Following the prologue comes the second major section of the Gospel of John, Jesus’ work in the world (1:19 – 12:50), sometimes called the Book of Signs because it includes reports of seven signs/miracles that Jesus performed (2:1–12; 4:43–54; 5:1–18; 6:1–15, 16–21; 9:1–7; 11:38–44). In this section readers are told repeatedly that Jesus’ ‘hour’ had not yet come (2:4; 7:30; 8:20), but as the time for his return to the Father approaches they are told that his ‘hour’ has now come (12:23, 27), and this dominates the third major section, Jesus’ return to the Father (13:1 – 20:31; cf. 13:1; 16:32; 17:1).
This second major section opens with what is sometimes called the Johannine Testimonium (1:19–51), in which, Kim says, seven messianic titles of Jesus are highlighted: ‘the Lamb of God (1:19, 36), the Chosen One of God (v. 34), The Messiah (v. 41), the One about whom the Scriptures spoke (v. 45), the Son of God (v. 49), the King of Israel (v. 49), and the Son of Man (v. 51)’.1 The events recorded in this passage are described by the evangelist as occurring on four consecutive days (cf. 1:19–28, 29–34, 35–42, 43–51).
Here the evangelist takes up his account at the point where Mark’s Gospel begins, with the ministry of John (the Baptist). The significance of John, foreshadowed in the prologue (1:6–8, 15), is described further in two important passages: here in 1:19–34, where his testimony to Jesus is described, and later in 5:31–35, where Jesus himself endorses John’s testimony, describing him as ‘a lamp that burned and gave light’.
In 1:19–34 John gives his testimony, first in answer to questions asked about his identity by priests and Levites (1:19–23) and then by the Pharisees (1:24–28). Later, when John sees Jesus approaching, he informs his own disciples that Jesus is ‘the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’, and ‘the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit’ (1:29–34).
The events recorded in this passage occurred on the first of four consecutive days (cf. 1:19, 29, 35, 43) described by the evangelist in 1:19–51.
19. The evangelist begins his account of John’s ministry: Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. The Jewish leaders translates hoi Ioudaioi (lit. ‘the Jews’) and is the first of many references to ‘the Jews’ in this Gospel. While some of these references are neutral and others positive, many have negative connotations and denote Jesus’ adversaries among the Jewish leadership of the day. Great care needs to be exercised by modern readers in their interpretation of these references so as not to misconstrue them (see ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John’, in the Introduction, pp. 40–41). The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem almost certainly refers to members of the Sanhedrin. Part of their responsibility would have been to assess the genuineness or otherwise of those claiming to be prophets or the Messiah. It is not surprising, therefore, that they wanted to know who John thought he was, and whether he was another messianic pretender.
20–21. The evangelist describes John’s response: He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Messiah.’ When John said I am not the Messiah he was responding to the real concern lying behind the question of the priests and Levites. It was a disclaimer, and the evangelist places very strong emphasis upon it by the ponderous way he words it (lit. ‘he confessed, and he did not deny, and he confessed, “I am not the Messiah”’). The priests and Levites were puzzled by John’s response. They probably expected him to claim to be the Messiah, as others had done before him and were to do after him (cf. Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; Acts 5:33–39; 21:37–39), and to lead the Jews in their struggle to end the Roman occupation of their land. John certainly did not see this as his role, and neither did Jesus.2
Being puzzled by John’s denial that he was the Messiah, They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ They wanted to know if he claimed to be Elijah, whose coming in the last days was predicted in Malachi 4:5: ‘See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.’ First-century Jews were looking for the coming of this Elijah figure (cf. Matt. 16:14; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 9:8, 19). Teachers of the law were saying the Elijah figure must come before the arrival of the messianic age, a teaching with which Jesus agreed (cf. Matt. 17:10–11; Mark 9:11–12). When Jesus uttered his cry of dereliction on the cross, Jewish onlookers thought he was calling upon Elijah and waited to see whether he would come to his aid (Matt. 27:47, 49; Mark 15:35, 36).
When the priests and Levites asked John, ‘Are you Elijah?’, he answered, ‘I am not.’ This is puzzling because John is elsewhere explicitly identified as the Elijah who was to come. The angel who appeared to Zechariah, John’s father, told him that his son would ‘go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah’ (Luke 1:17), and Jesus himself identified John as the Elijah who was to come (Matt. 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13). Morris deals with the apparent contradiction as follows:
The solution to the difficulty is probably that there was a sense in which John was Elijah and a sense in which he was not. He fulfilled all the preliminary ministry that Malachi had foretold (cf. Luke 1:17), and thus in a very real sense Jesus could say that he was Elijah. But the Jews remembered that Elijah had left the earth in a chariot of fire without passing through death (II Kings 2:11), and they expected that in due course the identical figure would reappear. John was not Elijah in this sense, and he had no option but to deny that he was. And, of course, we have to bear in mind the possibility that John may not have known that he was Elijah. No man is what he is in his own eyes. He really is only as he is known to God.3
When John denied that he was the Elijah, the priests and Levites asked, ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ Moses had told the Israelites, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him’ (Deut. 18:15, 18–19). First-century Jews were looking for the fulfilment of this promise (cf. 6:14; 7:37–40). Early Christian preachers also spoke of God raising up a prophet like Moses (Acts 7:37), and explicitly identified Jesus as the one in whom this promise found fulfilment (Acts 3:19–23). It is not surprising, then, that when John was asked if he was the Prophet, he replied, ‘No.’
22–23. The priests and Levites needed to bring back a report to those who had sent them, so when John rejected their suggested categories of identification, Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ To this question John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, “Make straight the way for the Lord.”’ John quoted from Isaiah 40:3, where the prophet, announcing deliverance for Jewish exiles in Babylon, called for the removal of all obstacles in the way as the Lord led his people back to Jerusalem. John saw himself, like Isaiah, as a voice calling in the wilderness, in his case calling upon people to Make straight the way for the Lord, that is, to ready themselves for the coming of the Messiah.
24–25. Now the Pharisees who had been sent questioned him. Following John’s exchange with the priests and Levites some Pharisees took up the interrogation. The Pharisees were the most influential sect of the Jews in the time of Jesus. Here they are described as people who had been sent, that is, they were included among those sent by the Sanhedrin to assess and report on John’s ministry. They asked John, Why then do you baptise if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?4 The way the Pharisees put their question suggests they thought it appropriate for John to baptize if he was the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet. However, the Old Testament says nothing about baptism in connection with any of these figures. Perhaps their question simply reflects an attitude that John had no business baptizing people, especially Jewish people. Baptism was not unknown among the Jews. It was self-administered by Gentiles who became Jewish proselytes (and by members of the Qumran sect for ritual cleansing).
26–27. John did not answer the Pharisees’ challenge to his baptizing ministry. Instead he focused attention upon the one to whom he had been commissioned to bear witness: ‘I baptise with water,’ John replied, ‘but among you stands one you do not know.’ There is some irony in John’s words. His interrogators wanted to know if he was the Messiah, but they were asking the wrong person, for the Messiah was already among them and they did not recognize him. John then identified him: He is the one who comes after me. He came after John in the sense that his ministry largely followed John’s ministry. John indicated that Jesus was far superior to him when he said of him, the straps of [his] sandals I am not worthy to untie. In first-century Judaism, the task of removing sandals and washing feet was carried out by slaves. Normally a Jewish servant would not be asked to do this, the task preferably being assigned to Gentile servants.5 By saying that he was not worthy to untie the straps of Jesus’ sandals, John was making a clear statement about the dignity of the Messiah which far surpassed his own.
28. The evangelist concludes his description of the exchange between John, the priests and Levites and then the Pharisees with the words This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptising. The reference to Bethany on the other side of the Jordan is puzzling. The ‘other side of the Jordan’ is usually taken to mean the eastern side, a long way from the Bethany we read of elsewhere in the Gospel of John, which was located near Jerusalem (11:1, 18; 12:1). This problem was recognized very early in the history of the church and is reflected in the variant readings preserved in a number of Greek manuscripts which substitute Bethabara for Bethany. Bethabara is located 19 miles east of Jerusalem on the Jordan River about 6 miles to the south-east of Jericho. Origen favoured this reading,6 but it is supported by few manuscripts and not found in the older and more reliable ones. Another possibility is that the Bethany of 1:28 is to be identified with Batanea, an area in the north-east of the country, but this places the site of John’s baptizing ministry a long way from its traditional location. Efforts to locate a Bethany on the east of the Jordan closer to Jericho had previously not proved successful, but in more recent times archaeological work has located what appears to be the site of ‘Bethany on the other side of the Jordan’, ‘located east of the Jordan River, about seven miles north of the Dead Sea’.7
The events recorded in this passage occurred on the second of four consecutive days (cf. 1:19, 29, 35, 43) described by the evangelist in 1:19–51.
29. After John’s interrogation by priests, Levites and Pharisees, the evangelist tells us that The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ The Gospel of John does not record, as the Synoptic Gospels do, the baptism of Jesus by John. The coming of Jesus mentioned here was not his coming for baptism because, as 1:32–33 implies, John had already witnessed the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus when he baptized him.
John knew who Jesus was and therefore said to those around, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ Christian readers of the Gospel of John naturally infer that John’s statement was an allusion to Jesus’ sacrificial death by which he atoned for the sins of the world, and later in the Gospel the evangelist appears to portray Jesus in terms of the Passover Lamb (18:28; 19:36). However, it is uncertain whether this is what the Baptist meant when he spoke of Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. The indications are that he expected the Messiah to deliver his people and carry out judgment against their enemies, not to offer himself as a sacrifice for their sins (cf. Matt. 3:12: ‘His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire’). John may have been identifying Jesus as the apocalyptic warrior lamb referred to in Jewish writings (e.g. 1 Enoch 90:9–12; T. Jos. 19:8–9), as did the author of the book of Revelation (Rev. 5:5–10; 17:14), though the latter fused the idea of the powerful lamb/lion of Judah with the sacrificial lamb. By the time the Gospel of John was written Jesus had been recognized as the one whose death had atoned for human sins, and the evangelist probably hoped his readers might appreciate this.
The reference to Jesus here as the Lamb of God uses the word amnos for ‘lamb’. It is one of only four references in the New Testament (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19) which do so.8 The word amnos is found 101 times in the lxx, of which 82 are references to sacrificial lambs. The two uses of amnos in the New Testament outside the Gospel of John are clear references to Jesus who died as a sacrificial lamb: one speaks of Jesus as the servant of the Lord who ‘was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent . . .’ (Acts 8:32/Isa. 53:7–8, italics added); the other refers to ‘the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect’ (1 Pet. 1:19, italics added). In the light of all this we can probably say the evangelist would be happy if his readers took John’s witness to Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world to have a double meaning. He was both the apocalyptic lamb who judges unrepentant sinners, and the atoning sacrifice for the sins of those who believe. Perhaps the evangelist believed that John spoke more than he knew, just as Caiaphas and Pilate were to do later on (11:50–52; 18:39; 19:14–15, 19, 21–22).
In 1:29 Jesus is the one who takes away the sins of the world (i.e. humanity). There are a couple of other places in the Gospel of John where Jesus’ significance for ‘the world’ is implied. In 3:16–17 God’s love leads him to give his only Son for ‘the world’ so that those who believe might have eternal life, and in 4:42 the Samaritans come to recognize that Jesus really is ‘the Saviour of the world’, not just of the Jewish people.
30. This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ Picking up something he said earlier (1:26–27), John explains that the one coming after him has surpassed me because he was before me. Jesus came after John in that his ministry for the most part followed John’s. When John added that Jesus surpassed him because he was before him, it looks like an allusion to Jesus’ pre-existence as the Word (cf. 1:1–4). However, it is unlikely that John was aware of this. He may simply have meant that Jesus had always been greater than him, even though he was born six months later than him (for a more detailed discussion of this statement, see the commentary on 1:15). There may even be intentional ambiguity here, the evangelist suggesting again that John spoke better than he knew.
31. I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptising with water was that he might be revealed to Israel. John was related to Jesus9 and therefore would have known him personally. What he did not know previously was that Jesus was the Messiah. Now he explained that the purpose of his baptizing ministry was that Jesus might be revealed to Israel. John was aware that Jesus came to the Jewish people, to Israel, and the purpose of John’s ministry was not only to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah, but also that Jesus might be revealed to Israel as their Messiah.
32. Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.’ This is a reference to Jesus’ baptism by John and the descent of the Spirit upon him at that time. The Gospel of John does not record this event, but the evangelist assumes his readers will know about it. The Synoptic Gospels all describe the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22), but only the Gospel of John adds that the Spirit came down from heaven and remained on him. In Old Testament times the Spirit came upon certain people at specific times for specific tasks, so by saying that the Spirit remained on Jesus the evangelist may be underscoring Jesus’ superiority. Isaiah 11:2 prophesies concerning the Messiah:
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him –
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord.
(Cf. Isa. 42:1; 61:1)
The evangelist’s emphasis upon the fact that the Spirit ‘remained’ upon Jesus is one of the ways in which he highlights the special relationship Jesus had with the Spirit (another is found in 3:34, where he says God gave the Spirit to Jesus ‘without limit’).
All four Gospels speak of the descent of the Spirit ‘as a dove’ upon Jesus at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The symbolism of the dove in relation to the Spirit is difficult to explain, as the two are not connected anywhere else in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. In Matthew 10:16 Jesus tells his disciples to be ‘as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves’. The word translated ‘innocent’ (akeraios) can mean innocent, harmless or pure. If we allow this to guide us, then perhaps it is the purity and gentleness of the Spirit that is symbolized by the dove.
33. John says again, I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptise with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit.’ The one who sent John was God (1:6), and he told John that the one upon whom the Spirit descended and remained when he baptized him was the one who would baptize with the Spirit. In contemporary Jewish belief the Messiah was to be the bearer of God’s Spirit,10 so John was being told how to identify the Messiah.
John distinguished his ministry from that of Jesus by saying that he baptized with water, but Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit. During his earthly ministry Jesus did in fact baptize with water also, though he did not do so personally but entrusted the actual baptizing to his disciples (3:22, 26; 4:1–2). However, it was Jesus’ future baptizing with the Spirit that John emphasized. This would occur after his glorification (i.e. after his death, resurrection and exaltation: cf. 7:37–39). Jesus is the Spirit-baptizer and he, as it were, plunges all those who believe in him into the Spirit. Baptism is one of a number of expressions used in the Gospel of John to describe the bestowal of the Spirit upon all believers by the exalted Jesus; others include giving drink (7:37–39), breathing (20:22) and sending the Advocate (14:15–17, 26; 15:26; 16:5–15). According to the Acts of the Apostles, the first believers were baptized in the Spirit by Jesus on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4–5; 2:1–4), and then, as the gospel spread, each new believer received the same baptism in the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38–39).
34. John the Baptist concluded his testimony to Jesus with the words I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One. There is an important variant reading at this point that is preserved in some ancient manuscripts which substitutes ‘the Son of God’ (hyios tou theou) for God’s ‘chosen one’ (eklektos). ‘The chosen one’ and ‘the Son of God’ equally designate the Messiah. The title ‘the Son of God’, though not a common designation for the Messiah among first-century Jews, was nevertheless used in some texts in that way.11 There are many other references in the Gospel of John which state either explicitly (1:34, 49; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31) or implicitly (3:16, 17, 18, 35, 36; 5:19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26; 6:40; 14:13; 17:1) that Jesus is the Son of God.
The evangelist records John’s testimony that Jesus is the Chosen One/Son of God in support of the overall purpose of his Gospel, which is ‘that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:31). It is significant that the titles ‘the Messiah’ and ‘the Son of God’ stand in apposition as virtual synonyms in 20:31.
This passage reflects the nature of the expectations of Jewish people at the time of Jesus. They were looking for the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, the appearance of Elijah before the great Day of the Lord and the arrival of the Prophet foretold by Moses. John rejected all such identifications, categorizing himself simply as ‘the voice of one calling in the wilderness, “Make straight the way for the Lord”’. It seems John did not realize the full significance of his ministry, for the Lord Jesus identified him as the Elijah who was to come (cf. Matt. 11:14).
John refers to two crucial aspects of Jesus’ role. First, he is ‘the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’. John may have understood this in terms of the apocalyptic warrior Lamb, but, if so, his words probably carried more meaning than he himself realized. The evangelist could have hoped his readers would understand that Jesus was the Lamb of God who took away their sins when he gave himself as an atoning sacrifice, as well as being the warrior Lamb who will triumph over all the powers of darkness.
Second, Jesus is ‘the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit’. Later in the Gospel the evangelist explains that this had to await his glorification (7:37–39). But the Holy Spirit has now been given to all who believe in Jesus. He mediates the presence of Jesus to them (14:16–18), teaches them (14:26), testifies on behalf of Jesus (15:26), convinces the world of its sin (16:7–11), guides believers into all truth and tells them about things to come (16:13).
Following his account of John’s testimony, the evangelist describes how a number of people became Jesus’ disciples. The first were two of John’s own followers who did so after he pointed them to Jesus (1:35–39). Then there was Simon Peter, who was led to Jesus by Andrew his brother, one of the two disciples John pointed to Jesus (1:40–42). Finally, Jesus found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me’, and Philip in turn found Nathanael and brought him to Jesus (1:43–51).
The events recorded in 1:35–42 occurred on the third of four consecutive days (cf. 1:19, 29, 35, 43) described by the evangelist in 1:19–51.
35–36. The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. There refers presumably to Bethany on the other side of the Jordan (1:28). When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’ John repeats his testimony of the previous day, though in shortened form (see commentary on 1:29).
37. John’s testimony had a powerful impact: When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Not all of John’s disciples followed Jesus (cf. 3:25–27; Acts 19:1–7) but these two did. Many people in John’s situation would have been disappointed to see their followers going after someone else, but not John. When asked about it later he said that ‘A person can receive only what is given them from heaven’, and reminded his hearers that he had already testified that ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him’. He explained that seeing people follow Jesus actually completed his own joy (3:26–30).
38–39. When these two disciples set out after Jesus, we are told that Turning round, Jesus saw them following and asked, ‘What do you want?’ Because they wanted to become his disciples by accompanying him, They said, ‘Rabbi’ (which means ‘Teacher’), ‘where are you staying?’ Jesus is addressed several times as ‘Rabbi’ in this Gospel, always by those who are or are to be his disciples (1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8). In New Testament times ‘Rabbi’ was the title used for authorized teachers of the law, but it was not restricted to them. Sometimes it was used as a title of honour or for respectful address, as in this verse.
The two disciples’ question in 1:38, Where are you staying?, should not be taken as a simple request for information, but rather as an implied request to spend time with him and become his disciples, which is in fact what verse 39 confirms: Jesus responded to the two disciples’ question by saying, Come . . . and you will see. They wanted to become Jesus’ disciples, so Jesus invited them to come and see where he was staying, an indirect offer of hospitality. So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. In this way they began their discipleship with Jesus. The evangelist notes that It was about four in the afternoon. Being four in the afternoon suggests it would be too late for the two disciples to walk home and that they were being invited to spend the night at the place where Jesus was staying; they probably continued their conversation into the night.
40. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. There has been speculation about the identity of the second disciple, some wanting to identify him with the beloved disciple,12 who may in turn be identified as John the son of Zebedee (cf. 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20). This is attractive because John is not mentioned by name in this Gospel and neither is the second disciple who followed Jesus. Nevertheless, the suggestion can be neither proved nor disproved.
