is elevated into the very presence of his heavenly Father—one abides with the Father in communion with the Son through the indwelling of the life-giving Spirit. What we then perceive within John’s narration of these miracle signs, accompanied by Jesus’ teaching, is the Trinitarian nature of these sacraments, and thus the Trinitarian character of salvation. For John, the Father sent his Son into the world so as to become man. Jesus, as the Father’s incarnate Son, through his salvific human acts, performed in the Holy Spirit, re-creates humankind through the sacrament of baptism and in so doing transforms the faithful into children of his Father. Having become the Father’s Spirit-filled children, the faithful are able to abide in the risen Jesus by partaking of his body and blood, thus obtaining a foretaste of their communion with their heavenly Father. Thus not only is Jesus, as the Son of God, YHWH-Saves, but the Father, as salvation’s author and end, is also YHWH-Saves. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is YHWH-Saves, for he is the one in whom the faithful are born anew in Christ as the Father’s children, and he is the divine nourishment that is received when partaking of the risen Jesus. Jesus’ “baptismal” and “Eucharistic” miracle signs, as well as his conjoined teaching, are prophetic, for the truth that they signify and of which Jesus tells only find their fulfillment within his salvific death and resurrection. These actions enact humankind’s salvation, freedom from sin and death, and re-­ creation in the Holy Spirit. Importantly, Jesus’ saving acts, his sacrificial death that effects his glorious resurrection, are for the sake of the sacraments—in John’s Gospel, particularly baptism and the Eucharist. Through faith in Jesus and in his baptizing in the Holy Spirit, one is assumed into his death and resurrection and so born anew into his likeness as children of his Father. Within the Eucharistic mystery, likewise, one is subsumed into Jesus’ sacrificial death and so borne up into his risen life. For John, as Jesus came down from heaven in becoming man so as to enact the salvific paschal mysteries, so the faithful, in sacramentally participating in these saving mysteries, are taken up, in union with Jesus, into the heavenly realities they signify. By being sacramentally united to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and so being incorporated into Jesus himself, the faithful reap the everlasting benefit of his death and resurrection— the dying to sin and death and the rising to an abundance of eternal life. In the midst of Jesus’ miraculous signs, Jesus, according to John’s narrative, goes up to Jerusalem to participate in various Jewish liturgical feasts. In doing so, he prophetically anticipates his fulfillment of those feasts.

440

Conclusion

Immediately after changing water into wine at Cana, Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, where he finds his Father’s house being desecrated with the selling of animals and the exchanging of money. In his zeal, Jesus cleanses the temple. The Jews, in response, ask by what sign does he possess the authority to do such an action. Jesus answers by telling them that if the temple is destroyed, he will raise it up in three days. It is a temple that, the Jews remind him, took forty-six years to build. The Evangelist informs the reader that Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body. For John, Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is a prophetic act. Jesus will fulfill the Passover, for he, as the Father’s Son, is the new high priest who will offer himself as the Lamb of God, the perfect Passover sacrifice. In that sacrificial act, Jesus will cleanse the world of sin and vanquish death, and in his resurrection, he will raise up the new living temple that is himself. In him, all people will worship his Father in spirit and truth—in the divine life of the Holy Spirit and in the Truth that he is as God’s Word. Such is the case, for, as the new Passover sacrifice, Jesus will establish a new covenant with his Father, a covenant that he, in his resurrection, embodies. Thus Jesus will become the new and living temple, for he is himself the new holy high priest who offers the holiest sacrifice—that of himself, a sacrifice that enables all who believe in him to pass over from sin and death into the presence of his heavenly Father. For John, this “passing over” will be accomplished within the faithful by means of Jesus baptizing them with the Spirit and by their partaking of his Eucharistic risen body and blood.5 What is prophetically portrayed in Jesus’ participating in his “first” Passover will, then, be fulfilled in his “last” Passover, when he will become, through his sacrificial death and resurrection, the new and everlasting Passover.6 As the Evangelist conjoins the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves with Jesus’ first “I am” saying (“I am the bread of life.”), so he also links the second “I am saying (“I am the light of the world”) with Jesus’ healing of the man born blind. The liturgy surrounding the feast of Tabernacles involved the pouring of water from the Pool of Siloam upon the temple’s altar and the lighting of the temple courtyard. Within this setting, Jesus declares that he is 5.  Not by happenstance does John mention, just prior to the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse, that the Passover was near (see Jn 6:4). In offering his own body and blood, Jesus passed over into his resurrected life with his Father. Thus all who share in the Eucharist pass over from death to life in communion with Jesus. 6.  John mentions that Jesus went to Jerusalem, his second time, for an unspecified feast, though scholars speculate that it was the feast of Pentecost (see Jn 5:1). Likewise, Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths/Tents (see Jn 7:2). Although Jesus will fulfill both of the feasts, I will not include them in this conclusion.

Conclusion

441

the light of the world, and that those who follow him will not walk in darkness but will possess the light of life. Thus, as the eternal Word is the life-giving light of creation, the light that vanquished the darkness of nothingness, so Jesus, the incarnate Word, who now tabernacles in their midst, is the re-creating light of life—he who will vanquish the darkness of sin and death. Those who follow him will be given the light of life through the cleansing, Spirit-filled waters of baptism. By way of prophetic demonstration, Jesus heals the man born blind. Replicating God’s act of creation in the Book of Genesis where God creates Adam from the dust of the earth, Jesus re-creates the blind man by making clay with his spittle and then anointing the man’s eyes. The man, having been sent to wash in the Pool of Siloam (which means “sent”), is healed. Not only did the man born blind receive his physical sight, but also his physical healing signified his spiritual rebirth. The now seeing man came to believe that Jesus is his divine “Lord”—He Who Is. Thus the Evangelist has woven together his Prologue, the feast of Tabernacles, the “I am” saying that Jesus is the light of world, the miraculous sign of healing the blind man, and the new birth in the Spirit through the waters of baptism. All of these various theological facets illuminate one another and together provide a luminous depiction of who Jesus is as YHWH-Saves and the re-creating nature of his salvific work. Following upon his declaring that he is the light of the world, Jesus quickly speaks of himself as the door to the sheepfold (“I am the door/gate of the sheep”) and the good shepherd (“I am the good shepherd”). Unlike the wallclimbing robbers and thieves who come to steal the sheep, Jesus is himself the door of the sheepfold. Those who enter through him will find salvation, for he came to give life. Jesus is the door to eternal life, though not as the faithful pass through him by way of entering into eternal life. Rather, to abide in Jesus the gate—that is, to be conjoined to the humanity of the Father’s Son, and thus to be in union with He Who Is—is to be in communion with the Son’s Father, He Who Is. Moreover, as the good shepherd who knows his own and calls each by name, Jesus will, unlike the hireling, lay down his life for his sheep. He will sacrifice his life so that those who follow him, and so are united to him, will be freed from the marauding wolves of sin and death. His Father loves him precisely because Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the everlasting salvation of his Father’s sheep. The culminating and preeminent “I am” saying is Jesus’ declaration, “I am the resurrection and the life.” All of the other “I am” sayings find their foundational source, and so their definitive truth, in Jesus being so. Only if Jesus is the resurrection and the life can he be the living bread that comes down from heaven, for the food that he offers is his risen body and blood—a share in his