41–42. Andrew had heard John the Baptist testify that Jesus was the Lamb of God, the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (the Messiah). Having spent time with Jesus, Andrew himself came to believe Jesus was the Messiah. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (that is, the Christ). He did not try to convince his brother that what he said was true; instead he brought him to Jesus. It was being with Jesus that had convinced Andrew that Jesus was the Messiah, and apparently he believed it would be the same for Simon. When Simon arrived, Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John.’13 Perhaps it was supernatural knowledge which enabled Jesus’ instant recognition of Simon, as was to be the case later with Nathanael (cf. 1:47–49). Jesus continued: ‘You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter). Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic word (kēpha) meaning ‘rock’, and Peter is the English equivalent of the Greek word Petros, also meaning ‘rock’ or ‘stone’. Hereafter the evangelist never refers to Simon as Cephas again. He always refers to him as Simon or Simon Peter. Why Jesus should rename Simon as Cephas is not explained. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says: ‘I tell you that you are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.’ Both Petros and petra are equivalents of the Aramaic kēpha, meaning ‘rock’. Perhaps it was because Peter was to become the primary preacher of the gospel after the resurrection that Jesus described him as the rock on which the church would be built.
The events recorded in this passage occurred on the last of four consecutive days (cf. 1:19, 29, 35, 43) described by the evangelist in 1:19–51.
43–44. What has been described so far – John’s testimony to Jesus, telling his disciples that Jesus is the Lamb of God, and two of them then following Jesus – all appears to have taken place in Judea (see commentary on 1:28), because the evangelist continues his account by saying, The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. The first two followers of Jesus came to him because of John’s witness, and Peter was encouraged to follow Jesus by his brother Andrew, but now we see Jesus himself taking the initiative: Finding Philip, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ Jesus both ‘found’ Philip and issued the invitation to him to become his disciple (Follow me). Normally, prospective disciples sought out their teacher, not vice versa. Jesus calling Philip to become his disciple, as he did in the case of some of his other disciples (cf. e.g. Mark 1:17; Luke 5:27), would have been unusual in Jewish culture.
The evangelist explains: Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida, which was a large fishing village on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, just to the east of Galilee, in the tetrarchy of Philip who used the term polis (city or town) for Bethsaida.14 Apparently, Peter and Andrew, whose home was later in Capernaum (cf. Mark 1:21, 29), came originally from Bethsaida.
45. Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ A little surprisingly, Philip, who was found by Jesus (1:43), says to Nathanael, We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law. Using the plural ‘we’, he was speaking not just of his own experience, but also of that of the others who like him had already met Jesus.
There is only one other reference to Nathanael in the New Testament (21:2), where he is described as ‘Nathanael from Cana in Galilee’ and listed as one of the disciples who were fishing when Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection.15 Philip’s brief acquaintance with Jesus was enough to convince him that he was the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke, and this is what he told Nathanael. His reference to the one Moses wrote about in the Law is an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:18, where the Lord says to Moses, ‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.’ While there are few references to Deuteronomy 18:18 in rabbinic writings, evidence from the New Testament suggests that the coming of a prophet like Moses was part of first-century Jewish expectation for the end time. We are told that the Jews who came to assess John the Baptist’s ministry wanted to know if he claimed to be ‘the Prophet’ (1:21, 25, 45). Other references to ‘the Prophet’ are found in 6:14; 7:40 and Acts 3:22–23; 7:37.
It was normal to identify people in terms of the place they came from and who their parents were, so Philip described Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Jesus was of Nazareth for the holy family returned to Nazareth after his birth in Bethlehem and their sojourn in Egypt. Jesus grew to manhood in Nazareth and so was known as a man of Nazareth. Nazareth was a small and insignificant village in Jesus’ day, not the large bustling city it is today. Philip also described Jesus as the son of Joseph, who was his legal, but not biological, father. At this early stage it appears that Philip shared the inadequate Jewish understanding of Jesus’ origins (cf. 6:42), something that the evangelist makes no attempt to disguise. When Luke reports the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, he describes him by saying, ‘He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli’ (Luke 3:23). The fourth evangelist has already provided his readers with a clear presentation of the real origins of Jesus in the prologue (1:1–18), so he does not need to comment on Philip’s inadequate description.
46. When Nathanael heard that Jesus was from Nazareth, he expostulated, Nazareth! Can anything good come from there? Nazareth was an insignificant place overshadowed by the larger town of Sepphoris, the first capital of Galilee, located just 3 or 4 miles to the south, and Nazareth appears in none of the prophecies concerning the Messiah (cf. 7:52). Perhaps that was why Nathanael was unwilling to accept Philip’s testimony.16 However, as Andrew said earlier to Simon Peter, Philip now said to Nathanael: Come and see.
47. When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, ‘Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.’ The term Israelite, often used as a term of public address to Jewish people (Acts 2:22; 3:12; 5:35; 13:16; 21:28), was also used in connection with the special privileges of the chosen people17 and reflects Jewish pride of race (Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22). Jesus explains what he meant by the statement Here truly is an Israelite by adding in whom there is no deceit (dolos). In this respect Nathanael differed from the father of all Israelites, Jacob, who used guile (dolos) to take his brother’s blessing and birthright (Gen. 27:35–36), and to whose experience at Bethel Jesus would shortly allude (1:51).
Jesus’ knowledge of the true nature of Nathanael was supernatural. In 2:25 the evangelist says of Jesus, ‘He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.’
48–49. Nathanael was amazed that Jesus knew him and so asked, ‘How do you know me?’ Jesus answered, ‘I saw you while you were still under the fig-tree before Philip called you.’ ‘To sit under one’s own fig-tree’ is a reference to being at home and possibly also a sign of prosperity (cf. Isa. 36:16; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10). Jewish scholars sometimes sat under fig-trees to study the Law. Jesus’ knowledge of Nathanael while he was still at home was supernatural and significant for him, prompting him to declare, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel. Nathanael addressed Jesus as Rabbi, showing respect, as John’s disciples had done earlier (1:38). He also hailed Jesus as the Son of God. His confession foreshadows Thomas’s climactic confession, ‘My Lord and my God!’, when Jesus appeared and dispelled his doubts (20:26–29). The title ‘Son of God’ had messianic overtones (see commentary on 1:34), and its being placed here in apposition to the messianic title king of Israel confirms this. Later in this Gospel the crowds take branches, go out to meet Jesus as he approaches Jerusalem, and shout, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the king of Israel!’ (12:13), thus welcoming him as Messiah. It must be added that for the evangelist the title ‘Son of God’ is more than a messianic title. It denotes Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father.
50–51. In response to Nathanael’s confession, Jesus said, ‘You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig-tree. You will see greater things than that.’ He then added, ‘Very truly I tell you, you will see “heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on” the Son of Man.’ The words He then added translate kai legei autō (lit. ‘and he said to him’) and indicate that initially he was addressing Nathanael, but the twofold ‘you’ (hymin) in Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open . . .’ is plural, indicating that Jesus was then addressing all those within earshot. The formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin), found here for the first time and used in this Gospel twenty-five times in all,18 always introduces an important statement by Jesus.19
Jesus’ promise that his disciples would see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man contains an allusion to the experience of Jacob (cf. 1:47). When fleeing from his brother, Esau, whose blessing and birthright he had taken by guile, Jacob stopped in a certain place where he slept and dreamed of angels ascending and descending upon a ladder that joined heaven and earth. Above the ladder stood the Lord, who made specific promises to Jacob about the land, his descendants, the blessing that would come to the world through them, and about Jacob’s return to the land from which he was fleeing.
When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, ‘Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.’ He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven’ . . . He called that place Bethel [= the house of God].
(Gen. 28:16–19)
For Jacob, then, Bethel was ‘the house of God’, ‘the gate of heaven’, the place where he encountered God and where God revealed his plans for him. Jesus alluded to this incident when he said to his disciples, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man. Heaven open signals a revelation from God, and ‘the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man indicates that the revelation will occur in and through the person of Jesus, the Son of Man (see ‘Additional note: the “Son of Man”’ below). Jesus is the new ‘house of God’, the new ‘gate of heaven’. The place where people encounter God now is in the person of his Son, Jesus, and it is through him that God is now revealing his truth.
In a sense, 1:51, with its reference to seeing greater things, functions programmatically in the Gospel of John, foreshadowing the revelation of the glory of God through his Son. What follows immediately is the account of the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana (2:1–11), when Jesus ‘revealed his glory’ (2:11). And as the Gospel unfolds, we see Jesus’ glory being further revealed: when he encountered the Samaritan woman (ch. 4), healed the official’s son (ch. 4), healed the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda (ch. 5), fed the five thousand and walked on the Sea of Galilee (ch. 6), healed the man born blind (ch. 9) and raised Lazarus from the dead (ch. 11). Of Lazarus’s sickness, Jesus said that it would not end in death, but ‘is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it’ (11:4, 40). In the triumphal entry (ch. 12) Jesus revealed himself as the ‘king of Israel’ (12:13–15); when the time of his death approached he said, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified’ (12:23); and when he prayed, ‘“Father, glorify your name!” . . . a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again”’ (12:28). Finally, on the eve of his crucifixion Jesus prayed, ‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you’ (17:1), indicating that the ultimate revelation of his glory would be through his death and resurrection. We may say that the Gospel of John is all about the revelation of God’s glory in the person, work, life, death, resurrection and exaltation of his Son.
The expression ‘the Son of Man’ is found twelve times in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34 [2x]; 13:31). In all cases except two, it is used by Jesus in reference to himself. The two exceptions in 12:34, where the expression is found on the lips of ‘the crowd’, nevertheless pick up on Jesus’ use of the expression in reference to himself, and question his statement that ‘the Son of Man must be lifted up’ (12:34). Of these twelve uses, four relate to Jesus’ suffering and death (8:28; 12:23, 34a; 13:31), two are found in the bread of life discourse, including references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (6:27, 53), three relate to his authority or exaltation (3:13; 5:27; 6:62), and one each relates to his identity (12:34b), believing in him (9:35) and his being the ‘place’ of God’s revelation (1:51).
The expression ‘the Son of Man’ is found sixty-six times in the Synoptic Gospels, and always on the lips of Jesus as a self-designation. Twenty-four of these relate to his coming in power and glory, twenty-two relate to his suffering and death, eight to his authority, and two each to his humiliation, his behaviour, his resurrection and speaking against him. There are single references to the Son of Man as the sower, and to his identity, his resurrection, the cost of discipleship and his coming to seek and save the lost.
There is only one other place in the New Testament where ‘the Son of Man’ is used as a title. This is in Acts 7:56 where Stephen, at his trial before the Sanhedrin, looks up to heaven and says, ‘Look . . . I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ Once again the reference is to Jesus Christ.20
The background to the expression ‘the Son of Man’ is found in the Old Testament. The singular form with the article (ho hyios tou anthrōpou) is not found in the lxx, though the plural form with the article is found twenty-nine times, but always referring simply to human beings. The singular form without the article is found 111 times in the lxx, all but one of them referring simply to a human being. Ninety-four of these are used in direct address by God to his prophet in the book of Ezekiel. The one exception is Daniel 7:13–14:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
This passage is almost certainly the background to Jesus’ use of ‘the Son of Man’ as his preferred self-designation, particularly to those uses which relate to his authority and his coming with power and glory.
Extremely significant is Jesus’ use of ‘the Son of Man’ in references to his humiliation, suffering and death. He appears to have taken the Old Testament concept of the glorious Son of Man and added to it the notion of suffering and death, incorporating ideas from Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. This is exactly what he did with the Old Testament idea of the Messiah: the conquering Messiah is complemented with the notion of a suffering and dying Messiah.
There has been much debate about the authenticity and significance of Son of Man sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels (a debate described well by I. H. Marshall, ‘Son of Man’, DJG, pp. 775–781), but there are good reasons to believe that this expression was indeed Jesus’ preferred self-designation, and that in many places he used it to present himself as a person of sovereign authority like the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14. The expression ‘son of man’ in Daniel 7:13–14 was regarded as having messianic connotations in later Jewish writings – the actual expression is found in 1 Enoch 46:1–6; 48:1–5 with messianic connotations. Though not actually using the expression, 4 Ezra 13 clearly speaks of the Messiah in terms dependent upon Daniel 7:13–14.
The passage 1:35–51 recounts a number of ways people became Jesus’ disciples. John the Baptist’s witness led two of his disciples to follow Jesus. Andrew, one of the two, brought his brother, Simon Peter, to Jesus. Jesus himself called Philip to follow him, and Philip found Nathanael and urged him to ‘come and see’ Jesus for himself. All this is illustrative of the fact that the Lord uses different means of drawing people to himself. However, in every case their discipleship began with personal contact with Jesus, and this remains true today, underlining the importance of introducing people to Jesus by exposing them to the gospel message or urging them to read the Gospels for themselves, and looking to the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to them as they do so.
The evangelist’s description of the encounter between Jesus and Nathanael, with its allusions to Jacob’s encounter with the Lord at Bethel, highlights the fact that Jesus is the new and supreme ‘Bethel’ in whom God is revealed and in whom people meet God.
Within the second major section of the Gospel of John (1:19 – 12:50), 2:1–12 marks the beginning of a new subsection, 2:1 – 4:54. Moloney describes this subsection as ‘From Cana to Cana’, because it begins with the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana, ‘the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory’ (2:1–12), and closes with the account of the healing of the royal official’s son when Jesus revisited Cana, the ‘second sign’ he performed (4:46–54).21
The miracle at the wedding in Cana is significant for several reasons: it was one of the ‘greater things’ the disciples were to see (1:50); through it Jesus ‘revealed his glory’; and as a result ‘his disciples believed in him’ (2:11). Thus the account contributes to the overall purpose of this Gospel: to promote belief in Jesus, which in turn leads to the experience of eternal life (20:31).
1–2. On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. The reference to the third day is puzzling. While 1:19–51 is structured around four days (cf. 1:29, 35, 43), this does not correlate with ‘the third day’ of 2:1. Perhaps the evangelist is simply indicating that the wedding took place on the third day after Jesus’ encounter with Nathanael. The most likely identification of Cana is Khirbet Cana, located about 8 miles (12.8 km) north-east of Nazareth and about 12 miles (19.3 km) west of the Sea of Galilee.22
Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. We can assume that Jesus’ family was known to the bridegroom. We don’t know why Jesus’ disciples were included in the invitation or how many of them accompanied him. Up until this point in the narrative only Andrew, Simon, Philip, Nathanael and one unnamed disciple have been mentioned. The first reference to ‘the Twelve’ comes later (6:67).
In the Gospel of John Jesus’ mother is never called by her name, Mary; she is referred to only as Jesus’ mother (cf. 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 6:42; 19:25, 26, 27). Ancient authors frequently used epithets like ‘the mother of N’ instead of the person’s name because the name was not known, was disputed or was very well known. Why the evangelist did so is not clear.
3. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.’ Social catastrophe struck the bridegroom at this wedding. He was facing huge embarrassment and loss of face because the wine had given out and guests were still present. Wedding festivities often lasted a week, and each day new guests would appear. Much food and wine was consumed, placing considerable financial strain upon the bridegroom, whose responsibility it was to provide for his guests. The wine would have been fermented, though, as Keener notes, ‘the alcoholic content of the wine was not artificially increased by distillation, and people in the ancient Mediterranean world always mixed water with the wines served with meals, often two to four parts water to every part of wine’.23
It has been suggested that Jesus’ arrival with his disciples caused the embarrassing shortage of wine, but this cannot be proved. Why Jesus’ mother approached Jesus with the problem is not explained. Maybe she felt the relationship between her family and that of the bridegroom obliged her to take action to relieve their embarrassment.24 Perhaps she knew she could turn to her eldest son in time of need. The mother–son bond was very close, particularly with the eldest son, and there was nothing inappropriate in Mary approaching Jesus in a public place to speak to him about the embarrassing shortage of wine at the feast.25 The implied request in what she said reflects her faith in him.
4. Jesus’ response to the implied request in his mother’s words is enigmatic: ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My hour has not yet come.’ The niv’s ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ translates ti emoi kai soi gynai, which rendered literally would read, ‘What [is it] to me and to you, woman?’26 Jesus could have been questioning the need for either his mother or him to get involved. Maybe the kinship relationship between Jesus’ family and the bridegroom’s family was not close and the responsibility rested with others. However, where this expression (ti emoi kai soi) is found elsewhere in the New Testament and in the lxx it usually indicates some sort of confrontation or rebuke,27 and it probably does so here also. Addressing his mother simply as Woman, though sounding abrupt to modern readers’ ears, did not imply lack of respect or affection. Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman (4:21) and Mary Magdalene (20:15) in the same way, and he addressed his mother in this way from the cross when making loving provision for her care after his death (19:26).
Jesus’ words to his mother, My hour has not yet come, may have meant it was not quite time for him to respond to her implied request, though, of course, shortly afterwards he did so. However, in the light of the fact that this is the first of seven references to Jesus’ ‘hour’ (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), a major theme in this Gospel, it may have greater significance. The first three references indicate that Jesus’ hour had not yet come; the last four indicate that it had come. The hour towards which everything was moving was the hour of Jesus’ glorification, which took place through his death, resurrection and exaltation. Bearing this in mind, Jesus could have been informing his mother that he was now acting only according to his Father’s timetable, with his eyes fixed on the hour to come (even though he went on to fulfil her implied request).
5. Jesus’ mother does not seem to have regarded her son’s response as a refusal of her implied request: His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ It has often been remarked that Jesus’ mother only ever gave one instruction that has been preserved for us: that people should do whatever Jesus tells them to do. It seems that, as she knew she could turn to her Son in time of need, she also knew to leave things to him once she had made the need known.
6. Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from eighty to a hundred and twenty litres. Stone jars were used for holding water for ceremonial washing because stone was believed to contract ritual uncleanness less easily (cf. Mark 7:1–4). The reference to the jars being the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing may simply be a factual detail,28 or suggestive of the symbolic significance of the miracle: that the ritual demands of the Mosaic law were being replaced by ‘the new messianic provision by Jesus’.29 These were large jars, capable of holding eighty to a hundred and twenty litres (20 to 30 gallons) each, a detail included to highlight the magnitude of the miracle soon to be performed.
7–8. The jars were not full, so Jesus said to the servants, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ Jesus’ action confirms that his response to his mother was not a refusal to act. She had told the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you’, so they filled them to the brim. The evangelist draws attention to the fact that they filled the jars to the brim, emphasizing again the magnitude of the miracle to follow. Then Jesus told them, ‘Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.’ They did so. The servants did what Jesus told them without question. Their obedience showed implicit faith in Jesus’ word, for their embarrassment would be great if what they brought to the master of the banquet turned out to be just water!
9–10. The evangelist continues: the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He does not tell us when the miracle occurred. Was it when the jars were filled? Was it when the servants drew from the jars they had filled? Was it as they carried what they had drawn to the master of the banquet? In any case, when the master of the banquet tasted what the servants brought to him, it was wine. The evangelist adds: He did not realise where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. By saying the servants who had drawn the water knew, the evangelist seems to suggest that what they drew from the stone jars was only water. If this was the case, the miracle occurred as they carried what they had drawn to the master of the banquet. The obedience of the servants and their faith in Jesus, then, played an important part in this miracle.
The master of the banquet was astonished by what he tasted. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, ‘Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.’ The custom of the day was to offer the best wine first, so that the guests would appreciate the host’s provision, and then, when their palates had been dulled by too much drinking,30 bring out wine of lesser quality. Jesus’ provision of quality wine well into the celebration meant this custom was reversed.31
By mentioning earlier that the six jars held ‘eighty to a hundred and twenty litres’ each, the evangelist implies that the amount of wine Jesus provided was substantial, even extravagant. Michaels comments: ‘in this Gospel the principle is much the same whether it is a matter of wine, or bread, or fish. Jesus is able to provide for us “more than abundantly, beyond all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3:20).’32 The question arises, why did Jesus make so much wine? Was he fulfilling his obligations as a wedding guest? Invited guests were expected to provide wedding gifts. On the other hand, it could have been a symbolic action. In the Old Testament abundant wine (and oil or milk) are signs of the age of fulfilment:
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord –
the grain, the new wine and the olive oil,
the young of the flocks and herds.
(Jer. 31:12)
In that day the mountains will drip new wine,
and the hills will flow with milk;
all the ravines of Judah will run with water.
(Joel 3:18)
‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord,
‘when the reaper will be overtaken by the ploughman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills,
and I will bring my people Israel back from exile.
They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.’
(Amos 9:13–14)
11. What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. This miracle is the first of seven signs the evangelist records, by which he seeks to lead his readers to faith in Jesus (cf. 20:30–31). He enumerates the second sign (4:54) as he does the first, but not subsequent ones. The evangelist concludes his account of the miracle, as he started it (2:1), by locating the event in Cana of Galilee, the home town of Nathanael.
Commenting on the significance of the miracle, the evangelist makes two points. First, he says that through it Jesus revealed his glory. The glory of Jesus was revealed both in his ability to change water into wine, and in his grace in providing an abundance of quality wine to spare the bridegroom an embarrassing loss of face. Second, the evangelist says that his disciples believed in him. The prologue foreshadows two responses to the Word coming into the world. Some reject him, but others accept him and believe in him. In this story the disciples are examples of the latter group. As they witnessed the sign performed in Cana they put their faith in Jesus.
12. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. Capernaum was the place where Jesus lived when not travelling about (Matt. 4:13) and where people knew to look for him (6:24). He appears to have stayed in Peter’s house in Capernaum (Matt. 8:14; cf. Matt. 8:5).
All four Gospels refer to Jesus’ brothers (Matt. 12:46–49; 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Luke 8:19–21; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10). Some who hold the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity argue that those described as ‘brothers’ in these texts are not Jesus’ siblings but cousins. Others suggest that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were sons of Joseph by a former marriage. However, a straightforward reading of Matthew 1:25 (‘But he [Joseph] did not consummate their marriage until she [Mary] gave birth to a son’ [italics added]) and Luke 2:7 (‘and she [Mary] gave birth to her firstborn, a son’ [italics added]) suggests that the brothers were Jesus’ siblings, children born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus.33
The evangelist’s primary purpose in telling this story was to show how Jesus began to reveal his glory and that this led people to believe in him. He hoped his readers would be led to a similar faith, which is the purpose for which he wrote his Gospel (20:31). He may have had a secondary purpose also – to show how the ceremonial washings of the old covenant were replaced by the new wine of the kingdom. The water pots for ceremonial washing denote the provisions of the old covenant, while the provision of abundant wine denotes the blessings of the kingdom.
The presentation of signs in the Gospel of John differs from that in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter, the word ‘sign’, meaning ‘miracle’, is used most often in contexts where the Jews demand a sign from Jesus to prove his claims, and Jesus regards such demands as sinful and refuses to oblige (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4; Mark 8:11–12; Luke 11:16, 29–30). There are also references to deceptive signs performed by charlatans (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22). On one occasion, without using the word ‘sign’, Jesus refers positively to his exorcisms as evidence that the kingdom of God is present (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20), and the longer ending of Mark refers to signs to be performed by those who believe (Mark 16:17, 20).
While the Gospel of John also mentions the Jewish demand for signs as proof of Jesus’ authority and identity (2:18; 6:30), it generally presents signs in a more positive light. The evangelist deliberately recounts seven signs of Jesus34 and says, ‘these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:30–31).
In the Gospel of John Jesus’ signs evoke various responses. On occasions they caused the disciples (2:11) or the crowds (2:23) to put their faith in Jesus. On other occasions they caused people to conclude that he had been sent by God (3:2), that he was the Prophet of whom Moses had spoken (6:14) or that he was the Messiah (7:31). When signs led to authentic faith it was because the significance of the signs was perceived.
The Gospel of John notes that despite witnessing many signs some people still did not put their faith in Jesus (12:37). The Pharisees acknowledged that Jesus performed signs but were divided in their reading of their significance (9:16). Members of the Sanhedrin acknowledged that Jesus was performing remarkable signs, but plotted to kill him so as to avoid unwanted attention from the Roman occupying forces.
When signs produced ‘faith’ it was not always authentic. In 2:23–24 people saw the miracles Jesus performed and ‘believed’ in him, but Jesus would not commit himself to them because ‘he knew all people’. Presumably he knew that their faith was not genuine. In 6:26 Jesus reproved those who followed him after the multiplication of the loaves and fishes because they were interested, not in what this miracle signified, but only in filling their stomachs.
There is another line taken in regard to signs in the Gospel of John. People are rebuked for their inability to believe without the evidence of signs (cf. 4:48; 20:29). It is faith in the word of Jesus without the need for signs that is regarded as the ideal. Examples of such faith may be seen in Nathanael’s belief on hearing Jesus say that he had seen him under the fig-tree (1:49–50), the attitude of Jesus’ mother and the servants’ unquestioning obedience to his word at the wedding feast in Cana (2:5–8), and the Samaritans’ belief upon hearing the woman’s testimony, and even more so upon hearing Jesus’ word for themselves (4:42).
Jesus’ presence at the wedding shows he was no ascetic (cf. Matt. 9:10–13; 11:19), and his miraculous provision of the choicest wine for the guests reinforces this fact. Jesus’ distancing himself from his mother when she told him ‘They have no more wine’, by saying, ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ and adding that ‘My hour has not yet come’, suggests that he was now acting in accordance with his Father’s timetable. The fact that he then went on to fulfil her implied request illustrates that he is ever ready to respond to human need.
The provision of such a large amount of the choicest wine may symbolize the inauguration of the long-awaited kingdom of God (cf. Jer. 31:12; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13–14). God himself had drawn near in the person and ministry of Jesus, and the fulfilment of the promise of abundant blessings was beginning to be realized.
Jesus’ miracle of turning water into wine, the evangelist says, reflected his glory, something we may see both in his authority over the natural world and in his kindness in sparing the bridegroom great loss of face. It also led his disciples to believe in him, and in recounting this the evangelist promotes the whole purpose of his Gospel (cf. 20:30–31).
This section includes accounts of two important incidents that took place when, following the wedding feast in Cana, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for Passover. The first and longer account describes his cleansing of the temple (2:13–22). The second and shorter account describes his reaction to the many people who ‘believed’ in his name when they witnessed the miraculous signs he performed (2:23–25).
13. When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. This is the first of five festivals Jesus attended in Jerusalem that are mentioned in the Gospel of John (Passover, 2:13; ‘one of the Jewish festivals’, 5:1; the Festival of Tabernacles, 7:2, 10–11; the Festival of Dedication, 10:22; and a second Passover, 11:55; 12:20), only the last of which is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. The Passover festival was a commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery in the time of Moses, a deliverance effected when the angel of death ‘passed over’ Egypt, sparing the Israelites but killing all the firstborn of the Egyptians.
The evangelist places his account of Jesus’ action in the temple early in Jesus’ ministry during the first Passover festival, not during the one in the last week of Jesus’ ministry as the Synoptic Gospels do. There are a number of possible explanations for this. Because the Synoptic evangelists do not record Jesus’ earlier visits to Jerusalem for the other four festivals, they could only include the temple cleansing in their account of the final Passover visit. Alternatively, the fourth evangelist may have brought forward his account of the temple cleansing for theological or literary reasons. In that case, the arrangement of his material was not meant to be chronological but thematic. A third possibility is that there were two temple cleansings, one at the beginning and another at the end of Jesus’ ministry. While most scholars reject this alternative, it cannot be ruled out altogether.35
The evangelist refers to Passover as the Jewish Passover (lit. ‘the Passover of the Jews’), possibly because he had Gentile readers also in mind or because Christians, even Jewish Christians, no longer celebrated Passover when he wrote.
14–16. Prior to the Passover Jesus came to the temple and In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. The provision of cattle, sheep and doves, and the exchange of money, were all necessary for temple worship. Pilgrims who had travelled up from Galilee (a journey of about 90 miles [145 km]), for example, could not bring animals for sacrifice with them. Pilgrims travelling from other countries would need to change their money into Tyrian coinage, the prescribed currency (m. Bek. 8:7).36
These functions were carried out in the outer court of the temple. This was barricaded off from the Court of Women and the Court of Israel, which were accessible only to Jews. The barricades carried warnings to Gentiles, two of which have been found, one containing the complete text which reads: ‘No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death.’ The only place, then, where Gentiles could come and pray in the temple was the outer court, and this was being used as a marketplace.
Jesus’ response to what he found was dramatic: So he made a whip out of cords,37 and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, ‘Get these out of here!’ The all that Jesus drove out with the whip is specified as both sheep and cattle. He would not have used the whip on the sellers, who would, no doubt, have followed their livestock. Those selling doves were told to Get these out of here! because the birds would have been in cages and could not be driven out.
What motivated Jesus to take such drastic action is revealed in his next statement: Stop turning my Father’s house into a market! A number of things need comment. First, the temple, including the outer court, Jesus said, was my Father’s house. God is his Father, and the temple authorities had allowed the outer court to become a marketplace, thus dishonouring his Father. Second, his Father’s house was intended to be a place of prayer, but the temple authorities, by allowing these activities to be carried out in the outer court, had made this virtually impossible for Gentiles. Jesus’ objection appears not to have been to the buying and selling or the money-changing themselves, or to the financial exploitation that may have been involved, but to the fact that these things were practised in the temple. In the parallel account in Mark 11:17, Jesus says, ‘Is it not written: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”? But you have made it “a den of robbers”.’ The quotation is from Isaiah 56:7 (cf. Jer. 7:11), a prophecy in which the Lord’s concern for the nations, as well as Israel, is emphasized. Jesus’ anger, then, was aroused because the one place where people from other nations could pray had been turned into a noisy market. Third, the evangelist may have intended his readers to see in Jesus’ action a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. In Zechariah 14:21 the prophet speaks of a day when ‘there will no longer be a Canaanite (rsv, ‘trader’) in the house of the Lord Almighty’. Finally, the whole episode demonstrates that Jesus’ concern at that time was not the temple’s abolition, but that it be a place of prayer. Beasley-Murray’s comment is apt: ‘Observe that the wrath was directed not against those engaged in or leading worship, but against those detracting from it.’38
17. Jesus’ disciples must have watched his actions with fear and amazement: fear, because the temple officials would not let this affront to their authority go unchallenged; and amazement, because Jesus had acted so decisively and with no apparent concern for the consequences. The evangelist tells us: His disciples remembered that it is written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’ It was probably much later, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, that the disciples made sense of what he had done by recalling the words of Psalm 69:9. There the psalmist speaks of being consumed with zeal for God’s house and how this brought down upon him the antagonism of his fellows. Jesus, like the psalmist, and like Phinehas, Elijah and Mattathias before him (cf. Num. 25:6–13; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; Sirach 48:1–4; 1 Maccabees 2:23–26), was consumed with zeal to preserve God’s honour.39
18. The response of the temple authorities was not long in coming: The Jews then responded to him, ‘What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’ Jesus’ action was audacious and prophetic in character. The temple authorities challenged him to provide a sign to show he had the authority to do such things. They probably had in mind some impressive miracle. If he could not demonstrate his authority in this way, then he would presumably be arrested, tried and punished for disrupting activities in the temple.
19–21. Jesus was not taken aback by this demand. He offered them a sign – not one they would have expected, and one which they misunderstood: Jesus answered them, ‘[You] destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ They thought he was challenging them to destroy the Jerusalem temple. They replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?’40 In the question and you are going to raise it in three days? the singular pronoun ‘you’ is emphatic, suggesting their response was intended to mock Jesus. They both misunderstood and rejected his answer.
The evangelist explains: But the temple he had spoken of was his body. Jesus was not saying to the authorities, ‘You destroy the Jerusalem temple, and I will rebuild it in three days’; rather he was offering them the sign of his death and resurrection as proof of his authority: ‘You destroy/kill this body of mine, and I will raise it up in three days.’ The sign Jesus offered the temple authorities was in effect the same one he offered the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 12:39–40:
A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus’ answer, interpreted by the evangelist, constitutes the first clear reference to Jesus’ death in the Gospel of John.
22. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. They did not understand Jesus’ predictions of his death and resurrection prior to the events any more than his opponents did. It was only in retrospect (and probably by illumination by the Holy Spirit, cf. 14:26) that they understood this, and it was then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. The Scripture the evangelist refers to here may be Psalm 69:9 quoted in 2:17. If this is not the case we can only surmise that he had in mind one or other of the Scriptures mentioned elsewhere in connection with Jesus’ death and resurrection. In Acts 2:24–28 Peter cites Psalm 16:8–11 as the Scripture fulfilled when Jesus was raised from the dead. Philip uses the passage about the death of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:7–8 (lxx) to proclaim Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30–35). Paul cites Psalm 2:7 (Acts 13:33); Isaiah 55:3 lxx (Acts 13:34); and Psalm 16:10 lxx (Acts 13:35) as Scriptures which foreshadow the resurrection of Jesus.
The evangelist’s purpose in telling this story appears to be to present later reflections by the disciples upon the significance of the temple cleansing and especially the sign Jesus offered in response to the temple authorities’ demand. He shows how this led the disciples to believe the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. The inclusion of this story contributes to the primary purpose of the Gospel – that is, to lead readers to a similar faith in Jesus, so that they too might have eternal life. There may be a secondary purpose involved as well. As Jesus superseded Moses (1:17: ‘the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’), and the blessings of the kingdom supersede the ceremonial washings of the old covenant (as exemplified in the miracle at Cana), so now the temple of Jerusalem as the dwelling place of God is superseded by Jesus himself. His body is the new temple, the place where God was now making himself present. Later, the church as the body of Christ assumes this role.
Different words are used to denote the temple in 2:13–22. The first, hieron, is used frequently in the Gospel of John to refer to the whole temple complex (2:14, 15; 5:14; 7:14; 7:28; 8:2, 20, 59; 10:23; 11:56; 18:20). The second, naos, used only in this passage in the Gospel of John, can refer to either the whole complex or the inner sanctuary. Jesus uses naos when speaking metaphorically of his own body as a temple. The third expression used to denote the temple is oikos tou patros mou (‘my Father’s house’). Jesus used this expression when he accused people of turning his Father’s house into a house of merchandise (2:16). It stresses that the temple belongs to God and is to be used for his purposes.
23. Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. So far in this Gospel the evangelist has recorded only one sign performed by Jesus – turning water into wine in Cana of Galilee. He has described no signs performed by Jesus in Jerusalem up to this point, but he implies that Jesus did perform many signs there. The evangelist uses the imperfect tense (was performing) to depict Jesus’ performance of signs as an ongoing action. These signs led many people to believe in Jesus, but, as the next verse indicates, their belief was defective.
24–25. Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. There is a play on words here. In 2:23 we are told ‘many people . . . believed [episteusan] in his name’, but in 2:24 the evangelist adds, ‘But Jesus would not entrust [episteuen] himself to them’. Their ‘trust’ in him was not of a sort to make Jesus want to ‘entrust’ himself to them. Evidently, the belief of these people, based upon witnessing the signs Jesus performed, was shallow and inauthentic. Perhaps it stopped at wonderment and did not progress to commitment. While Jesus would not entrust himself to those whose faith was not genuine, the opposite is also true: he will entrust himself to those whose faith is genuine. What it means for Jesus to entrust himself to people is probably best understood in the light of his word to his disciples at the Last Supper:
You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
(15:14–15)
The evangelist tells us that Jesus was able to recognize the shallowness of their belief: He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person. In this Gospel there are a number of places where Jesus’ knowledge of people’s thoughts is noted (1:47–48; 4:17–19, 29; 6:15, 64). This reflects his unique nature as the Son of God and his divine knowledge (cf. Jer. 17:10: ‘I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind’; 1 Kgs 8:39: ‘you alone know every human heart’; Prov. 21:2: ‘A person may think their own ways are right, but the Lord weighs the heart’).
This passage forms the conclusion to the story of Jesus’ actions in the temple, but also acts as a bridge preparing the reader for another incident which occurred during his first Passover visit to Jerusalem: the encounter with Nicodemus. In that case also we are shown how Jesus knew what was in a person, and dealt with him accordingly.
Jesus regarded the Jewish temple as his ‘Father’s house’ and was zealous for the purity of its worship, even though he knew that in the unfolding purposes of God it would become obsolete. His zeal for his Father’s house led him to take drastic action against those who were selling ‘cattle, sheep and doves’ and those changing money in the temple precincts. His strong objections appear not to have been aroused because of any extortion practised by those people (though that very possibly was involved), but rather because of their lack of respect for the temple as the house of God, in particular because the outer court, where these practices were being carried out, was the only place where devout non-Jews could come and pray at the temple (cf. Isa. 5:6–7; Zech. 8:23).
When asked for a sign to validate his actions in the temple, Jesus said to the Jews: ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ The Jews ridiculed his offer of such a sign because they did not understand what Jesus was implying. The evangelist explains to his readers: ‘But the temple he had spoken of was his body.’ What is implied here is that, whereas formerly God’s presence was manifested in the temple, now he was present in Jesus’ person. The obsolescence of the temple is foreshadowed.
Surprisingly, in the light of statements elsewhere in the New Testament that say that Jesus was raised from the dead by the Father, Jesus implied that he would raise himself, clearly indicating the unity of nature and purpose between the Father and the Son.
Jesus’ refusal to entrust himself to ‘believers’ because ‘he knew what was in each person’ implies his divinity, because this ability is something predicated uniquely of God in the Old Testament (cf. Jer. 17:10; 1 Kgs 8:39; Prov. 21:2).
In this passage the evangelist continues his account of what happened during Jesus’ first visit to Jerusalem. The connection between this and the preceding passage appears to be the effect of Jesus’ signs upon people in Jerusalem. In 2:23–25 we read, ‘many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.’ In 3:2 Nicodemus says: ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.’ However, the way Jesus responds to him shows that Jesus knows what is in him also.
It is difficult to determine where the evangelist’s account of the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus ends and his own comments begin. It would appear that the account runs from 3:1–15 and the evangelist’s comments from 3:16–21.41
1. Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. As a Pharisee, Nicodemus was a member of the most influential Jewish party in Jesus’ time. The Pharisees are mentioned twenty times in the Gospel of John and are nearly always portrayed as antagonistic to Jesus. The only exceptions are here in 3:1, where Nicodemus the Pharisee comes to Jesus, and 9:16, where some of the Pharisees are bold enough to ask how Jesus could do miraculous signs if he were a sinner.
Nicodemus is also described as a member of the Jewish ruling council, or Sanhedrin. Members of the Sanhedrin are also generally presented as antagonistic towards Jesus in this Gospel. Apart from 3:1–15, the one exception is found in 12:42, where the evangelist says, ‘Yet at the same time many even among the leaders [lit. ‘rulers’] believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue.’
2. The evangelist says of Nicodemus, He came to Jesus at night. Rabbis sometimes studied the law at night (Str-B 2, pp. 419–420). He may have come by night because he did not want others to see him doing so.42 Nicodemus addressed Jesus as Rabbi, a teacher like himself (cf. 3:10; see also commentary on 1:38). Then, identifying himself with other (reasonable) members of the Jewish leadership, or perhaps because he was accompanied by his students,43 he says: We know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him. On Jesus’ first visit to Jerusalem many people ‘believed’ in him when they saw the signs he performed (2:23).44 Perhaps Nicodemus and his associates were included among those who ‘believed’ (but to whom Jesus was not yet prepared to entrust himself). Witnessing the signs, Nicodemus concluded that Jesus was a teacher who has come from God, and that he performed his miracles because God was with him. Possibly behind Nicodemus’s statement was the question about who Jesus truly was and whether he could be the one who would bring in the kingdom of God. Jesus’ response in the next verses deals with what is necessary for entry to the kingdom.
3. While Nicodemus associated himself with others in his approach, Jesus’ initial response was to Nicodemus alone. Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you [sing.], no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.’ The emphatic way in which Jesus’ response is introduced, Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō soi), indicates the importance, both for Nicodemus and for later readers of this Gospel, of what Jesus said: no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. To see the kingdom is synonymous with entering the kingdom (cf. 3:5). Jesus’ Pharisaic contemporaries believed that all Jews would enter the kingdom of God through resurrection on the last day, the only exceptions being those who denied the faith and committed acts of apostasy (m. Sanh. 10:1–4). To be born a Jew was to be an inheritor of the kingdom of God. Nicodemus would have been astounded by Jesus’ statement that he as a Jew would not see the kingdom of God unless he were born again.