442

Conclusion

risen and divine life. Equally, Jesus can only be the light of the world, the lifegiving light that conquers sin’s dark death, if he is himself the risen light of life. Likewise, only as the living door into eternal life can Jesus be the good shepherd who leads the faithful into his Father’s heavenly presence. Moreover, only the life-giving risen Jesus is empowered to baptize in the Holy Spirit, so that those so baptized are born anew into God’s everlasting kingdom. Jesus being the resurrection and the life is, then, the hinge upon which hangs the entirety of all that Jesus proclaims concerning himself, as well as the same hinge upon which hangs the sign value contained within all of his miracles. Likewise, only by fulfilling the feast of Passover does Jesus pass over from death so as to be the resurrection and life. In passing over from death to life, the living Jesus is able to tabernacle forever in the midst of the world. Thus the raising of Lazarus from the dead is not simply the last of Jesus’ miraculous signs—it is also the culminating, paramount sign that authenticates the entire Book of Signs. Only by raising Lazarus from the dead does Jesus demonstrate that he is the resurrection and the life, and in so doing, he simultaneously imbues life into all of his other “I am” sayings, as well as bestows ultimate import on all of his other “signs” and all of the Jewish feasts.7 Not surprisingly, then, in response to Jesus’ declaration that he is the resurrection and the life, does Martha, echoing Peter’s profession of faith as contained in the Synoptics, profess, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” Martha believes that Jesus is “Lord,” He Who Is, and he is so because he is the Spirit-anointed Father’s Son. The raising of Lazarus is the premier sign that reveals who Jesus is. The Contentious Dialogues Beginning with his cleansing of the Temple and progressing throughout the Book of Signs, Jesus is engaged in various contentious dialogues with the unbelieving Jews. These disputes are enmeshed within Jesus’ miraculous signs and often contain his “I am” sayings. Moreover, they invariably take place when Jesus is in Jerusalem for various liturgical feasts, feasts that he will himself fulfill. Thus these dialogical quarrels concern who Jesus claims to be in the midst of the signs he performs. Jesus’ healing of the invalid at the Pool Bethsaida on 7.  Jesus declares the final two “I am” sayings in the Book of Glory: “I am the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6) and “I am the vine and you are the branches” (Jn 15:5). Both of these sayings are also dependent upon Jesus being the resurrection and the life. Only if he is such can Jesus give life to the faithful who are attached to him as branches to a vine, and only if Jesus is risen can he be the way, the truth, and the life that leads to the Father.

Conclusion

443

the Sabbath was the catalyst that intensified Jewish rancor against him, for, in response to Jewish disapproval, Jesus said that as his Father is still working, so he continues to work, thus, to the mind of the Jews, making himself equal to God. By performing the miracle on the Sabbath, Jesus is signifying that he is about his Father’s work of re-creation. Moreover, Jesus’ ongoing defense that God is his Father, with the evident implication that he is the Father’s Son, is, throughout the Gospel, composed of multiple interrelated themes. Jesus always speaks not of his being the Son of God but in terms of God being his Father. God is “my Father.” That God is uniquely his Father testifies that he is singularly the Father’s Son. As the Son, Jesus speaks and acts as the one “sent” by his Father, so as to do his Father’s work. But he can only be sent from the heavenly Father if he is the Father’s heavenly Son. As the Sent-­ incarnate-Son, Jesus is ever obedient to his Father, and he only says what he hears from his Father, and only does what he sees his Father doing. There is a perichoresis of words and actions between Jesus and his Father. To hear the voice of Jesus is to hear the voice of his Father. To behold the works of Jesus is to behold the works of his Father. The perichoretic oneness between Jesus and his Father manifests that Jesus is the Father’s Son, and so divine as his Father is divine. As the Father’s Son, he abides in the Father, and the Father abides in him. He and his Father are ontologically one, and so together they enact the works of salvation. Thus, if the faithless Jews do not believe his words, they should believe because of his works, for the works that Jesus enacts are the salvific works of his Father. Through these works the Father bears testimony that Jesus is the Father’s Son. Nonetheless, the Jews, in heightened outrage, seek to kill Jesus. In the midst of the Jewish disbelief that God is Jesus’ Father, the question arises as to whether Jesus is the Christ. Some Jews believed that Jesus is the Christ because of the many signs he enacted. They observed that John the Baptist may have not worked any sign, but everything that he said about Jesus is true. Others argued that the Christ is to come from Bethlehem, but Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee. Others noted that when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from, but, again, they know where Jesus is from. This ignorance on the part of the unbelieving Jews is the height of Johannine irony. Jesus is from Bethlehem, and they do not know where Jesus is from, that he is from the Father. Thus their very ignorance manifests that Jesus is the Messiah, as the Baptist professed, for upon him the Spirit rested, and because of this abiding Spirit, John knew him to be God’s Son. Also, within his dialogical interchanges, first with Nicodemus and later with the unbelieving Jews, Jesus speaks three times of his being lifted up.

444

Conclusion

Jesus informs Nicodemus that no one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. Moreover, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must Jesus be lifted up, so that those who believe in him may have eternal life. As those who beheld Moses’ lifted-up serpent were healed, so those who believe in the lifted-up, crucified Jesus will be healed of sin’s condemnatory death and obtain everlasting life. The emphasis here focuses upon beholding Jesus as the crucified Savior. Later, because the Jews did not believe that God is his Father, Jesus told them that when they have lifted up the Son of man, then they will come to know that “I am he (ego eimi).” That Jesus is the Father’s Son, that he is He Who Is as the Father is He Who Is, is fully manifested when he is lifted up upon the cross. Having concluded his Father’s salvific work, the Father will lift up Jesus into the glory of his ascended resurrection. Here the emphasis resides in the cross and resurrection supremely testifying to Jesus’ divinity as the Father’s Son, a testimony that the Jews themselves will enact when they crucify Jesus. The last time Jesus speaks of being lifted up is within the context of his approaching hour—the dark hour of his death. Although he is troubled, Jesus is assured that his Father will glorify him, for through his death he will cast out the ruler of this world. Thus, when Jesus is lifted up from the earth, he will draw all to himself. Being lifted up from the earth by being mounted upon the cross gives rise to Jesus being lifted up into his ascended resurrected heavenly glory. Through his ascending upon the cross and into heaven, Jesus will draw all to himself—those who behold him in faith. Here Jesus highlights the saving effect of his death and resurrection—that of drawing all of the faithful, lifting up all who believe, into his saving death and ascended resurrection glory. Thus, in being lifted up, Jesus will manifest that he is truly the Father’s divine Son, He Who Is, for through his death and resurrection he will conquer sin’s dark death, and in so doing he will lift up all who believe in him into his saving death and life-giving glory. Not surprisingly, then, Jesus’ contentious confrontations with the unbelieving Jews reach their climax over his referring to himself as “I am”—He Who Is, that is, appropriating to himself the sacred divine name, YHWH. Jesus argues with the Jews as to whether Abraham is their father and whether Jesus is greater than Abraham. Jesus assures them that Abraham rejoices at seeing his day, to which the Jews respond that Jesus is not yet fifty years old and scoffingly question how he could possibly have seen Abraham. In response, Jesus conclusively declares that before Abraham came to be, he already existed because he is “I AM,” Ego Eimi—He Who Is. At this seeming blasphemy the Jews picked up stones to throw at him. In identifying himself as YHWH, Jesus is both asserting his full divinity and simultaneously providing the ontological

Conclusion

445

foundation for all of his “I am” sayings—his ego eimi sayings. Ultimately, Jesus is the bread of life, the life-giving light of the world, the gate of the sheepfold, the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life, and so on, because, as the Father’s incarnate Son, he is Ego Eimi. He is the one who truly IS. Moreover, Jesus is revealing why he is named Jesus. The man Jesus is YHWH-Saves because he is YHWH, and he is saving, re-creating, humankind as the Father’s incarnate Spirit-anointed Son. Although some Jews came to believe in Jesus, the Jewish leaders refused to do so. Seemingly with a heavy heart, John notes at the conclusion of Jesus’ public ministry that while Jesus worked many signs in their midst, the Jewish elite did not believe in him. Nonetheless, John, in his Gospel, has allowed the nonbelievers to tender their most cogent condemnatory evidence against Jesus. In turn, John narrates all of Jesus’ responses to such damning evidence and in so doing brings to the fore the authentic revelation of who Jesus is as the Father’s Word incarnate—his saving Son. Because of the way he treats both the belief of some of the Jews and the disbelief of the Jewish leaders, I have argued that John has structured his Gospel in such a manner so as to win over his contemporary disbelieving Jewish brethren. John’s Gospel is an appeal to faith—first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Jesus Becoming Jesus What we perceive within the whole of John’s Gospel, as we did when treating the Synoptics, is Jesus becoming Jesus—YHWH-Saves. Jesus becomes Jesus through his saving actions, and his words designate the saving significance of those actions. All of his miraculous actions prophetically signify Jesus’ saving works, particularly the saving actions he enacts within the sacramental actions of baptism and the Eucharist. These sacramental actions are first founded upon the act of the Incarnation, on the Word becoming flesh, and they are fully activated through the saving acts of Jesus’ death and resurrection. As the new high priest, Jesus will offer himself as the consummate Lamb of God and thus pass over from death to life. This Passover enactment establishes Jesus as the living temple, the living new covenant, in whom the faithful are empowered to worship his Father in Spirit and Truth. Moreover, having become the universal Savior and definitive Lord, Jesus is empowered to baptize in the Holy Spirit and to nourish the faithful on his risen body and blood. What we also now perceive is that all of Jesus’ “I am” sayings designate various ways in which Jesus acts. Jesus is the bread of life, for he gives his risen self in the sacrament of the Eucharist. He is the light of the world, for he is the