The word translated again in 3:3 and also in 3:7 is anōthen, which when used elsewhere in this Gospel means ‘from above’, that is, from heaven/from God (3:31; 19:11, 23). Elsewhere in the New Testament it also usually means ‘from above’ (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Jas 1:17; 3:15, 17).45 Jesus was saying what the prologue foreshadows: that children of God (and therefore inheritors of the kingdom) are those who have been born of God, that is, from above. However, Nicodemus took Jesus to mean he had to be physically born ‘again’, as the next verse indicates.
4. Nicodemus responded: How can someone be born when they are old? . . . Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born! Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus’ reference to birth ‘from above’, interpreting what he said in a purely temporal fashion: a second time. He thought Jesus meant that people had to undergo a second physical birth in order to see the kingdom.
5. Continuing to address Nicodemus directly, Jesus answered, ‘Very truly I tell you [sing.], no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ Once again, the gravity of what Jesus said is signalled by the words Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō soi). Jesus speaks here about ‘entering’ the kingdom, an expression which is synonymous with ‘seeing’ the kingdom (3:3). The condition for entry is again expressed in terms of another birth, this time described as being born of water and the Spirit. This expression has been interpreted in various ways, but for reasons outlined below (‘Additional note: being born of water and the Spirit’) it is probably best interpreted to mean the same as being born again/from above. Once again, then, Jesus was saying to Nicodemus that being born a Jew would not guarantee entrance to the kingdom; he must be born from above, born of water and the Spirit.
This expression has been interpreted in four main ways:
1. Baptism in water by John the Baptist and baptism in the Spirit by Jesus. All previous references to ‘water’ in this Gospel relate to John’s baptizing ministry (1:26, 31, 33), and in 1:33 his baptizing ministry with water is compared with Jesus’ baptizing ministry with the Spirit. In this case, Jesus would be saying that entrance to the kingdom involves submission to John’s baptism with water for repentance and Jesus’ baptism with the Spirit.
2. Christian water baptism and spiritual regeneration. The original readers of this Gospel would have seen in the reference to water an allusion to Christian baptism (rather than John’s baptism), so the reference to being born of water and the Spirit would denote submission to Christian baptism, which in the early church was connected with the reception of the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38).
3. Natural birth and spiritual regeneration. Being born of water is a metaphor for natural human birth, water being an allusion to either amniotic fluid or semen. Jesus was saying that to enter the kingdom one must be born spiritually as well as physically; by the Spirit as well as by water. In support of this view is the fact that in 3:6 Jesus contrasts being born of the flesh (physical birth) and being born of the Spirit (spiritual regeneration).
4. Spiritual regeneration alone, depicted with a double metaphor. Elsewhere in this Gospel water functions as a metaphor for the Spirit (cf. 4:10, 13–15; 7:38), as it also does in places in the Old Testament (e.g. Ezek. 36:25–27). The expression ‘water and the Spirit’ is a hendiadys, a figure of speech using two different words to denote one thing, something suggested by the fact that both ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ are anarthrous (without the article) and governed by the one preposition (ex hydatos kai pneumatos, lit. ‘of water and spirit’).46 Jesus is saying that to enter the kingdom one must be born of water – that is, of the Spirit. This view is preferable because it is also supported by the fact that in this passage Jesus uses a number of parallel expressions which are all related to seeing and entering the kingdom: 3:3: ‘born again/from above’; 3:5: ‘born of water and the Spirit’; 3:7: ‘born again/from above’; 3:8: ‘born of the Spirit’. If all these expressions are in fact parallel and synonymous, then to be ‘born again/from above’ and to be ‘born of water and the Spirit’ mean the same as to be ‘born of the Spirit’.
The expression ‘the kingdom of God’ (hē basileia tou theou) is found only twice (3:3, 5) in the Gospel of John (compared with the Synoptic Gospels, where it appears a total of fifty times). However, its use here is significant for our understanding of the nature of the kingdom.
In the Old Testament God is spoken of as Israel’s king (1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 47:6, 7; Isa. 6:5), and his dominion over Israel for a time was exercised through his servant David (1 Chr. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chr. 9:8; 13:8). Elsewhere God’s dominion is said to be over the whole world and everlasting (Pss 22:28; 103:19; 145:10–13). The overall impression created by such texts is that the kingdom denotes not so much a realm or territory over which God rules, but rather his sovereignty or kingly rule. In the Synoptic Gospels many references to the kingdom of God may be construed in a similar way, depicting as they do the way God exercises his sovereignty in the present time (Matt. 10:7–8; 11:2–5; 12:28; 13:16–33; Luke 17:20–21) and how he will do so in the future (Matt. 24:27, 29–30; 26:64; Mark 9:1; 14:25).
What is significant about the references to the kingdom of God in John 3:3, 5 is that they depict the kingdom of God as something that can be seen and entered, portraying it as a realm as well as a kingly rule. Thus the emphasis elsewhere on the kingdom of God as kingly rule needs to be complemented with the fact that a king rules over a territory and a sovereign has subjects (cf. Luke 19:11–27). See also ‘Additional note: “My kingdom is not of this world”’, pp. 418–419.
6. In this verse Jesus explains why it is necessary for people to be born again/from above to see/enter the kingdom, and why this has nothing to do with natural birth: Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. The physical gives birth only to the physical. What is required is spiritual birth, effected by the Spirit, something already foreshadowed in the prologue (1:12–13).
7–8. Jesus, continuing to address Nicodemus personally and expanding the scope of what he was saying to include all those represented by him, said, You [sing.] should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You [pl.] must be born again.’ Jesus then provided an analogy to help Nicodemus understand: The wind blows wherever it pleases. You [sing.] hear its sound, but you [sing.] cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. This involves a play on words. The Greek word pneuma can mean ‘wind’, ‘breath’ or ‘spirit’.47 This coincidence makes it possible to draw a comparison between the effects of the wind and the work of the Spirit. Just as people cannot see where the wind comes from or where it is going but can hear its sound, so too people cannot understand how they are born of the Spirit but nevertheless experience its reality in their lives.48 This is a reminder for us not to tie the experience of being born of the Spirit to particular evangelistic formulae, but to recognize that the ways of the Spirit with different people may be different, though always, as this Gospel makes abundantly clear, connected with faith in Jesus Christ.
9–10. Jesus’ explanation mystified Nicodemus: ‘How can this be?’ Nicodemus asked. Jesus then chided Nicodemus for his inadequacies as a teacher: ‘You [sing.] are Israel’s teacher,’ said Jesus, ‘and do you [sing.] not understand these things?’ As a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin (3:1) and a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus occupied a position of great responsibility. If anyone should have understood religious truth it was Nicodemus, and yet he could not understand the most basic requirement for entry to the kingdom of God – what it means to be born of the Spirit. Regeneration by the Spirit is not an uncommon theme in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:26–27; Joel 2:28–29; Ps. 51:10), and Jesus expected the revered teacher of Israel to understand these things. Nicodemus, of course, was not alone in this shortcoming. Jesus accused other Pharisees of being people who claimed to see but were in fact blind (9:39–41).
11. Using the solemn introductory formula again, Jesus addressed Nicodemus personally: Very truly I tell you [sing.] (amēn amēn legō soi), and then broadened his remarks (using first- and second-person plurals) to identify himself with his Father and to identify Nicodemus with those whom he represented: we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
Jesus speaks in the first-person plural four times elsewhere in this Gospel, with three different meanings: (1) when telling the woman at the well that unlike the Samaritans ‘we [Jews] worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews’ (4:22); (2) when speaking to his disciples and reminding them that ‘we must do the works of him who sent me’ (9:4); and (3) when praying to his Father that his disciples might be one ‘as we are one’ (17:11, 22). In the context of 3:11 the first option is out of place, leaving as possibilities that Jesus’ use of ‘we’ here could denote either Jesus and his disciples or Jesus and his Father. As there is no indication that the disciples are in view in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, it is best to take the ‘we’ to denote Jesus and his Father. This is in line with the fact that Jesus repeatedly says he speaks in the name of his Father and says what his Father commands him to say (cf. 8:28; 12:49; 14:10; 15:15).
Jesus came into the world to make his Father known, to testify to the truth and to offer eternal life. When Jesus spoke of these things he was testifying to what he knew, to what he had seen. Up to this point in the story, Nicodemus and those whom he represented had not accepted Jesus’ testimony.
12. Continuing to address Nicodemus (and those he represented) Jesus said: I have spoken to you [pl.] of earthly things and you [pl.] do not believe; how then will you [pl.] believe if I speak of heavenly things? He had already spoken of earthly things, the need to be born of the Spirit – something experienced in this world and the condition for entry to the kingdom.49 Nicodemus and his associates were not yet ready to accept these things. How then, Jesus asked, will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? The heavenly things50 are things that have to do with the heavenly world (as opposed to those experienced in this world).
13. Jesus explains his unique qualifications for speaking of heavenly things: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man. Jesus’ descent from heaven involved incarnation, his conception by the Spirit in the virgin Mary. Referring to himself as the Son of Man, Jesus identified himself as the heavenly figure of great sovereign authority (see ‘Additional note: “the Son of Man”’, pp. 92–94) who came down from heaven, and he was therefore qualified to speak authoritatively of heavenly things. When he said, No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, he rejected all Jewish speculations about other ‘revealers’ who were thought to have ascended to heaven (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Enoch and Isaiah) to return with revelations for those on earth (cf. Prov. 30:4).
14–15. Having come down from heaven the Son of Man would be lifted up again, but in a paradoxical way: Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. The allusion is to Numbers 21:4–9, which records an incident in the wilderness experience of Israel when the people turned against Moses and God. The Lord sent venomous snakes which bit the people so that many died. Those remaining alive confessed their sin to Moses and implored him to intercede for them. When Moses prayed, the Lord told him: ‘Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live’ (Num. 21:8).
As Moses lifted up the snake, so Jesus too would be lifted up. The verb ‘to lift up’ (hypsoō) is used five times in the Gospel of John (3:14 [2x]; 8:28; 12:32, 34) and in every case it is used in an allusion to Jesus’ crucifixion.51 As the lifting up of the snake in the wilderness was God’s provision for salvation from physical death for rebellious Israelites, so the lifting up of the Son of Man (his crucifixion) would be God’s provision for salvation from eternal death for all people, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. The Israelites, bitten by venomous snakes, had to believe in God’s provision and look to the snake to live. Now God has provided salvation from the consequences of sin for all peoples by the death of his Son, and those who put their faith in Jesus will have eternal life. (See ‘Additional note: eternal life’, below.) In 3:14–15, then, Jesus answers Nicodemus’s question, ‘How can someone be born when they are old?’ The answer is that by believing in Jesus one is born again (cf. 1:13) and receives eternal life.
Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus ends at 3:15 (what follows is the evangelist’s comment). Nicodemus appears twice more in this Gospel: in 7:45–52, where he raises a question in the Sanhedrin about the judicial processes that were being followed – or better, were not being followed – in deliberations about Jesus; and in 19:38–42, where, with Joseph of Arimathea, he prepares Jesus’ body for burial and lays it in the tomb.
The expressions ‘life’ (zōē) and ‘eternal life’ (zōē aiōnios) are used extensively and interchangeably in the Gospel of John, being found a total of thirty-six times in thirty-two verses. Most of the occurrences are found in the first part of the Gospel, where the evangelist describes seven signs Jesus performed. These are recorded, he says later, so that ‘you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:31). Thus the theme of eternal life is intimately related to the signs Jesus performed and so to the purpose of the Gospel.
The nature of eternal life, as it is experienced by humans, is defined in 17:3: ‘Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’ Eternal life is knowing God, but, as in the Old Testament, this knowledge is not simply knowing information about God; it is having a relationship with him, involving response, obedience and fellowship.
In the Gospel of John Jesus employs three primary metaphors in relation to eternal life: (1) birth: one experiences eternal life by being born of the Spirit (3:3–8); (2) water: eternal life is likened to water which quenches thirst (4:14; cf. 7:37); (3) bread: eternal life is likened to bread which satisfies hunger (6:27, 35, 48, 51, 53–54).
Eschatologically speaking, ‘eternal life’ is life of the age (to come), which is the literal meaning of zōē aiōnios. Understood in the light of Christ, this involves a changed perspective, for eternal life is now understood to be something that may be experienced in part in the present age: ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life’ (5:24). This is in line with primitive Christian eschatology: God’s plans were inaugurated through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and will be consummated at his return as the Son of Man. In the Synoptic Gospels this is expressed in terms of the kingdom of God which is already present but yet to come in its fullness. In Paul it is expressed in terms of salvation – believers are already saved, presently being saved and yet to be fully saved. But in the Gospel of John this primitive Christian eschatology is expressed in terms of eternal life experienced now and consummated in the resurrection.
The source of eternal life is the Father, who has life in himself and has given the Son to have life in himself also (5:26). So the Logos/Jesus may be said to have life in himself (1:4), and to be the resurrection and the life (11:25), and the way, the truth and the life (14:6). It was this life in him which was the light of all people (1:4), and those who follow him ‘never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (8:12).
The mission of Jesus can be stated in terms of eternal life: ‘I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full’ (10:10); ‘For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world’ (6:33). Providing eternal life for others, however, necessitated Jesus laying down his own life: ‘This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’ (6:51); ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep’ (10:11); ‘I lay down my life for the sheep’ (10:15).
The eternal life which Jesus came to provide is mediated to people through his word: ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life’ (5:24); ‘the words I have spoken to you – they are full of the Spirit and life’ (6:63); ‘Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”’ (6:68). It is by belief in Jesus as he reveals himself through his words that, from the human perspective, people receive eternal life (3:15–16, 36; 6:40, 47; 20:31). From the divine perspective, people have eternal life because they have been ‘born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God’ (1:13). In 1 John 5:20 the apostle puts it this way:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
16. The evangelist begins his comments with the much-loved words For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Traditionally, the first part of 3:16 has been interpreted so as to highlight the ‘degree’ of God’s love for the world, that is, ‘how much’ he loved the world: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. While it is true that the degree of God’s love for the world was demonstrated by his giving his Son (cf. Rom. 5:8), this may not be what the evangelist is saying here. The word translated so (understood by many to mean ‘so much’) is houtōs, a word used frequently elsewhere in the Gospel of John, but never to denote degree (how much) but always manner (in what way) (3:8, 14; 4:6; 5:21, 26; 7:46; 11:48; 12:50; 13:25; 14:31; 15:4; 18:22; 21:1).
Further, houtōs indicating ‘in what way’ always refers back to something previously mentioned, not something about to be explained.52 Allowing these things to guide us, we would translate the first part of 3:16 as follows: ‘For in this way [referring to something already mentioned] God loved the world.’ An understanding of the way God loved the world would, then, be sought in the preceding verses, 3:14–15, where Jesus speaks of the Son of Man being ‘lifted up’ just as the snake was lifted up on the pole by Moses, something God allowed to show his love of the world. This means that the rest of 3:16 really belongs with what follows in 3:17. The thought of 3:14–17, then, could be set out as follows, the two main clauses shown in italics:
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness,
in this way the Son of Man must be lifted up,
that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.
For in this way God loved the world so that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world
to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him.
There are no great theological differences between this approach and the more traditional approach to these verses, but it is probably closer to the meaning of what the evangelist wrote in this passage.53
When the evangelist says For God so loved the world, the word world signifies humanity in general. It was God’s love for all humanity that led him to give his one and only (ton monogenē) Son. In some older translations monogenēs is translated as ‘only begotten’, but this is misleading, for the word monogenēs emphasizes uniqueness not ‘begottenness’ (see ‘Additional note: monogenēs’, pp. 65–66). What the text is saying, therefore, is that God had only one Son and, because of his love for humanity, he gave him to make eternal life available to the world.
The purpose for his giving his only Son was so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. To have eternal life involves being born of the Spirit and knowing God, that is, being in relationship with him and experiencing all the blessings which flow from that, both in the present age and in the age to come (see ‘Additional note: eternal life’, pp. 121–122). To perish means to miss out on these blessings, both now and in the age to come, because the wrath of God remains upon us (3:36).
On the human side, the key to experiencing eternal life is believing. The word ‘to believe’ (pisteuō) is used in a number of ways in the Gospel of John, but in 3:16 it denotes believing in the person of Jesus. However, this cannot be divorced from belief in his words, because knowledge of his person is mediated through his words.
17. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. The idea of being sent is found in several places in this Gospel. However, it does not necessarily carry the idea of being sent into this world from outside. Speaking to his Father, and referring to his disciples, Jesus says, ‘As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world’ (17:18). In this context, to be ‘sent into the world’ means to be commissioned for a ministry to the people of the world; it does not mean entering the world from the outside. A couple of other texts are susceptible to the same interpretation (6:14; 11:27). However, there is one text which clearly implies that Jesus entered this world from the outside: ‘I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father’ (16:28). Finally, there are several other texts where the meaning of being sent into the world or coming into the world could be construed either way (1:9; 3:17, 19; 9:39; 10:36; 12:46; 18:37). The upshot of all this is that, when in 3:17 the evangelist says, God did not send his Son into the world, he could be alluding either to Jesus entering the world from the outside or to his being commissioned for a ministry in the world (or both).
The evangelist says that God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world. There are two places in this Gospel where similar assertions are made (8:15; 12:47), but there are other places which imply that Jesus does pass judgment on people (5:22, 30). For a resolution of the apparent contradiction, see ‘Additional note: judgment’, pp. 126–127.
The word to save (sōzō) is found only six times in the Gospel of John (3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 11:12; 12:27, 47), and of these only four relate directly to the salvation Jesus came to bring. Three of these four throw light on what it means to be saved. It is the opposite of being condemned (3:17; 12:47; see ‘Additional note: judgment’, pp. 126–127) and involves coming under the care of the good shepherd (10:9). The reason for the relative scarcity of salvation language in the Gospel of John is that the evangelist uses another set of concepts to express his understanding of salvation – that is, eternal life consummated in resurrection – and these concepts pervade his Gospel (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14; 5:24, 29, 39, 40; 6:27, 33, 40, 47, 51, 54, 68; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3; 20:31).
God sent his Son into the world to save the world through him. What through him means was explained in 3:14–15: by allowing his Son to be ‘lifted up’ on the cross, God made provision for the forgiveness of sins so that people might experience eternal life now, culminating in resurrection life in the age to come.
18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. God has given his one and only Son, allowing him to be ‘lifted up’ for our salvation. To refuse to believe in him – to refuse to accept his words and to live by them – is an affront to God himself, and whoever affronts God in this way, the evangelist says, stands condemned already (see ‘Additional note: judgment’, pp. 126–127, for explanation of what it means to be ‘condemned’).
19. This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Using the noun krisis (‘verdict’), which is a cognate of the verb krinō (‘condemn’) found in 3:17–18, the evangelist explains that the root cause of the condemnation of unbelievers is their rejection of the light because of their love of the darkness. The reason why some have not welcomed the light is because they loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Light and darkness are metaphors which have various meanings in the New Testament. Here the light refers to Jesus himself, who came into the world and by his ministry brought the light of truth to bear upon all whom he encountered (see commentary on 8:12). To be exposed to the light was uncomfortable for those who wanted to persist in evil. They preferred not to associate with Jesus or accept his words – they loved darkness instead of light.
20–21. Two different reactions to Jesus as the light are teased out in these verses: Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by [lit. ‘does’] the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. People who want to persist in evil-doing hate Jesus, for he exposes their wickedness (cf. 15:22). Those, however, who want to live by the truth delight in his presence and welcome his teaching because it confirms that what they are doing is done in the sight of God (en theō, lit. ‘in or with God’, i.e. through his power). Instead of avoiding Jesus like those who want to do evil, they actively seek him out (come into the light) because they want to do what is pleasing to God, enabled by his power.
The teaching on judgment in the Gospel of John is complex. God is named as the judge (8:50), but he commits responsibility for judgment to his Son (5:22, 27). However, the Son says he has not come into the world to judge the world but to save it (3:17; 12:47), and that he judges no-one (8:15). Those who believe in him are not condemned; they have already ‘crossed over from death to life’ (3:18; 5:24), but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have rejected the revelation the Son brought into the world (3:18–19). This rejection reached its zenith in the crucifixion of Jesus, and in that hour the world and the prince of this world were judged (12:31–33; cf. 16:11).
On the last day, the Son will exercise judgment. The dead will hear his voice and rise, some for eternal life, others to be condemned. But even in carrying out this final judgment the Son will act in line with what he hears from the Father and his judgment will be just (5:27–30; cf. 8:16). On that day, those who rejected Jesus’ word will be judged by that word (12:48).
There is an apparent contradiction in what the Gospel of John says about Jesus and judgment. In one place we read that ‘God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world’ (3:17), but other places imply that Jesus does pass judgment on people (5:22, 30). The resolution to the apparent contradiction is that in this world Jesus did not pass judgment upon people because his purpose in coming was to save, not condemn. However, now that he has carried out that commission, the Father has placed in his hands responsibility for the final judgment (5:22). On the last day the very words Jesus spoke in this world will condemn those who rejected him (12:48). What that condemnation involves is (1) forfeiture of life because God’s wrath remains on them (3:36); (2) death in their sins – that is, dying unforgiven and therefore bearing the consequences of their sins themselves (8:21, 24); and (3) rising from the dead only to be condemned (5:29).
Chrysostom disposes of the apparent contradiction in what is said about Jesus and judgment in this way:
But let us remember that there are two advents of Christ, one past, the other to come. The first was not to judge but to pardon us. The second will be not to pardon but to judge us. It is of the first that he says, ‘I have not come to judge the world but to save the world.’54
It is hard to exaggerate the theological importance of 3:1–21. First, it stresses the absolute necessity for people to be born again/born from above in order to enter the kingdom of God. This is quite separate from natural birth and cannot be brought about by human effort. It can be effected only by the Spirit of God. We cannot understand how the Holy Spirit brings this about in people, but we can experience his effects in our lives. He is like the wind: we cannot see him, but we experience his effects. Being born of God occurs in conjunction with our response of faith to the gospel of his grace: ‘whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’
Second, this passage highlights the uniqueness of Jesus as the only one who ‘came from heaven’ and is therefore able to speak of ‘heavenly things’, and this in turn underlines the crucial importance of accepting his testimony (3:11–13).
Third, this passage reveals the depth of God’s love for humanity. The possibility of a new birth, of having eternal life in Jesus Christ, came at immense cost to God. It meant that he had to give his one and only Son and allow him to be lifted up on a cross to atone for our sins, so ‘that everyone who believes may have eternal life’. When God sent his Son into the world it was not to bring condemnation, but rather to bring salvation (3:14–18).
Finally, Jesus came as the light of the world, revealing God in his person and works, proclaiming God’s love and offering salvation to all who believe. Sadly, though, many people hated that light, preferring to stay in darkness, because the light exposed their evil deeds. However, those who accept and live by the truth are glad to be exposed to the light to ensure that what they are doing is done in the sight of God and acceptable to him (3:19–21).
After his comments following the account of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, the evangelist reports the overlapping ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist. This overlap gave rise to a debate between the disciples of John and a certain Jew concerning ceremonial washing. It also aroused concern on the part of John’s disciples that his ministry was being eclipsed by Jesus’ ministry, and this in turn prompted John’s explanation of the relationship between himself and Jesus: that he must become less, while Jesus was to become greater. The evangelist may have included this having in mind people like the twelve men in Ephesus who still followed John the Baptist (Acts 19:1–7).
22. The evangelist begins by saying, After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptised. The conversation with Nicodemus had taken place in Jerusalem during the Passover festival (2:13). Sometime after this Jesus left the city with his disciples and went into the Judean countryside, most likely near the Jordan River because there he could baptize (only the Gospel of John mentions that Jesus baptized). Elsewhere the evangelist explains that Jesus himself did not do the actual baptizing: it was carried out for him by his disciples (4:1–2), though they would clearly have been acting with his approval. This baptism is probably best understood as a baptism for repentance like that administered by John, not the baptism with the Holy Spirit that John said Jesus would provide, and not Christian baptism practised after Pentecost.
23. Now John also was baptising at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptised. There is uncertainty about the exact location of Aenon near Salim, but one possibility is about 7 miles (11.3 km) east-south-east of Jericho, near the Jordan River and about 4 miles (6.4 km) north of the place where the Jordan enters the Dead Sea.55 The name ‘Aenon’ is related to the Hebrew word ayin, meaning ‘spring’, and this is consistent with the evangelist’s comment that John baptized in this place ‘because there was plenty of water’. The effectiveness of John’s ministry is underlined by the statement people were coming and being baptised. Both the verbs translated coming (pareginonto) and being baptised (ebaptizonto) are in the imperfect tense, indicating the ongoing nature of this event; hence the nrsv translation: ‘people kept coming and were being baptized’.
24. The evangelist explains parenthetically that This was before John was put in prison. This at first sight appears to be an unnecessary comment, because there is no mention of John’s imprisonment in the Gospel of John. However, Mark 1:14 says, ‘After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.’ This implies that Jesus began his ministry after John’s imprisonment (from which he did not escape). It appears that the evangelist, being aware of what Mark had written, felt the need to explain that the parallel ministry of John and Jesus occurred prior to John’s imprisonment. This reminds us of just how limited the records of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics (and the Gospel of John) are. There was much that occurred which is not recorded (cf. 21:25).
25. Following the parenthetical explanation in 3:24 the evangelist tells of a dispute that arose: An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. A more literal rendering of this text is: ‘A debate occurred [was precipitated by, ek] John’s disciples with a Jew concerning (ceremonial) washing.’ It appears that John’s disciples started the argument, but the evangelist does not tell us why they were arguing about ceremonial washing. In the following verse John’s disciples tell him that Jesus is baptizing more disciples than John is. Perhaps ‘the Jew’ had contrasted John’s baptizing ministry unfavourably with that of Jesus, and this prompted the disciples of John to take issue with him.
26. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan – the one you testified about – look, he is baptising, and everyone is going to him.’ This is the only place in the Gospel of John (and in any of the Gospels) where anyone other than Jesus is addressed as Rabbi. Here it functions as a title of respect for John. The reference to John’s earlier testimony about Jesus harks back to 1:28–34, where the evangelist tells how Jesus came to John when he was baptizing at the Jordan. John’s disciples were concerned because Jesus was now also baptizing and everyone was going after him. Their reporting this to John, Michaels suggests, carried the implied question, ‘What are you going to do about it?’56 They were jealous for John’s reputation and feared that his star was waning as Jesus’ star rose. John’s response, recorded in the following verses, is the most important part of the passage 3:22–30.
27. To this John replied, ‘A person can receive only what is given them from heaven.’ This can be understood as a general statement applying to all people, but in context its primary reference is to John and Jesus, and to Jesus in particular. That Jesus’ ministry was expanding, while John’s was diminishing, was given from heaven. Given from heaven, of course, means ‘given by God’. John, recognizing that ultimately it is God who determines the role a person has, was content with the ministry God had given him and felt no need to promote himself or compete with Jesus. That all things derive ultimately from God is a principle found in the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 4:17, 25, 32) and reiterated in the New Testament (1 Cor. 4:7). Later in the Gospel of John Jesus says to Pilate: ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above’ (19:11), ‘from above’ (anōthen) being another way of saying ‘from God’, as it does also in 3:3, and equivalent to ‘from heaven’.
28. After this general statement John reminded his disciples of what he had said earlier (1:19–20) in response to questions from the priests and Levites: You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ John knew that he had been sent ahead of the Messiah as a witness to him, and therefore would not claim to be someone he was not. Though he was sent ahead of the Messiah, he knew that he was behind him in status (1:29–30).
29–30. John’s role was to point people to Jesus. He expressed this using a marriage analogy: The bride belongs to the bridegroom. In the Old Testament the metaphor of the bride/bridegroom is used of the relationship between Israel and God: ‘as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you’ (Isa. 62:5b; cf. Hos. 1 – 2). John would have been aware of the use of this metaphor in the Old Testament, and saw his ministry as pointing Israel to the one to whom they belonged.
To explain his own relationship to Jesus John made extended use of the marriage analogy: The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. The background to this is found in Jewish marriage customs, according to which the friend of the bridegroom/best man was responsible for leading the bridegroom to his bride and then waited outside the bridal chamber while the marriage was consummated.57 The mention of the bridegroom’s voice, some suggest, refers to the shout of exultation by the bridegroom when he discovered he had married a virgin.58 The work of the friend of the bridegroom was then complete and he took pleasure in the bridegroom’s joy. Far from feeling jealous, then, as he witnessed the increasing success of Jesus’ ministry and the waning of his own, John was able to rejoice that ‘everyone is going to him’ (3:26). John’s disciples’ concern for his declining popularity reflects a failure on their part to appreciate that the ‘bride’ belongs to the ‘bridegroom’, not to the ‘bridegroom’s friend’. It is a sign of true godliness and Christian maturity when we can rejoice in God’s blessing on the ministry of others.
That joy is mine, and it is now complete. As John saw the growing popularity of Jesus, his joy, like the joy of a bridegroom’s true friend, was now complete. He had fulfilled his purpose in life: to bear witness to Jesus and point people to him. He summed up the whole matter in the famous words, He must become greater; I must become less. He saw it as a divine necessity (expressed by the word ‘must’, dei) that Jesus should take precedence over him. Calvin applies this text to Christian ministers:
Whoever has the attitude of setting aside all thought of himself and extolling Christ and being satisfied that He is honoured, will be faithful and successful in presiding over the Church. But whoever swerves from that aim in the slightest degree is an impure adulterer and can do nothing but corrupt the bride of Christ.59
In this final section of chapter 3 the evangelist picks up and expands upon themes Jesus mentioned in his conversation with Nicodemus, especially that of Jesus’ testimony in 3:11–13 as the one who has come from heaven.
31. The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The second part of this statement refers to John the Baptist, though it would be equally true as a general statement. It is not a denigration of John, but a way of highlighting the qualitative difference between John and Jesus. Though he was a prophet, John was only a human being whose origins were from the earth, whereas Jesus was the Son of God come down from heaven. John was one who belongs to the earth, and therefore spoke as one from the earth. Jesus said something similar about John when speaking to the Jews: ‘You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved’ (5:33–34). John’s testimony is ‘human testimony’; he speaks as one from the earth.60 The evangelist concludes this verse by reiterating how Jesus was different from John: The one who comes from heaven is above all. This implies not only Jesus’ superiority to John, but also his pre-incarnate existence in heaven.
32–33. Speaking again about Jesus, the evangelist says: He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. He picks up something Jesus said in his conversation with Nicodemus: ‘we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony’ (3:11). But the evangelist also explains that some did accept Jesus’ testimony: Whoever [lit. ‘the one who’] has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. Translated literally, this could refer to John the Baptist’s acceptance of Jesus’ testimony, but could also refer to anyone who accepts it. The evangelist uses a legal term, ‘to certify’ or ‘to place a seal upon’ (sphragizō), found in commercial documents among the papyri where it denotes the sealing of letters and sacks to guarantee that no-one tampers with the contents. In this verse it is used figuratively as a seal of approval – a person’s confirmation of the truthfulness of God.61 To accept Jesus’ testimony is to certify that God is truthful because Jesus, in his testimony to the world, passes on the words given him by God (cf. 7:15–18; 8:38, 46–47; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 17:8).
34. The evangelist explains why accepting the words of Jesus certifies that God is truthful: For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God. Since Jesus’ words are the words of God, to accept them is to accept that God is truthful. Behind this statement lies the idea of the Jewish ‘agent’, of whom it is said, ‘a man’s agent is like to himself’ (m. Ber. 5:5). The actions of a man’s agent were regarded as the actions of the man himself.
The term used for words in the expression the words of God is rhēma, a term used repeatedly in the Gospel of John to denote Jesus’ teaching both to believers and to unbelievers (3:34; 5:47; 6:63, 68; 8:20, 47; 10:21; 12:47, 48; 14:10; 15:7; 17:8). Nowhere in this Gospel does it connote a specific word from God for one individual or group, as some claim.
Jesus, the one whom God has sent, faithfully speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. In context this can only mean that God gave his Spirit to the incarnate Jesus without limit or measure,62 that is, in a full and unrestricted way. A later rabbinic passage relates a certain Rabbi Aha saying: ‘Even the Holy Spirit resting on the prophets does so by weight [or measure], one prophet speaking one book of prophecy and another speaking two books’ (Lev. Rab. 15:2). John perhaps means that God poured out his Spirit upon Jesus in much greater measure than he ever did on the prophets. Because God poured out his Spirit upon Jesus without limit, Jesus can speak the words of God, and when he does so those words are completely trustworthy.
35. The evangelist says, The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. The Father’s love for the Son is a recurring theme in this Gospel. The Father gives glory to his Son because he loved him before the foundation of the world (17:24). He loves the Son because the Son lays down his life – to take it up again (10:17). His love for the Son is like his love for believers (17:26), and also like Jesus’ love for them (15:9).
In this verse the evangelist implies that the Father’s love for the Son is the reason why he has placed everything in his hands. As he gave Jesus the Spirit without measure, so he has placed everything else in his hands as well (13:3; 17:7). Elsewhere the evangelist mentions some of the things given by the Father to the Son: responsibility for the judgment (5:22, 27), to have life in himself (5:26), all believers as his possession (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:6, 9), authority over all people (17:2), the ‘name’ (17:11, 12) and the glory (17:22, 24) (cf. Matt. 11:27: ‘All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’).
36. In the light of the Father’s great love for the Son and his having placed everything in his hands, two things follow. First, Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Because the Father loves the Son, all who believe in his Son receive eternal life (see ‘Additional note: eternal life’, pp. 121–122). The greatest thing we can ever do for God is to believe in the Son whom he loves. Second, whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. The worst thing we can do against God is to reject the Son he loves and whom he gave for our salvation. Those who do this forfeit life, and are exposed instead to the wrath of God.
This is the only occurrence of the word wrath (orgē) in the Gospel of John. It occurs four times in the Synoptic Gospels: twice when John the Baptist asks unrepentant people coming to him for baptism who warned them to flee from the coming wrath (Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7); once to describe Jesus’ anger at the stubbornness of Pharisees (Mark 3:5); and once more when describing the great distress to befall the land of Judah when God’s wrath is poured out upon it because its people have rejected the Messiah (Luke 21:23).
The evangelist does not explain here what it means for the wrath of God to remain upon people.63 Some clarifying comments may be ventured: (1) God’s wrath is described as ‘remaining’ upon people, suggesting that it hangs over all and is only removed in the case of those who believe in his Son; (2) the passage 3:17–21 is probably the best place to seek further light on the wrath of God. While the word ‘wrath’ is not found in this passage, the words ‘condemn’/‘judge’ and ‘condemnation’/‘judgment’ are found there. Those who believe in Jesus are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have ‘not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son’ (3:18). Those who are condemned are those whose deeds are evil, who hate the light Jesus brings and refuse to come to the light, preferring the darkness where they hope their evil deeds will not be discovered (3:19–20). As in 3:36 it is the rejection of the one God loves, his one and only Son, and a refusal to come to him, that attracts condemnation.
Morris, while acknowledging that the wrath of God ‘is uncongenial to many modern students’, says,
if we abandon the idea of the wrath of God we are left with a God who is not ready to act against moral evil . . . It stands for the settled and active opposition of God’s holy nature to everything that is evil.64
John the Baptist exemplifies the attitude that should characterize all ministers of the gospel. He recognized that his role was only what had been given ‘from heaven’ – that is, it was determined by God, and he was content with that. Unlike his disciples, he was not envious of Jesus’ greater role; in fact, just as the bridegroom’s friend rejoices when he sees the bridegroom’s joy, John’s own joy was complete as he saw Jesus becoming greater while he became less. Carson’s comment is apt:
Unlike many preachers for whom humility is little more than an affectation, John meant what he said. Both John and Jesus were given their roles by heaven (v. 27), and John was entirely content with his. Small wonder that the assessment of John provided by both Jesus (Mt. 11:7–11) and the fourth Evangelist (10:40–42) is so positive.65
Jesus’ uniqueness is implied in the evangelist’s statement that Jesus ‘speaks the words of God, for God gives [him] the Spirit without measure’. By so saying he distinguishes Jesus from all others sent by God and inspired by the Spirit, people to whom the Spirit was apportioned by measure in accordance with the tasks they were assigned. Jesus’ uniqueness is further emphasized when the evangelist says: ‘The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands’. ‘Everything’ includes having life in himself and the right to give life to those whom God gives him, authority over all people and to carry out the judgment, and participation in the glory of God (see commentary on 3:35).
The passage concludes on a solemn note. Alongside the good news of the gospel, that ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life’, stands the solemn warning, reiterating that of 3:18, that ‘whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them’ (see commentary on 3:18).
The previous section, 3:22–36, recounted the overlapping ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist in Judea, and the concern felt by John’s disciples because Jesus was attracting more disciples than John. When Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard about this, he decided to leave Judea and return to Galilee (4:1–3). On the way he had to pass through Samaria and came to Jacob’s well at Sychar (4:4–6). Here he met a Samaritan woman, and the remainder of chapter 4 describes this encounter and its outcome, including Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman (4:7–30), his instruction of his disciples (4:31–38) and the time he spent with the Samaritan townspeople (4:39–42). Keener notes the contrast between Jesus’ encounters with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman: ‘There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus’ message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message . . . but brought it to her entire Samaritan town.’66
1–2. In 3:25–26 we saw that John’s disciples were concerned because Jesus was also baptizing and everyone was going after him. In 4:1 we read: Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptising more disciples than John. Perhaps the unnamed Jew who was arguing with the disciples of John (3:25) relayed information about Jesus’ baptizing ministry to the Pharisees. The evangelist adds: although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples. Why he felt it necessary to add this explanation is not clear; perhaps it was to counter unhealthy pride on the part of his readers based on their association with those who had been baptized by Jesus himself. The matter of who was baptized by whom was one of the bases of unhealthy preferences for one leader over another in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:11–16).
3. News that the Pharisees had heard about his baptizing ministry prompted action on Jesus’ part: So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. The evangelist does not explain why this news led Jesus to leave Judea. Perhaps he did not wish to be in competition with John, whose ministry he endorsed (5:32–35; cf. Matt. 11:7–15), or perhaps his increasingly high profile meant it was necessary for him to avoid premature confrontation with the Pharisees.
4. Describing Jesus’ return to Galilee, the evangelist says: Now he had to go through Samaria. There were three routes between Jerusalem and Galilee, and only one passed through Samaria; the others bypassed it.67 The normal route taken by Jews travelling between Galilee and Jerusalem was through Samaria. Josephus comments: ‘Samaria was now under Roman rule and, for rapid travel, it was essential to take that route, by which Jerusalem may be reached in three days from Galilee’ (Vit. 269); ‘It was the custom at the time of a festival [for Galilean Jews] to pass through the Samaritan territory on their way to the Holy City’ (Ant. 20.118). Jesus, then, had to go through Samaria because it was the shortest and the normal way people travelled between Jerusalem and Galilee. However, in light of the narrative that follows (the conversation with the Samaritan woman and the Samaritan townspeople coming to believe in him), we may add that Jesus’ need to go through Samaria was determined by the divine will as well as by geographical factors (cf. 4:34).