446

Conclusion

life-giving light through whom those who believe are born anew in the Holy Spirit. He is the good shepherd, for he ushers the faithful, as the living gate of the sheepfold, into the presence of his heavenly Father. He is the resurrection and the life, for he bestows eternal life to all who are subsumed into his own risen humanity. Ultimately, as the Father’s Son, Jesus is simply He Who Is, the great I AM. As the divine I AM, Jesus enacts, through his multifaceted saving acts, his name—YHWH-Saves. In Jesus’ fully enacting his name as the Father’s Son, so also do the Father and the Holy Spirit enact their names in communion with him. By enacting his Father’s saving works, the Father becomes Father-YHWH-Saves in act. By enacting his Father’s saving works as the Messiah, and thus through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit becomes Spirit-YHWH-Saves in act. Through the fleshly saving works of Jesus, the incarnate Son, all the persons of the Trinity perichoretically become, as the one God, humankind’s salvation. What must not be forgotten, then, in the light of all of the above, is that it is Jesus’ human acts that are of salvific significance. Although, in accordance with the Incarnation, the Father’s Son is the one acting in communion with the Holy Spirit, those actions are nonetheless enacted in a human manner—as man. Salvation is achieved through the human actions of the Son, and for Jesus himself, in John’s Gospel, it is these human salvific actions that manifest that he is the Father’s Spirit-anointed Son. Thus it is in enacting these human saving acts that Jesus becomes Jesus—YHWH-Saves. As found in the Prologue, the Incarnation, that God’s Son exists as man, is the primordial, the sine qua non mystery of humankind’s salvific re-creation. The Book of Signs and Eschatology The present volume concludes where the Book of Signs ends. Only in the ensuing Book of Glory and the passion and resurrection narratives do we find what is signified and anticipated in the Book of Signs fulfilled—through Jesus’ death and resurrection. In those acts, Jesus definitively becomes Jesus. But what John narrates in the Prologue and the Book of Signs also awaits its eschatological fulfillment when Jesus returns in glory at the end of time and all the faithful come to share in the fullness of his risen glory. In examining the Prologue, we witnessed God, on the first day of creation, revealing the light of his divine and eternal Word. The light of the “Let there be light” is the life-giving light of the Word. Thus the light of the Word is the light of first day, the light in and through which the beginning begins. The Word became flesh, and in and through Jesus’ humanity we have seen the glory, the

Conclusion

447

light, of the Father’s only Son. Throughout the Book of Signs the transfiguring light of the Son’s glory is manifested for all to see. Jesus decisively manifests his divine filial light through his death and resurrection. Now, by means of these saving actions, Jesus ushers in the eighth day, the eschatological day, the everlasting ultimate day of his Father’s re-creation. Thus the glory that the Father manifested on the first day of creation, the life-giving light of his eternal Word, finds its consummate illumination on the everlasting last day—a lasting day that the risen Jesus embodies. As the Word is the light of the first day, so the risen Jesus, the Father’s glorious incarnate Word, is the everlasting light of the eighth day. He is the everlasting light of the new unending day of the new creation. This everlasting new day, a day that Jesus himself is, will find its fulfillment when Jesus returns in glory. Then, the faithful, who already here on earth lived in Jesus, the new day, will abide forever with him in the fullness of his eighth-day glory. In his coming down out of heaven at the end of time, and in his taking up with him the faithful into his ascended glory, Jesus will then become fully Jesus, for he will have fully enacted his name—YHWH-Saves. All the faithful, by being transformed by the Holy Spirit into the perfect likeness of Jesus, the Son, will be escorted, in communion with Christ, into the presence of their Father as his heavenly children. As Jesus becomes Jesus fully in act at the end of time, so Christians, who fully abide in Christ, become Christians fully in act at the end of time, for together with Jesus, they are in living communion with the Father, the source and plentitude of all life. That eighth-day hour has yet to arrive. Nonetheless, having come to the end of our summary conclusion of this volume, and hopefully having adequately accentuated all the major intertwining theological themes within John’s Prologue and the Book of Signs, we now anticipate the Book of Glory. There John begins by informing the reader: “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). With the arrival of this ever anticipated hour, an hour that John’s Gospel has awaited since the first miraculous sign at Cana, Jesus will, in the hour of his death, awake the dawn of the eighth-day hour of his resurrection. In loving his own to the end, Jesus will become Jesus—the forever loving and forever life-giving Savior.

Suggested Further Reading

Barnett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. ———. Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Bauckham, Richard, and Carl Mosser. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Brown, Raymond. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1966 and 1970. Hurtádo, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Koester, Craig. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Lieu, Judith, and De Boer, Martin, eds. The Oxford Handbook on Johannine Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Martin, Francis, and William Wright, IV. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Moloney, Francis. The Gospel of John. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989. Sanders, J. N. The Gospel According to St. John. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to John. 3 vol. Chestnut Ridge, NY: Herder/Seabury/Crossroad, 1968, 1980, 1982. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Weinandy, Thomas G. Does God Change? The Word’s Becoming in the Incarnation. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s, 1985. 449

450

Suggested Further Reading

———. In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. ———. The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. ———. Does God Suffer? Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. ———. Jesus the Christ. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003. [Republished by Ex Fontibus, 2017.] ———. Jesus: Essays in Christology. Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2014. ———. Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018. Whitacre, Rodney. John. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Index

acts, importance of, 152–54 adulterous woman, 275–84 Andrew, 66, 70–78, 103, 168, 171, 218–19, 252, 396, 410, 433, 437 antisemitism (Jewish brethren), 23, 284, 313, 356–57, 389, 391, 408, 422, 426, 445 baptism (baptize with the Holy Spirit), xvi, 33, 38, 45, 48, 60–64, 109–12, 129–44, 147– 52, 158–66, 172–77, 180–83, 210–11, 228–29, 238, 241, 250, 272, 320–24, 336–37, 341–42, 368–69, 377–78, 383, 406, 411, 415, 433, 438–41 Book of Signs: Father’s will and work, 85–87; “I am” sayings, 92–94; liturgical feasts, 92–94; necessity of faith, 90–91; re-creation, 83–85; sent by Father, 89–90 call of the disciples, 66–78 calming the storm, 202, 225–26, 256, 381 Christ. See Jesus cleansing of the temple, 115–29

Eucharist, xvi, 44–45, 48, 80, 90, 109–14, 127, 172, 182, 210, 215–16, 220–24, 226–57, 293, 319, 321, 342, 368–69, 377, 381–82, 387, 399–400, 402, 411, 438–40, 445 feasts, Jewish: booths, 259, 287, 403, 440; dedication, 92, 338, 348, 352 ; Passover, 56–58, 62–63, 72, 92, 94, 104, 114–18, 121, 125, 127–30, 134, 144, 147, 152, 158, 179, 198, 216–20, 226, 232, 240–41, 244, 247, 259, 261, 330, 374, 392, 396–410, 415, 429–31, 440–42, 445, 447; Pentecost, 104, 109, 131, 135, 175, 185, 256, 266, 283, 440 healing: of the man born blind, 43, 83–84, 264, 314–37, 340, 348, 357, 382, 438, 440–41; of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethsaida, 185–90; of the royal official’s son, 176–79 historicity, xi-xiii, 3, 19, 37, 40–41, 50, 64–65, 67, 70, 78, 117–18,