5. So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Sychar, usually identified with present-day Askar, is located about 1 mile (1.6 km) south-east of present-day Nablus and very close to the site of ancient Shechem, which is located at the entrance to the valley separating the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal (cf. Deut. 11:26–32; 27:13 – 28:68). Jacob bequeathed a piece of land near this place to his son Joseph, and it was in this land that Joseph’s bones were laid to rest when the Israelites came up out of Egypt (cf. Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32).
6. The evangelist provides two final pieces of information to set the scene. First, he says that Jacob’s well was there,68 foreshadowing the importance of the well-traditions in the subsequent conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (vv. 11–13) (see ‘Additional note: well-traditions’ below). There is no mention in the Old Testament of Jacob digging such a well, but it does indicate that he owned land in this area (Gen. 33:19). However, to this day there is a deep well at the place, which Schnackenburg describes as follows:
The well of Jacob, which is still to be seen today in the same place where it was shown to earlier pilgrims, is undoubtedly genuine, though it is not mentioned in the O.T. It is a fine installation, with a cylindrical shaft seven feet in diameter and 106 feet deep driven into the rock and fresh subsoil water at the bottom (like Isaac’s well in Gen 26:19) ringed by a wall on top. There are two holes through which a bucket can be lowered (v. 11) and the water lies near the bottom of the shaft.69
Second, the evangelist adds: Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. If Jesus had been baptizing in the same area as John, near Aenon (3:22–23, 26), and had left from there heading north-west to Sychar, he had covered a significant distance. As the crow flies, Sychar is about 30 miles (40 km) from Aenon, but following the Roman roads it was about 40 miles (64 km). The journey would have taken a day and a half, so Jesus and his disciples would have arrived in Sychar on the second day at about the sixth hour, that is, about noon. Tired from this journey, Jesus sat down by the well. Köstenberger notes: ‘Wells usually were carved out from solid limestone rock, with a small curb remaining to guard against accident (cf. Exod. 21:33). This is probably where Jesus sat down to rest.’70
It is widely recognized that the evangelist’s description of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar is reminiscent of similar encounters reported in the Old Testament, in particular the betrothal scenes involving Isaac (Gen. 24:10–61), Jacob (Gen. 29:1–20) and Moses (Exod. 2:11–21). Witherington says,
The evangelist evokes such scenes by opening the telling of the story with remarks like ‘Sychar was near the field which Jacob gave to Joseph his son’, referring to Jacob’s well, and indicating that the woman asks ‘You’re not greater than our father Jacob, are you?’71
Coloe regards Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well in Genesis 29:10 as background to John 4. This enables her to identify marital symbolism in John 4 whereby Jesus is portrayed as the ‘bridegroom’ coming for those beyond Judaism – in this case, Samaritans.72
However, Arterbury argues convincingly from the details of the account of Jesus’ interaction with the woman that the ancient customs of hospitality, rather than those of betrothal, provide the background to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus arrives at the well as a traveller tired from his journey and asks for a drink. The woman is not surprised by the request but by the identity of the one making it (‘You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?’). Jesus asks about her husband – the one who could provide hospitality. The woman tests him with the theological conundrum of the place where people should worship. Jesus finally reveals to her his identity as Messiah, and when she reports this to the townspeople they come and invite him to stay with them, which he does for two days.73
7–8. As Jesus sat by the well a Samaritan woman came to draw water. It is strange that she came at about the sixth hour/noon, the hottest part of the day. Normally, women came to draw water in the morning or evening, the cooler parts of the day (cf. Gen. 24:11; 29:7). It is also strange that she came alone. Both these things suggest that the woman was avoiding contact with other women.74 We learn later that she was living with a man who was not her husband, and this was frowned upon by pious Samaritans as well as Jews.75
Contact was initiated as Jesus said to her, ‘Will you give me a drink?’ In the culture of the day, it was strange for a man to initiate conversation with a woman in public, something noted by Jesus’ disciples later (cf. 4:27). The evangelist, either to offer some explanation as to why Jesus asked her for a drink, or simply to set the scene for the private exchange between Jesus and the woman, adds, His disciples had gone into the town to buy food. It is at first surprising that the disciples, being Jews, would go and buy food in a Samaritan town, especially in light of the evangelist’s comment in 4:9 (‘Jews do not associate with Samaritans’). However, a distinction was made by even the strictest Jews between accepting food given by those considered unclean and buying it from them – the latter being considered appropriate (cf. 1QS 5:14–20; Str-B 1, pp. 538–560). Nevertheless, it was a risky thing for the disciples to enter a Samaritan town, as Samaritans did not always welcome Jewish pilgrims travelling through their territory (cf. Luke 9:51–56).
9. The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?’ The evangelist adds in parenthesis: For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.76 There was a long and ongoing history of animosity between Jews and Samaritans which meant that neither group normally welcomed contact with the other. The roots of this animosity go deep into history. In the eighth century bc, when the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians, the majority of the population was carried into exile. To repopulate the area, the Assyrians brought in peoples from other parts of their empire, and these intermarried with those still left in the land, resulting in a mixed race of peoples, later known as the Samaritans.
In the sixth century bc the southern kingdom of Judah was overrun by the Babylonians and many of its people were taken into exile in Babylon. Later the Babylonian kingdom fell to the Persians. Cyrus king of Persia allowed exiles from Judah to return to Jerusalem, and they began to rebuild the temple and later to repair the walls of Jerusalem. Those returning to rebuild were now called Jews (lit. ‘Judeans’). The Samaritans offered to assist them in rebuilding the temple, but their offer was rejected. Having been rebuffed, the Samaritans built their own rival temple on Mount Gerizim in Samaria. The Jews regarded the Samaritans as ethnically impure and repudiated them, and in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah marriages that had been contracted between Jews and Samaritans were broken up.
In the following centuries, down to and beyond the time of Jesus, there was much animosity between Jews and Samaritans. A number of incidents illustrate this. Around 400 bc the Samaritans had built the temple on Mount Gerizim, and in 128 bc the Jewish king John Hyrcanus destroyed it. Between ad 6 and 9 Samaritans defiled the Jerusalem temple during Passover by scattering dead men’s bones in it. In ad 52 pilgrims from Galilee travelling through Samaria en route to Jerusalem were massacred by Samaritans, and during the Jewish–Roman war of ad 66–70 Jewish rebels razed the city of Samaria to the ground.
Nevertheless, it is possible to overstate the level of animosity between Jews and Samaritans. John 4:9 certainly reflects the tensions existing between the two communities, and this was the general state of affairs between them. However, even in the New Testament there are hints of variations in their relationships. One Samaritan village refuses to welcome Jesus, while another asks him to stay two days. Of the ten lepers Jesus heals, it is a Samaritan who returns to give thanks. And in the parable about the man who fell among thieves on the road to Jericho, Jesus makes the one who stops to give aid a Samaritan.77
10. Ignoring the woman’s comment about Jews and Samaritans and cutting straight to the chase, Jesus answered her, ‘If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.’ Jesus drew the woman’s attention to two important matters – who he was and the gift of God that he was able to give. These two things form the major themes of the conversation that ensues: ‘the gift of God’ in 4:10–15, and ‘who it is that asks you for a drink’ in 4:16–26.
The gift of God that Jesus offers is living water, and this was the initial topic of their conversation. The word gift (dōrea) is found only here in the Gospels, but it is used four times in Acts, always in reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17).78 In the Old Testament God is described as the source of ‘living water’ (Jer. 2:13; 17:13), as also is the Holy Spirit (Isa. 44:3). The Samaritan woman would not have picked up these allusions even if she knew the Samaritan Bible because it contained only the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy), but Jesus’ mind was soaked in the whole Old Testament. The living water of which he spoke is the gift of the Holy Spirit. He spoke to Nicodemus about being born of the Spirit; to the woman of Samaria he spoke of drinking the living water of the Spirit; and during the Festival of Tabernacles he invited the crowds in Jerusalem to come to him and drink, referring again to the gift of the Spirit (7:37–39).
11–12. The woman’s response revealed she did not understand what Jesus was offering her: ‘Sir,’ the woman said, ‘you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?’ Perhaps she thought his mention of living water referred to water from the underground spring that fed the well.79 She reminded him how deep the well was (about 100 ft [30 m]) and pointed out that he had nothing to draw with, implying it was impossible for him to give her living water. This led her to ask: Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock? The form of the question in the original language indicates that a negative answer is expected (‘you are not greater than our father Jacob, are you?’). She implied that Jesus thought too highly of himself, as if he were greater even than Jacob, who gave them the well and drank from it himself, together with his children and animals. The evangelist is using irony, expecting readers to know that Jesus is definitely greater than Jacob!
13–14. Jesus chose not to respond to the matters raised by the woman, including the apparent impossibility of his obtaining water for her. Instead he brought her back to what he regarded as the central issue: Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst.’ Those who drink the water from Jacob’s well will thirst again. Those who drink the living water Jesus gives, those who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, will never thirst. Jesus explained why: Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life. The gift of the Spirit will be something experienced continually within the very being of those who receive it – like a spring (pēgē) of water welling up within them. The verb used for welling up (hallomai) means literally ‘to jump up’, and in the only other places where it is found in the New Testament it has that literal meaning (Acts 3:8; 14:10). It is a vivid metaphor for the activity of the Holy Spirit within those who believe in Jesus, reminding us of the experiential as well as the cognitive side of the Christian faith. The fulfilment of this promise (with its future tense verbs in the original language: ‘I will give’ [dōsō], ‘will never thirst’ [dipsēsei], ‘I will give’ [dōsō], ‘will become’ [genēsetai]) awaits the coming of the Spirit following Jesus’ exaltation (cf. 7:37–39).
Jesus said that this water wells up to eternal life (eis zōēn aiōnion). Identical expressions are found in 4:36 in relation to those who harvest a crop ‘for eternal life’; in 6:27 in relation to the food that endures ‘to eternal life’; and in 12:25 in relation to those who hate their lives in this world but keep them ‘for eternal life’. In each case the expression relates to life in the age to come, life in the kingdom of God. In the context of 4:14, then, the living water Jesus promised will well up continually within the believer until it reaches its culmination in the age to come.
In practice, what does it mean to never thirst? If the gift of living water refers to the gift of the Spirit, can we say that those who have received the Spirit never thirst? If by this we mean that they never feel any dissatisfaction and always feel content, this is patently untrue. In what way, then, does the Spirit satisfy human thirst in the present time? The answer is found in Jesus’ teaching about the Spirit in chapters 14–16. There the role of the Spirit is to take Jesus’ place in the disciples’ lives after his return to the Father. The Spirit mediates Christ’s presence to the disciples, creating a sense of intimacy with the Father and the Son. It is this relationship that lasts to eternal life, and it is the human thirst for a relationship with God that the coming of the Spirit satisfies even in the here and now.
15. Responding to Jesus’ promise of living water that quenches thirst for ever, The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.’ Her response indicates two things: first, she was now interested in Jesus’ offer; and second, she still did not understand what he meant by ‘living water’.
16–18. Jesus did not respond directly to her request; instead He told her, ‘Go, call your husband and come back.’ That Jesus had touched upon a sore point is evident in the woman’s curt reply, I have no husband. Jesus’ response to this would have been devastating: You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true. This text has been interpreted in two ways. First, it has been understood metaphorically, so that the woman’s past experience with five husbands symbolizes the Samaritan nation languishing under foreign gods. Those adopting this view point to 2 Kings 17:24–33 which tells how, following the deportation of many people from the northern kingdom of Israel, the Assyrians brought in people from five other nations, who worshipped their own gods, to repopulate the land. It was intermarriage between these people and those of the northern kingdom who were not deported that produced the Samaritan people. The Jews regarded them as a hybrid race and one whose relationship with Yahweh had been compromised. The Samaritans’ unfaithfulness was regarded as religious adultery (in the OT adultery was often used as a symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh when they went after other gods). Interpreted along these lines, Jesus’ words to the woman allude to the Samaritans’ previous worship of the gods of the five nations. However, the evangelist did not intend Jesus’ words to be understood in this way, for as he unfolds the story Jesus sends the woman away to get her husband and then return – something which needs to be taken literally, not metaphorically. (It has also been noted that although people from five nations were brought in to repopulate the land, the gods they worshipped, as listed in 2 Kgs 17:30–31, were seven, not five.)
Second, the text has been interpreted literally, and this approach is preferable because, as Michaels points out, ‘the woman herself heard Jesus’ words as a comment on her personal history, not on the history of her people (vv. 29, 39)’.80 Nevertheless, it can still be understood in different ways. The word translated ‘husband’ (anēr) in the niv can mean either ‘husband’ or ‘man’ (a male). If we take anēr to mean ‘husband’, she could have been married five times and each time her husband had died, or each time she had been divorced (in a society where divorce was almost entirely a male prerogative), and now she was living with a man who was not her husband (possibly meaning someone else’s husband, but more likely that her relationship with the one she was living with had not been regularized by a marriage contract). If anēr is taken to mean ‘a man’, it is possible that she had never been married, but had had a series of affairs with men, culminating in a final promiscuous relationship. The text does not enable us to determine which of these interpretations is correct. Either way, it seems that Jesus’ intention in mentioning these things was not to create a sense of guilt, but to confront the pain in her relationships with men.81 If so, it would accentuate her thirst for a meaningful relationship with God and make her receptive to the revelation Jesus was offering her. In any case, the woman’s response was one of amazement at Jesus’ knowledge, not a sense of guilt.
The striking thing about all this is not the number of husbands or lovers this woman had lived with, or even that the man she now had was not her husband, but that Jesus had such knowledge about her personal life. This is another illustration of what the evangelist says in 2:24–25: ‘Jesus . . . knew all people. He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.’ Jesus’ supernatural knowledge, revealed in his understanding of Nathanael (1:48) and the Jews who ‘believed’ in him (2:24), is revealed again in the case of the woman of Samaria. This is what the evangelist focuses upon as he continues his narrative.
19. In response to Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of her personal life, ‘Sir,’ the woman said, ‘I can see that you are a prophet.’ She realized that he was no ordinary Jew – only a prophet could have such supernatural knowledge. The Samaritans were looking for the coming of ‘the Prophet’ (Deut. 18:15) whom they identified as the Taheb, the Samaritan Messiah. Maybe the woman was wondering whether Jesus might be this prophet/Messiah. Later she would say to her fellow townspeople, ‘Come, see a man who told me everything I’ve ever done. Could this be the Messiah?’ (4:29).
20. Regarding Jesus as a prophet, she said to him: Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. There was one great matter of disagreement between Jews and Samaritans: it went back several centuries (see commentary on 4:9) and was related to the proper place to worship God. The woman speaks in this verse not just for herself, but for the Samaritan people (using the first-person plural: our ancestors), and puts their views over against those of the Jewish people (using the second-person plural: you [Jews]). This mountain refers to Mount Gerizim, which was in view as she spoke to Jesus at Sychar and on which the Samaritan temple had been built (c. 388 bc) to rival the Jerusalem temple as a place of worship. Even to this day a small community of Samaritans worship God on Mount Gerizim near present-day Nablus. The Jews, on the other hand, insisted that only in Jerusalem should people worship God. This belief went back to the promise that God would choose a place to put his name and that people should come to worship him there; this place was Jerusalem, Mount Zion (cf. Deut. 12:4–7, 21; 14:22–26; 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr. 12:13). The woman’s statement contains an implied question: What do you think about the ancient disagreement between Samaritans and Jews?
21. Jesus did not answer the implied question immediately. Instead, he foreshadowed a new day: ‘Woman,’ Jesus replied, ‘believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.’ The question of the correct place to worship would soon be irrelevant, for the times were about to change as the Mosaic law was superseded. Worship would no longer be localized in sacred places. This should caution us about thinking that the worship of God is tied to sacred places today, whether that be in church buildings, holy cities (Jerusalem, Rome or Canterbury) or holy sites (the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc.). It is good to visit these places to gain historic perspective and to increase our sense of the reality of what we believe, but to think that one’s worship of God is more acceptable in such places, or that we are somehow closer to God in these places, is to deny the truth of Jesus’ teaching in this and the following verses.
22. Jesus then responded directly to the implied question in 4:20: You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. The plural forms used by Jesus (you Samaritans and we [Jews]) show that his remarks related to the Samaritan people and the Jewish people in the same way as the woman’s implied question did. Jesus insisted that Samaritan worship on Mount Gerizim was worship based upon ignorance. They believed they worshipped the God of the patriarchs who established altars everywhere, but now God had chosen Jerusalem as the place where people should come together to worship him. Jews worshipped at the place God himself had chosen, something the Samaritans refused to acknowledge. Jesus also insisted that God’s purposes for salvation were being worked out through the Jewish people, not the Samaritans. No matter how much grace Jesus was to show to the Samaritan woman, it would not be at the expense of truth.
23. Having made plain that the Jews had the rights of the matter as far as worship was concerned, Jesus returned to the theme of 4:21 when he said, Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. The time that was coming was the time when true worshippers would no longer need to go to Jerusalem, for Jesus’ death, resurrection and sending of the Spirit would usher in the new way of worship. This time could be said loosely to have now come because Jesus had already set in motion the things that would bring in the new worship in the Spirit and in truth.
Worship in the Spirit and in truth is easy to understand negatively: it is no longer tied to sacred sites. It is harder to say what it means positively. Most likely it means worship through the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus would give to those who believed in him, and in accordance with the truth of God as it has been made known through the person and teaching of Jesus.82 The Father seeks people who will worship him in the Spirit and in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. This is a reminder that worship is not restricted to what we do when we come together in church, but is about the way we relate to God through the Spirit and in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, and that touches the whole of life.
24. There is another reason why this new form of worship is necessary: God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. The evangelist is not defining the essence of God; rather he is showing that God is of a different order from human beings (cf. Exod. 20:4 and the prohibition of making images of God in the likeness of people or animals): he is ‘spiritual’ (cf. Isa. 31:3) and therefore worship must be in the Spirit and in truth. To say this reinforces Jesus’ words to Nicodemus – that to see/enter the kingdom of God, one must be born of the Spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Only as people are born of the Spirit, only as they receive the gift of the Spirit, can they worship God who is spirit.
25–26. In response, The woman said, ‘I know that Messiah’ (called Christ) ‘is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.’ It was all too difficult for her to understand. She would have to wait for the arrival of the Samaritan Messiah/Taheb to explain everything. Then Jesus declared, ‘I, the one speaking to you – I am he.’ Literally, Jesus said, ‘I am [egō eimi], the one speaking to you.’ Sometimes in the Gospel of John egō eimi stands for the divine name (cf. 8:58; 18:5–6), but in this context it simply means, ‘I am he [the Messiah]’ (see ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154). It is striking that Jesus revealed himself as Messiah to a Samaritan woman who had her own (Samaritan) beliefs about the Messiah. While Jesus believed the Samaritans were mistaken about a number of things and said that salvation ‘is from the Jews’ (4:22), he recognized that the longings of the Samaritan people would only be satisfied (they would only find ‘living water’) and that they would only be able to offer true worship by putting their trust in him, the Jewish Messiah.
It is worth noting that Jesus engaged with this woman in a significant theological discussion involving a most important self-revelation. This suggests that she was not an ignorant villager, something also indicated by the fact that the villagers readily accepted her testimony (cf. vv. 28–30).83
27. The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman was interrupted: Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. They had been to one of the Samaritan towns to buy food (4:8) and when they returned were surprised, not to find Jesus talking with a Samaritan, but to find him talking with a woman. Such an attitude to women is reflected in the writings of the rabbis: ‘One does not speak with a woman in the street, not even with his own wife, and certainly not with another woman, because of people’s gossip’ (Str-B 2, p. 438). However, one should not assume that this statement from the learned writings of the rabbis necessarily reflects the attitude of people in their everyday relationships.84
Jesus’ attitude to women was different from that of his disciples. He initiated a long and meaningful conversation with the Samaritan woman in public, unconcerned about other people’s prejudices. Despite the disciples’ surprise, no one asked, ‘What do you want?’ or ‘Why are you talking with her?’85 Out of deference to their master, the disciples did not question him about his conversation with the woman, but the evangelist makes it clear that in their own minds they wondered what he wanted and why he was speaking to her.