451

452

Index

124, 132, 143, 145, 157, 159, 214, 218, 220, 224, 229, 255, 277, 356, 359, 432–35 hour, the, 22, 73, 99, 101, 103–7, 127, 146, 157–58, 167–64, 170, 174–78, 199–204, 212, 260, 271, 287, 290, 307, 310, 318, 330, 338, 362, 374, 376, 385–88, 410–29, 447 “I am” sayings:; I am the bread of life, 93, 173–74, 204, 226, 248, 285, 382, 439, 441; I am the gatekeeper, 338–39, 376; I am the good shepherd, xv, 53, 90, 93, 95, 173, 204, 233, 313, 338– 50, 376, 380, 383–86, 391, 395, 406, 410, 429, 441–42, 445–46; I am the light of the world, 92, 204, 233, 264, 283–97, 314, 317, 362, 382–83, 420–21, 440; I am the resurrection and the life, 337, 369–72, 380–81, 442; I am the vine, 93, 233, 330, 385–86, 406, 429, 442; I am the way, the truth, and the life, 73, 77, 93, 233, 298, 385–86, 406, 429, 442 Incarnation, centrality of, 41–42, 173–74 James, 66–67, 75, 237, 287, 433 Jesus: becoming Jesus, xiv-xvi, 5, 40, 45–46, 63–64, 95, 113, 129, 139, 160, 183, 226, 361, 386, 445; Christ, 34, 38–39, 44, 48, 51–54, 62, 68, 70–74, 79, 89, 141–42, 148–49, 165–68, 171, 175, 190, 196, 206, 211, 225, 235, 250, 252–53, 258, 263–70,

273–74, 287, 291, 309–12, 323–27, 349, 351–52, 355–56, 367–70, 379, 385–88, 394–95, 418–21, 431, 433–34, 437, 442–43; doing the work of the Father, 191–200; glory of the only begotten Son, 5–21, 26–48, 53, 80, 99, 112–14, 124–28, 141–44, 154, 177, 181–84, 187, 201–2, 208–13, 261–66, 287–93, 307–11, 317–18, 326, 330, 336–37, 360–65, 386–87, 394, 411–16, 422–29, 436–38, 444–47; He Who Is (I Am), xii, xv, 6, 13–17, 21, 28, 93–94, 142, 144, 161, 168, 171, 208, 225–27, 232, 234, 245, 253–54, 262, 281, 284, 300, 307, 314, 324, 334–35, 341, 344, 367, 377, 382–83, 385, 389–90, 413, 418–20, 425, 429, 431, 439, 441–42, 444–46; in the Gospel of John and in the Synoptics, 35–38, 40–41; Lamb of God, xiv, 55–81, 99, 113, 144, 148, 206, 291–92, 306, 322, 355–56, 437, 440, 445; lift up the Son of man, 135, 139–44, 151, 180, 183, 190, 216, 233, 238, 254, 261, 299–301, 330, 374, 385, 416–44 John the Baptist, xiv, xvi, 4, 19–21, 34–37, 50–69, 76–78, 80, 87, 124, 128, 147–50, 172, 187, 204–7, 215, 223, 227–28, 252, 264, 272, 285, 291, 296, 298, 317, 322–23, 226, 332–33, 349, 355–56, 369, 381, 396, 415, 437, 443

Index

Judas, 22, 250–51, 255–58, 266, 318, 393, 400, 433 Lazarus, raising of, 358–87 Martha, xiii, 132, 358–77, 393–94, 397–401, 433, 442 Mary (Ecclesial woman), 3, 22, 49, 57, 60, 66, 76–77, 99–114, 120, 126, 133, 150, 174–76, 181, 237, 267–68, 274–75, 283 Mary (sister of Martha and Lazarus), xiii, 332, 358–61, 365–66, 370–73, 378, 387, 393–409, 433 multiplication of the loaves, 216–24 Nathanael, 71, 73–80, 97, 140, 249, 264, 373, 388, 396, 433, 438 Nicodemus, xiii, 74, 115, 129–62, 172–73, 188, 190, 202, 210, 215, 224, 229, 232–33, 249, 254, 264, 274, 292, 298–99, 326, 332, 357, 381, 401, 410, 419, 433, 438, 443–44 Peter, 44, 48, 58, 66–67, 70–72, 78, 119, 141–42, 168, 171, 189, 196, 211, 218–19, 225, 227–28, 251–54, 287–88, 296, 345, 369–70, 378–80, 389, 396, 410, 414, 433–34, 437 Philip, 50, 71–78, 89, 97, 103, 165, 168, 208, 217–20, 237, 373, 388, 396, 410, 427, 433, 437 Prologue: infancy narratives, 2–5, 39–40; only the Son reveals the Father, 38–39; Word and Wisdom, 5–8; Word as creator,

453 11–17; Word as God, 8–10; Word as the light of life, 18–23; Word became flesh, 23–28; Word, fullness of grace and truth, 32–33; Word, only begotten Son, 33–35; Word tabernacled among us, 28–32

sacramental acts, xvi, 183 Samaritan woman, xiii, 132, 155– 74, 179–81, 186, 188, 190, 200, 202, 210, 215, 225, 227–29, 232–33, 254, 271–72, 299, 306, 327, 332, 346, 349, 357, 380, 410, 418, 433, 438 Scripture and theology, x-xi theological summaries and conclusions, 39–49, 78–81, 94–95, 112–14, 151–54, 178–84, 210– 14, 256–57, 311–13, 336–37, 393–95, 429–31, 432–47 Thomas, 73, 179, 332, 364, 433 Transfiguration, 30, 42–44, 142– 43, 212–13, 287–88, 296, 301, 336, 386, 415, 425, 432, 438 Trinity, xiv, 19, 35, 39, 46–48, 53–64, 88–89, 135, 137–38, 153–54, 159, 173, 184, 194–97, 292–93, 312, 314, 323–24, 342, 353–55, 385, 425, 431, 446 wedding feast of Cana: 97–114; Jesus’ reluctance and acceptance, 99–103; re-creation, 97–99; sign, changing water into wine, 109–12 Wisdom. See Prologue Word. See Prologue worship in spirit and truth, 162–65

454

Index

YHWH-Saves, xiv, xvi, 5, 37–39, 45, 47–48, 63–64, 70, 80, 95, 113, 129, 134, 145, 152–54, 156, 160, 163, 166, 171, 173, 183, 195, 197, 204, 212, 225, 248, 255, 262, 281, 284, 293, 300, 309, 312–13, 314, 318, 323–25, 337, 341–42, 347, 354–55, 361, 368, 385–86, 395, 408, 413, 418, 420, 423, 429, 431, 436, 439, 441, 445–47. See also Trinity

Other works related to Sacred Scripture from

The Catholic University of America Press cuapress.org Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels by Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology (CUA Studies in Early Christianity) Edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture by Denis Farkasfalvy, O. Cist. A Theology of the Christian Bible: Revelation – Inspiration – Canon by Denis Farkasfalvy, O. Cist. An Introductory New Testament Greek Course, Revised Edition by Francis T. Gignac, SJ The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality by Innocent Himbaza, Adrien Shenker, and Jean-Baptiste Edart The Book of Acts: Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical Readings Edited by Charles Raith II Jesus, Interpreted: Benedict XVI, Bart Ehrman, and the Historical Truth of the Gospels by Matthew J. Ramage Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with Benedict XVI and St. Thomas Aquinas by Matthew J. Ramage