28–30. Sensing, perhaps, the negative attitudes of the disciples towards her, Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town. She may have left her water pot so that Jesus could have the drink he requested or so that her return to the town might be carried out more quickly. It also suggests that she intended to return soon and was not completely put off by the disciples’ negative attitudes. When she arrived in the town she said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me everything I’ve ever done. Could this be the Messiah?’ What the woman did is strange in terms of the culture of the day. Women did not normally converse with men in public, only in the privacy of the home, and certainly they would not mention in public their private marital experience or sexual affairs. It was Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of her personal life that had impressed the woman, and this had led her to conclude he was a prophet (4:16–19). Then Jesus had revealed himself to her as the Messiah (4:26). Deeply impressed by these things, she went back to the town and urged her fellow townspeople to come and see Jesus (cf. Philip’s similar invitation to Nathanael in 1:46). She asked them whether the man who was able to tell her everything she had ever done could really be the Messiah. This question is tentative in form (‘this man cannot be the Messiah, can he?’), but as the narrative unfolds it becomes clear that the woman was testifying to her belief that he was indeed the Messiah (cf. 4:42). This section of the narrative concludes with a word about the townspeople’s response to the woman’s testimony: They came out of the town and made their way towards him. Before recounting what happened when they met Jesus, the evangelist tells about Jesus’ instruction of the disciples (4:31–38).
Jesus uses the egō eimi formula in three different ways in the Gospel of John: (1) with a predicate: ‘I am the bread of life’ (6:35, 41, 48, 51), ‘I am the light of the world’ (8:12), ‘I am the gate for the sheep’ (10:7, 9), ‘I am the good shepherd’ (10:11, 14), ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ (11:25), ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ (14:6) and ‘I am the true vine’ (15:1, 5); (2) with an implied predicate: ‘I am [he]’, ‘I am [the one]’, indicating he is the Messiah (4:26; 8:24, 28); and ‘It is [I]’ and ‘I am [he]’ simply to identify himself (6:20; 18:8; and possibly 18:5, 6), as did the man born blind (9:9); (3) as an absolute, possibly in 4:26; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5–6, and certainly in 8:58: ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ The last of these uses needs further comment, for in this case egō eimi represents the divine name. In Exodus 3:14, God says to Moses, ‘I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: “I am has sent me to you.”’ The ‘I am who I am’ is translated as egō eimi ho ōn in the lxx. In Isaiah 43:25; 51:12 egō eimi on its own functions as the divine name. Thus when Jesus said to the Jews, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’, he was identifying himself with God. He was not only pronouncing the name of God which Jews normally did not dare to utter, but, even worse, he was claiming to be God.
31–33. Picking up the story after the woman returned to the town, the evangelist says: Meanwhile his disciples urged him, ‘Rabbi, eat something.’ They had returned from one of the Samaritan towns with food they had bought (4:8) and they urged Jesus to eat some. But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you know nothing about.’ This bewildered them, so Then his disciples said to each other, ‘Could someone have brought him food?’ Had he received food during their absence, maybe from a Samaritan (although hopefully not from the Samaritan woman!)?
34. The disciples’ consternation provided opportunity for Jesus to explain: My food . . . is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. Jesus was not denying the need for normal sustenance, but pointing to something that was even more important. The food he had which they knew nothing about was doing his Father’s will and completing the work he had given him to do. This was Jesus’ whole purpose in coming into the world (6:38; 9:4; 17:4). Jesus was saying that the most satisfying thing for him, his ‘food and drink’, as it were, was doing his Father’s will and completing his work. Satisfaction for us, as for Jesus, comes more from pursuing the will of God than from meeting our physical needs (important as they are), which may be postponed when necessary.
35. Continuing to instruct his disciples, Jesus said: Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? From the time of autumn sowing to the beginning of the grain harvest was about six months, although the time between the last of the sowing and the beginning of harvest could be only four months. However, it was not Jesus’ intention to discuss agricultural matters with his disciples.86 He was speaking metaphorically, and wanted to draw his disciples’ attention to the imminence of a gospel harvest among the Samaritans. So he said: I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. Jesus was probably referring to the Samaritan townspeople making their way towards him after hearing the woman’s testimony, and was urging his disciples to open their eyes to the significance of what was happening. Harvest time had come!
36–37. Conscious of the approaching townspeople Jesus said, Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Wages were normally paid at the completion of work, but Jesus, as the reaper, was already drawing ‘his wages’, the joy of doing his Father’s will and seeing the harvest being brought in. The idea of the sower and the reaper being glad together is reminiscent of Amos 9:13: ‘“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when the reaper will be overtaken by the ploughman and the planter by the one treading grapes”’, a text which depicts the coming age as one of great productivity. With the coming of Jesus this new age was inaugurated, so that even now he harvests a crop for eternal life among the Samaritans. His conversation with the woman and her testimony to the townspeople were leading even now to belief in him, and that would mean eternal life for them.
Jesus then said: Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. If Jesus was the reaper, who was the sower? Some suggest that it was John the Baptist, but there is no evidence that he preached among Samaritans. Others say that it is a reference to the work of Old Testament prophets,87 but which of them laboured among the Samaritans? Still others think that it might refer to Jesus and the Samaritan woman.88 A fourth suggestion is that the Father was the sower and his Son was the reaper. This would be consistent with the theme in this Gospel of the cooperation of the Son in the work of the Father. However, it is probably best to regard the saying as a general statement meaning that those who labour in the initial proclamation of the kingdom will rejoice with those whose proclamation leads people ultimately to commitment. That it is a general statement is supported by the fact that in the next verse Jesus applies it to his disciples, some of whom were later actually to participate in a Samaritan mission (cf. Acts 8:5–25).
38. Addressing his disciples, Jesus said: I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labour. While the Gospel of John does not refer to the Galilean mission of the Twelve recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:1–15; Mark 6:7–13; Luke 9:1–6), here the evangelist assumes knowledge of their mission. By alluding to it, Jesus was reminding his disciples of its purpose – to harvest a crop sown by others. There is evidence that the disciples’ mission was successful (cf. Luke 10:17–20), but from whose prior labours did they benefit? John the Baptist had been commissioned to prepare the way for Jesus’ mission (1:19–23), and when Jesus sent out the Twelve their mission was an extension of his. Those from whose labours the disciples benefited, then, could be John and his disciples (and, we might add, Jesus himself).
39–41. Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I’ve ever done.’ She told her fellow townspeople about Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of her past and suggested that he might be the Messiah. This led many to believe in Jesus. As a result, they came out to meet Jesus for themselves.
So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. They were obviously impressed with him and prevailed upon him to stay in their town. That Samaritans should welcome Jesus in this way is remarkable when we remember the centuries of hostility between the two groups (see commentary on 4:9). It underlines the dramatic effect upon the townspeople of both the woman’s testimony and their own encounter with Jesus. The evangelist indicates that the latter was more important than the former: And because of his words many more became believers.
42. The Samaritan townspeople stressed the importance of their own encounter with Jesus when They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world.’ What they said to the woman was no disparagement of her testimony, but a verification of their belief based on their own hearing directly from Jesus.
In accepting Jesus as Saviour the Samaritans had accepted the thrust of Jesus’ earlier statement to the woman that ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (4:22). They were now convinced that he was the Saviour of the world – that is, that he came to bring the water of life to all people, Samaritans as well as Jews (see ‘Additional note: the Saviour of the world’ below). While the evangelist uses the word ‘saviour’ (sōtēr) only here in his Gospel, he speaks elsewhere of Jesus coming to save the world (3:17; 12:47). It is an important truth he wants his readers to understand and believe.
The expression ‘Saviour of the world’ (sōtēr tou kosmou) is found only twice in the New Testament: here in 4:42 and in 1 John 4:14. In 4:42 the expression ‘Saviour of the world’ carries the sense that Jesus is the Saviour of all people, Samaritans as well as Jews. It is as Saviour of the world that he was recognized. This is in line with the purpose of the evangelist to acquaint his readers with the true identity of Jesus so that, believing in him, they might enjoy life in his name.
However, the concerns of 1 John are different from those of the Gospel of John. The background to 1 John was strife within the Johannine Christian community. The question of whether Jesus is the Saviour of the world was not the issue; it was whether Jesus should be recognized as Saviour at all. In particular, was it necessary to believe in Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice for sin? Those who had seceded from the author’s community denied they had sinned (1 John 1:6 – 2:2), and argued that Jesus’ atoning death was unnecessary and did not take place (cf. 1 John 5:6–8). Those who with the author acknowledged their sins confessed the importance of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice which provided cleansing from their sins. They confessed that the Father ‘sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world’ (1 John 4:14, italics added).
It is possible that the form of the Samaritans’ confession that Jesus ‘is the Saviour of the world’ owes something to the way people thought of the Roman emperors. There is evidence that the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, Titus, Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian were all addressed in various ways as the ‘saviour of the world’.89 It may be that the Samaritans were recognizing that Jesus, not the emperor, was the true Saviour of the world. The evangelist does depict Jesus as the true king: Nathanael addressed him as the king of Israel (1:49), and before Pilate Jesus acknowledged that he was a king, although his kingship was not of this world (18:33–38). Lincoln comments: ‘The confession of Jesus’ universal significance also excludes rival claims, including those made on behalf of the Roman emperor, since the title “Saviour of the world” was applied in particular to Nero and Hadrian.’90
The overall significance of the narrative of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman is his gracious persistence in the face of incredulity, and possibly even jeering, on the part of an ‘outsider’. When she recognized him as a ‘prophet’ and raised the question of the place where people should worship, Jesus confronted her with the fact of Samaritan ignorance in the matter, insisting that ‘salvation is from the Jews’, and that therefore Jerusalem not Gerizim was the place where people ought to worship. But he went on to inform her that the time was coming when worship would no longer be tied to such places, but people would worship ‘in the Spirit and in truth’: that is, enjoying the presence of the Holy Spirit, they would worship God in the light of the truth Jesus taught.
Jesus identified himself as the long-awaited Messiah, and the Samaritan woman was by then prepared to accept that gladly and testify about it to her community. Members of this Samaritan community accepted her testimony, and when they met Jesus for themselves they recognized that he ‘really is the Saviour of the world’ – that is, the one who brings salvation to all people, to Samaritans as well as to Jews, and, we may add, to Gentiles also.
Jesus’ engagement with a Samaritan woman of questionable morals shows his love for sinners and also his willingness to ignore cultural prejudice in order to bring them salvation. This salvation he described as ‘living water’ for thirsty people, for it included the experience of the Holy Spirit enjoyed by those who believe, something which may be enjoyed now and even more so in the future as it wells up ‘to eternal life’.
When urged to eat food procured by his disciples, Jesus told them that his food ‘is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work’. This was no denial of the need for physical sustenance, but showed what Jesus’ first priority was, and also where his deepest satisfaction was found. The same should be seen in the lives of his followers.
As Jesus saw members of the Samaritan woman’s community approaching him he urged his disciples to open their eyes and see the field ‘ripe for harvest’. They needed to realize the urgency of the matter. Now was the time when those who reaped would draw their wages, the joy of seeing people come to faith, leading ultimately to the ‘Well done, good and faithful servant’ (cf. Matt. 25:21, par.). In this enterprise ‘sowers’ as well as ‘reapers’ are required. ‘Reapers’ should recognize that they are benefiting from the prior work of ‘sowers’, and both may rejoice when the ‘harvest’ is brought in.
Finally, Jesus’ way of bringing this woman to faith should be recognized. He took the initiative and persisted with her, despite her initial resistance. Jesus was sent by the Father to seek out worshippers, in this case the Samaritan woman, and her gender, ethnicity, religious background and dubious past were not to stand in the way. Her faith, like that of all believers, was a gift of God. No wonder that elsewhere the apostle Peter refers to believers as those who ‘have received a faith as precious as ours’ (2 Pet. 1:1, italics added).
Within the second major section of the Gospel of John, (1:19 – 12:50), 4:43–54 marks the end of the subsection 2:1 – 4:54, described as ‘From Cana to Cana’. It is so called because it begins with the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana, ‘the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory’ (2:1–12), and closes with the account of the healing of the royal official’s son who was close to death, also in Cana, and described as the ‘second sign’ Jesus performed (4:46–54).
The passage begins by noting that after spending two days in the Samaritan village Jesus left for Galilee and visited the village of Cana again. There he was met by a certain royal official who begged him to come and heal his son. Jesus did not go with the official but simply told him: ‘Go . . . your son will live.’ The official took Jesus at his word and departed, to be met by servants on the way telling him that his son was living.
43–44. Jesus stayed with the Samaritan townspeople for just a short while, then After the two days he left for Galilee. The evangelist includes a parenthetical comment: Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honour in his own country. Is this intended to contrast the warm welcome received by Jesus in Samaria with that to be expected in Galilee? Lincoln points out: ‘Readers have already learned that Jesus is from Nazareth (1.45–6) and that he and his family have a base in Capernaum (2.12), so they would most naturally assume Galilee to be his home territory (cf. also 7.41, 52).’91 The Synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus was not always welcomed in Galilee (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). Perhaps the evangelist knew that when Jesus returned to Galilee he would be among people, many of whom would be reluctant to believe that one who had lived in their midst could be the Messiah (cf. 1:46, Nathanael’s response to Philip: ‘Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?’).
45. Rather surprisingly, then, the evangelist says, When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, for they also had been there. They had recently returned from the Passover festival just as Jesus had done, and the miracles he did there (cf. 2:23; 3:2) were still fresh in their memories. However, the indications are that their welcome was to Jesus as a miracle-worker, falling short of belief in him as the Messiah. In 2:23–25 we saw that Jesus was not prepared to entrust himself to many in Jerusalem who believed in his name when they saw the signs he was performing, because ‘he knew what was in each person’. Jesus may have expected to encounter a similar situation when he arrived in Galilee.
46. Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. The evangelist reminds readers of Jesus’ first miracle in Cana (2:11) before recounting the second (4:54). Setting the scene for this second miracle he says, there was a certain royal official whose son lay ill at Capernaum. The words royal official translate basilikos, an adjective meaning ‘royal’ or ‘belonging to the king’. Here it is used substantively and means a ‘royal official’. During the period of Jesus’ ministry, Herod Antipas was king of Galilee and Peraea; presumably, therefore, this man was one of his officials.92 Being a person of significant status did not exempt him from the common tragedies of life and he found his son sick and at the point of death (4:47). He lived in Capernaum, a town located on the north-western shore of the Sea of Galilee, about 17 miles (27 km) from Cana as the crow flies. Capernaum was also the base for Jesus’ mission (Luke 4:23).
47. When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. The son, who in 4:46 was described as ‘ill’, is now described as close to death. Whether the official was a Jew or not we do not know. If he was, perhaps he had been to Jerusalem and seen the miracles Jesus performed there (2:23; 3:2). In any case, news had reached Capernaum that Jesus had returned to Galilee and was in Cana. So the official made the journey from Capernaum to Cana to implore Jesus to come to Capernaum and heal his son. Come translates katabē, literally ‘come down’. Cana was in the mountains and Capernaum was located on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. That we are told that his son was close to death prepares us to recognize the greatness of the miraculous healing that Jesus was to perform.
48. Jesus’ response was confronting: ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders,’ Jesus told him, ‘you will never believe.’ Though Jesus was speaking to the royal official (‘Jesus told him’), his criticism was intended not only for him but for the Galileans in general (‘unless you people see signs and wonders . . . you will never believe’). Jesus knew many of them would not believe in him, just as the evangelist foreshadowed (4:44).
49–50. The man was desperate and did not want to argue with Jesus: The royal official said, ‘Sir, come down before my child dies.’ Here it becomes clear that the official’s ‘son’ (hyios, 4:46) was in fact a young child (paidion, 4:49). Jesus persisted with his demand for true faith (that did not need to see miracles before believing), while at the same time responding to the official’s desperation with compassion: ‘Go,’ Jesus replied, ‘your son will live.’ While Jesus did not comply with the request that he come down to Capernaum, he did far more than the official asked. Attached to the command Go (poreuou) was the assurance your son will live (zē is present tense: lit. ‘[your son] lives’). Jesus both demanded unquestioning faith in his word and provided the healing for which the official asked. Calvin comments:
It is also worth noticing that although Christ does not grant his desire, He gives him far more than he asked. For he receives the assurance that his son is even now well. So our heavenly Father often does not comply with our prayers in every detail but goes to work in an unexpected way to help us, so that we may learn not to dictate to Him in anything.93
The royal official rose to the occasion: The man took Jesus at his word and departed. He believed Jesus’ word without seeing a sign. This sort of faith is found in several places in the Gospel (1:47–49; 2:5–10; 4:39–42, 50; 9:35–38) and was explicitly praised by Jesus: ‘blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’ (20:29). Jesus spoke the word in Cana and the miraculous healing took place in Capernaum, about 17 miles away.
51–53. The royal official was making his way home believing the word of Jesus, and While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. No doubt he was greatly relieved and overjoyed, but there was something else he wanted to know. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, ‘Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.’ This confirmed the faith he had placed in Jesus’ word the day before, for Then the father realised that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, ‘Your son will live.’ The faith he had exercised without seeing a sign was now confirmed by hearing of the outcome. His son’s life had been saved by the word of Jesus alone. But the story does not end there. The evangelist adds, So he and his whole household believed. His faith in the promise of Jesus concerning his son’s healing and seeing that faith rewarded led the official to greater belief in Jesus, and resulted in his whole household coming to believe in him. Normally, when the head of a household believed, the other members followed (see Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 33, 34; 18:8; Rom. 16:10; 1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19). The royal official and his household were examples of those who exercised true faith in Jesus, examples the evangelist wanted his readers to emulate.
54. The evangelist concludes his account with the words, This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee. The first sign was turning water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. The second was also performed in Cana when Jesus returned to Galilee from Judea after the Passover festival in Jerusalem. The evangelist was, of course, aware that Jesus had already performed many more miracles than just these two which he chose to describe (2:23; 3:1–2; 4:45).
It is significant that Jesus confronted the royal official who was asking for healing for his son with the Galileans’ demand for signs before they would believe (cf. 6:30; Matt. 12:39, par.). Yet, despite his disappointment with the demand for signs, Jesus’ compassion was revealed when he proceeded to provide healing for the man’s son. However, he did not accompany him to Capernaum as requested; he just said, ‘Go . . . your son will live.’ He demanded belief in his word without any sign. And the official learned that Jesus’ word alone was sufficient to effect healing. It is implicit trust in his word that delights our Lord (see Matt. 8:8–10).
The royal official progressed through three stages of engagement with Jesus: from hearing that Jesus had arrived in Galilee (4:47), and presumably about his ability to perform miracles, to being prepared to act on Jesus’ word alone (4:50), and finally to becoming one who with ‘his whole household believed’ (4:53) – presumably that Jesus was the Messiah. This illustrates the stages in coming to faith through which people may pass: knowing about Jesus, trusting in his word and experiencing his grace.
In this chapter the scene changes from Cana in Galilee, where Jesus was when he healed the royal official’s son who was near death, to Jerusalem, where he attended ‘one of the Jewish festivals’. Coming to the Pool of Bethesda he saw a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. The chapter describes how Jesus healed the man and the aftermath. The healing is the third sign performed by Jesus that the evangelist records. Witherington comments,
it was not Jesus’ usual procedure to seek out people to heal; rather, they came to him. There is one exception to this rule – when healing was undertaken on the Sabbath. Both the Synoptics and the Gospel of John stress that Jesus deliberately sought out opportunities to heal on the Sabbath (cf. Mark 3:1–6; Luke 13:10–17; 4:1–6).94
The depiction of the healing itself consists of six brief scenes: the setting (5:1–3), the healing (5:5–9a), the Jewish leaders rebuking the man who was healed (5:9b–13), Jesus meeting up again with the man whom he healed (5:14), the man who was healed telling the Jewish leaders who healed him (5:15) and Jesus defending his actions to the Jewish leaders (5:16–18). The aftermath is described in 5:19–47 and consists of two further sections in which Jesus speaks of his authority (5:19–30) and lists his witnesses (5:31–47).
1. Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. The timing of this miracle is indefinite. It occurred on the second of Jesus’ five visits to Jerusalem that are recorded in this Gospel. The reason for this visit was that he might attend one of the Jewish festivals. We are not told which festival it was, and therefore the exact timing of the miracle is unknown. (That it is described as one of the Jewish festivals suggests this Gospel was intended for Gentile readers also.)
2. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. The Sheep Gate was located near the north-east corner of the old city of Jerusalem. There are no other references to it in the New Testament, but it is mentioned in descriptions of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah 3:1, 32; 12:39.
The pool called Bethesda (‘house of mercy’)95 was a double pool, generally identified with the pools excavated near St Anne’s Church just inside St Stephen’s Gate of present-day Jerusalem. Each pool was trapezoidal in shape, and the overall length of the two pools (north to south) was about 318 ft (97 m). The smaller pool to the north was about 197 ft (60 m) wide on its northern side, and the larger southern pool was about 250 ft (76 m) wide on its southern side. The five colonnades were located one on each of the four sides of the double pool and one across the centre dividing the two pools.
3. The evangelist completes his description of the setting: Here a great number of disabled people used to lie – the blind, the lame, the paralysed. Some manuscripts add as part of 5:3 the words ‘and they waited for the moving of the waters’. Other manuscripts add also the words: ‘From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had’ (5:4). These words are omitted by the best Greek manuscripts. However, some such belief is presupposed by 5:7 (see comments on that verse).
5. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. The nature of his complaint becomes clear in 5:7 where the man explains that unaided he is unable to get himself into the pool – he was lame and had been so for thirty-eight years. The duration of his infirmity throws into bold relief the extraordinariness of the healing Jesus was to effect. Thirty-eight years was longer than many people in antiquity lived!
6–7. Unlike the two miracles recorded earlier in this Gospel, which Jesus performed in response to requests from others, this one takes place at his own initiative: When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, ‘Do you want to get well?’ The word the niv translates as ‘learned’ (gnous) is better translated ‘knew’ (so nrsv). Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the man’s situation (cf. 2:25), as he did in the case of Nathanael (1:47–48) and of the Samaritan woman (4:16–19). Seeing the lame man there and knowing how long he had suffered, Jesus asked him, Do you want to get well? There is no point in psychologizing at this point, suggesting that Jesus was referring to some reluctance on the man’s part to see his situation changed or that he was trying to elicit desire on the man’s part to be healed. At a literary level, this question heightens the expectation of the readers of the Gospel that something miraculous is about to occur. ‘Sir,’ the invalid replied, ‘I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.’ Apparently, the belief was that only the first person into the waters after they were ‘stirred’ would be healed. Later tradition, reflected in the additions to the text in 5:3–4, attributed the stirring of the waters to an angel, but it is more likely to have been caused by the movement of subterranean water.
That so many people were at the pool waiting for the stirring of the waters suggests there were occasions when people had been healed at Bethesda. There were other healing shrines in the ancient world (e.g. the shrines of Asclepios in Corinth and Pergamum), and evidence exists that people did sometimes receive healing at these sites. From a Christian perspective such healings would be explained in terms of the ‘displays of power’ Satan employs to deceive people (2 Thess. 2:9). In Matthew 24:24/Mark 13:22 Jesus speaks of false Christs and false prophets who will perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect.
The invalid addressed Jesus as Sir (kyrie, lit. ‘lord’, but here used simply as respectful address) and explained his dilemma: he could never manage to be the first to get into the water after it was stirred. Perhaps he hoped that Jesus would help him into the water. In any case, the man appears to have been ignorant of the miracles Jesus had performed in Jerusalem (2:23; 3:1–2) and showed no sign of faith that Jesus could heal him.
8–9a. Ignoring the man’s lack of faith Jesus said to him, ‘Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.’96 The very thing the man was unable to do, Jesus commanded him to do. With the command went forth the healing power: At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. Jesus’ word of command to the invalid was like the creative word of God: the word was uttered and the deed was done. The man must have felt changes taking place in his body, and feeling whole again he picked up his mat and walked – evidence of complete healing. Michaels suggests,
In telling the sick man, ‘Get up, pick up your mat and walk,’ Jesus is not saying, ‘Get up and walk around to prove to everyone that you are healed.’ He is saying, ‘Get up, leave this place and take your mat with you, because you aren’t coming back. You don’t need to stay here any longer.’97
This is one of those healing miracles which Jesus performed without any sign of faith on the part of the beneficiary (cf. Mark 2:1–5; Luke 22:49–51), a reminder to modern readers that healing does not always require faith on the part of the recipient.
9b–10. With the description in 5:9a that the man was healed and then took up his mat and walked, we might think the story had come to an end. But in 5:9b it heads in a new direction. The evangelist informs his readers about something they did not yet know (though both Jesus and the man whom he had healed knew): The day on which this took place was a Sabbath. In obedience to Jesus’ command the man was carrying his mat through the streets of Jerusalem, perhaps even through the temple precincts, on the Sabbath and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, ‘It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.’ The Old Testament forbad work – that is, carrying out one’s usual occupation – on the Sabbath. This included bearing loads on the Sabbath:
This is what the Lord says: ‘be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your ancestors.’
(Jer. 17:21–22)
Jewish scholars, in their attempts to ensure that the Sabbath law was not broken, defined thirty-nine types of work forbidden on the Sabbath, which are recorded in the Mishnah:
The main classes of work are forty save one: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing crops, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, washing or beating or dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying [a knot], loosening [a knot], sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, hunting a gazelle, slaughtering or flaying or salting it or curing its skin, scraping it or cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters, building, pulling down, putting out a fire, lighting a fire, striking with a hammer and taking out aught from one domain to another. These are the main classes of work: forty save one. (m. Sabb. 7:2)
What the man was accused of (carrying his mat on the Sabbath) came under the general restriction of taking something ‘from one domain to another’. Carrying one’s mat through the streets of Jerusalem was certainly a culpable act according to rabbinic law. It is sad to think that the Jewish leaders could not rejoice in the man’s healing and only object that it had been carried out on the Sabbath. Michaels comments:
From what we know of the Johannine Jesus, we can be sure that nothing he says or does is unintentional. He knew exactly what he was doing, and his command ‘Get up, pick up your mat and walk’ was a deliberate challenge to the religious authorities in Jerusalem and their Sabbath laws.98
11–13. To explain why he was carrying his mat, the man replied, The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ This immediately led the Jewish leaders to ask, Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk? They were to be frustrated because The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. Despite the fact that Jesus had performed many miracles in Jerusalem on his previous visit, and many had believed in him, this man knew nothing about him; he did not even know his name. Here the story might have ended except for further initiative taken by Jesus.
14. Later Jesus found him at the temple. There would have been thousands of people in and around the temple for the festival so Jesus finding the man there might be another example of supernatural knowledge which we meet again and again in this Gospel. Jesus said to the man, See, you are well again. The same word ‘well’ (hygiēs) was used in Jesus’ question to the man, ‘Do you want to get well?’ Jesus then warned the man: Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you. The niv, in translating the negated present imperative (mēketi hamartane) as ‘stop sinning’, implies that the man was engaged in some sinful activity and Jesus was telling him to stop doing it. Jesus had already dealt with the man’s physical infirmity; now he addressed his spiritual condition. Those who interpret Jesus’ words as a command to ‘stop sinning’ suggest a couple of sins the man may have been involved in: (1) he was flaunting his new-found freedom by carrying his mat around Jerusalem without any regard for the Sabbath law (unsatisfactory because it was Jesus who told him to take up his mat and carry it in the first place); (2) he had returned directly to the Jewish leaders and told them who his benefactor was (this interprets the man’s action in giving news about who healed him in a very negative light, which may be unjustified). However, neither of these explanations is necessary. The grammatical evidence for always rendering a negated present imperative as a command to stop doing something is far from conclusive. Jesus’ words could be translated just as well as a general command not to do something – that is, ‘Do not sin or something worse may happen to you’. In the context of 5:14, where no particular sinful activity of the man is mentioned, Jesus’ prohibition is best construed in this general way.
Warning the man that something worse might happen to him, Jesus might have meant he would suffer a worse physical affliction than the one from which he had just been delivered. If so, it raises the question of the link between sin and physical afflictions. In the case of the man born blind Jesus denied that his affliction was due to his own sins or the sins of his parents (9:1–3). However, that does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Jesus was warning this man that if he sinned he might suffer physically. The apostle Paul connects sinning with physical illness and even death in 1 Corinthians 11:29–30.
Another interpretation of Jesus’ warning is possible. If it was his spiritual condition Jesus was addressing, he might have been telling this man that if he succumbed to sin he would come under condemnation and forfeit eternal life (cf. 3:18–21). His final condition then would certainly be worse than his former condition.
15. After hearing Jesus’ warning, The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well. He probably knew that the Jewish leaders were antagonistic towards Jesus and that the reason why they wanted to know his identity was so that they could accuse him of encouraging people to break the Sabbath (5:10–11). On the other hand, perhaps he saw himself bearing positive witness to the one who had miraculously healed him – the evangelist does not say he informed the Jewish leaders who it was who had told him to ‘pick up his mat and walk’ (the terms in which their question was couched), but that it was Jesus who had made him well.99
16. Whatever was the reason for the man’s reporting to the Jewish leaders, they now knew who it was who had healed him and told him to take up his mat and walk. So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. Unlike Nicodemus, who said, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him’ (3:2), these Jews could focus only on what they regarded as a breach of the Sabbath law – not that Jesus had breached their law, but he had told the man to do so.
17. In his defence Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.’ According to Genesis 2:1–2, God completed his work of creation and rested on the seventh day. But he continued his providential care of the world. Jewish scholars acknowledged this and made efforts to show that, while God worked on the Sabbath, he was not guilty of breaking the Sabbath law. They argued, for example, that God was not guilty of carrying things from one domain to another, because the whole of creation is his house and so he never carries things ‘outside’.
Jesus told his opponents that his Father continued to work to this very day – even on the Sabbath: something they would have to acknowledge. Jesus could then say that, just as the Father worked on the Sabbath in providential care of the universe as well as in other ways, so too he, Jesus, worked on the Sabbath to care for and redeem those affected by sin. More than that, the Father worked in and through what Jesus did (10:32, 37; 14:10).
18. The Jewish leaders were quick to recognize the implications of Jesus’ response to their criticism, and this made them even more angry: For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. This is the first of eleven references to the Jewish leaders’ plans to kill Jesus (5:18; 7:1, 19, 20, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:8, 16, 53; 12:10). On this occasion they sought to do so especially because he was making himself equal with God.
In the Old Testament God did sometimes allow human beings to stand in his place. For example, God said to Moses: ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet’ (Exod. 7:1). However, for human beings to make themselves equal with God was reprehensible, but in Jesus’ case this was not so because he was God (1:1). Early Church Fathers, when responding to the Arian heresy, appealed to this and the following verses when asserting Jesus’ equality with the Father. Chrysostom says
If Jesus had not wished to establish his equality and the Jews had made such a supposition without reason, Jesus would not have allowed their minds to be deceived. He would have corrected them. The Evangelist also would not have remained silent but would have plainly said that the Jews thought this but that Jesus did not actually make himself equal to God.100
19–20. The niv translation begins this section with the words Jesus gave them this answer, omitting the inferential conjunction ‘therefore’ (oun). The text, literally translated, would read: ‘Jesus therefore answered and said to them . . .’ Jesus’ answer was a response to the anger of the Jewish leaders. He began his answer with the formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin), indicating the solemn nature of what he was to say: the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. Jesus did not withdraw the claim that God is his Father; instead he insisted that what the Father does he does. His claim to divine prerogatives did not mean he was independent of God or in competition with him. Early Church Fathers wrestled with the meaning of Jesus’ words the Son can do nothing by himself, as if it implied an essential lack of power on the part of the divine Son. Theodore of Mopsuestia is representative of those who sought to reconcile this statement with the Son’s divine being and power:
Now, if he had wanted to signify a diminution of his strength and power, he should have said, ‘But only what the Father orders’ or ‘what [the Father] gives him the power to do’. But now he added, ‘but only what he sees the Father doing’, which indicates similarity. Actually, if he does only what he sees the Father doing, he evidently possesses a perfect similarity with the Father in his action. And this would be impossible if he did not have the same power.101
Underlying these verses may be apprenticeship imagery. An apprentice copies the work of a qualified artisan. In the ancient world the artisan was often the father and the apprentice one of his sons. The father would show his son what to do because he loved him, and traditionally the son would take over the family business. In the same way the Father shows Jesus what he is doing: For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.
Continuing to address the Jewish leaders, Jesus said, Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. Jesus had already performed numerous miracles in Jerusalem, culminating in the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda (2:23; 5:1–9). Here he foreshadowed even greater works than these which would amaze his adversaries. These are described in the next two verses.
21–23. The ‘greater works’ Jesus claimed his Father would ‘show’ him and that he would do are things that belong peculiarly to the divine prerogative. First, he said, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. The ‘just as . . . even so’ (hōsper . . . houtōs) formula highlights the exact correspondence between what the Father and Son do. Raising the dead and giving them life is something which only God can do (see Deut. 32:39; 2 Kgs 5:7). Second, he said, Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. Judgment belongs to God (8:50), but he has entrusted it to his Son, and on the last day Jesus will be the judge of all people.
The purpose for which the Father has entrusted judgment to the Son is that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. And because it is the will of the Father that all should honour his Son, Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. This last statement is reminiscent of what is said about the relationship between a man’s agent and his principal, expressed in the rabbinic adage, ‘a man’s agent is like to himself’ (m. Ber. 5:5). The honour (or dishonour) accorded a man’s agent is regarded as accorded to the one who sent him.102 By failing to honour Jesus, his opponents were dishonouring God himself.
24–25. While confronting his opponents with their refusal to honour the one whom God honours, Jesus still held out to them an offer of justification and life. The offer, introduced with the solemn formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin), was: whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. Those who hear Jesus’ word, his message, and believe the one who sent him will not be condemned on the day of judgment. In fact, they have already crossed over from death to life. They have been transferred from the realm of sin and death into the realm of eternal life. Jesus reinforced this promise with another solemn announcement: Very truly I tell you [amēn amēn legō hymin], a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. The time coming when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and live is explained further in 5:28–29, where Jesus says those in their graves will hear his voice and rise from the dead. He could say not only that this hour was coming, but also that it had now come because through his life (and imminent death and resurrection) he had set things in motion that would culminate in the general resurrection of the dead.
26–27. Jesus explained why he is able to exercise these two divine prerogatives. In respect of giving life, he said: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. Of no others can it be said that God has granted them to have life in themselves. They may receive the gift of life through faith in Jesus’ word, but they will never have life in themselves. Only God has life in himself, and saying that God has granted the Son to have life in himself is another way of saying he shares in divinity. This is why Jesus has power to call people from their graves to eternal life.
In respect of judgment Jesus said: And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. The title Son of Man has its background in Daniel 7 and carries overtones of authority, power and glory (see ‘Additional note: “the Son of Man”’, pp. 92–94). It is because Jesus is the Son of Man, and not simply because he acts as his agent, that the Father has given him authority to judge.
28–29. In one sentence Jesus brings together the two divine prerogatives given him by God: Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – this is giving life. Then he added, those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned – this is judgment.
Jesus’ claim that on the last day he will call people from their graves is stupendous and beyond all human experience. The evangelist will provide an indication of what this means in the raising of Lazarus: a man already dead and buried for four days will be called back to life, emerging from his grave at Jesus’ command (11:38–44). Lazarus’s restoration to life, though not a resurrection in the full sense (Lazarus died again), foreshadows the time when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out.
Jesus said, those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. The criterion for judgment leading either to life or to condemnation in the age to come is doing what is good or doing what is evil in this age. Köstenberger comments:
Because believing often proves superficial (e.g., 2:23–25), a person is to be judged by what he or she does, not merely says . . . This does not amount to salvation by works; rather the life that one lives forms ‘the test of the faith they profess’.103
30. Jesus continued: By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. Though he claimed to exercise divine prerogatives, Jesus rejected any suggestion that he acted independently of his Father, or that he saw himself as a rival to the Father, especially in the matter of exercising judgment. He will pronounce judgment in accordance with the judgment of the Father, and when he judges, therefore, it will be just because he seeks only to please his Father.
31–32. If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. According to the Mishnah, people’s testimony to themselves was not valid in law; it had to be corroborated by other witnesses (m. Ketub. 2:9: ‘But none may be believed [as a witness in a court of law] when he testifies of himself’). Jesus did not accept their rule (see 8:14), but acknowledging it for the sake of argument, he said, There is another who testifies in my favour, and I know that his testimony about me is true. The Father himself is Jesus’ other witness, his primary witness, but he had other corroborative witnesses as well.
33–35. Jesus introduced his first corroborative witness: You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. John the Baptist was well known to the Jewish leaders and they had sent a delegation to him (1:19–28). John had conducted a very public ministry, the focus of which, especially in this Gospel, was bearing testimony to Jesus (1:7–8, 15, 26–27, 29–30, 32–34, 35–36; 3:26–30; 5:33, 36; 10:41). However, Jesus did not need John’s testimony to establish the truthfulness of his word: Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. Having the testimony of the Father, Jesus did not need that of John the Baptist. The reason he pointed to John as witness was for the sake of his hearers. If only they would accept John’s testimony about him they would be saved. Jesus was holding out to his opponents another opportunity to turn and be saved.
Jesus said, John was a lamp that burned and gave light. In this Gospel, John is described as a lamp (lychnos), not the ‘light’ (phōs), the latter being reserved for Jesus. A lamp must be lit from a source other than itself, and perhaps the evangelist’s choice of the word ‘lamp’ to describe John was another way of saying that ‘He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light’ (1:8). The niv describes John as a lamp that burned, but the word used (kaiomenos) is better translated ‘was kindled’, indicating again that John’s light was derivative. Jesus reminded the Jewish leaders: you chose for a time to enjoy his light. During John’s early ministry ‘people were coming and being baptised’ (3:23). Many of the Jewish leaders were attracted to him, including both Pharisees and Sadducees (see Matt. 3:5–7; Luke 3:2–3). They were willing for a time to enjoy his light, that is, his preaching. By reminding them of their early acceptance of John, Jesus hoped, for their sakes, that they might even now accept the one to whom John testified.
36. Jesus introduced his second corroborative witness: I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish – the very works that I am doing – testify that the Father has sent me. Far more important than the testimony of John was the testimony of the works Jesus performed, works he had been commissioned to do by the Father. Jesus referred frequently to these works (9:3, 4; 10:37; 17:4) and their evidential value (10:25, 37), and he encouraged those who doubted his words to believe him when they contemplated his works (10:38; 14:11). Nicodemus believed that Jesus’ works were evidence that God was ‘with him’ (3:2). Jesus said that they were evidence that the Father had sent him.
Jesus spoke of finishing the work the Father had given him to do. This is the second place in which Jesus speaks of his mission in these terms (4:34; 5:36). On the eve of his betrayal, Jesus said to his Father, ‘I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do’ (17:4). Jesus’ whole ministry was marked by a determination to finish the work he had been commissioned to carry out. In a sense, Jesus’ work was his entire ministry, culminating in his death and resurrection.
37–38. Next Jesus spoke of his primary witness: And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. In the Synoptic Gospels the Father bears witness to Jesus in ‘a voice . . . from heaven’ at his baptism (Mark 1:11) and transfiguration (Mark 9:7), but neither of these events is recorded in the Gospel of John. One way in which the Father may be said to have borne witness to Jesus in the Gospel of John is by the bestowal of the Spirit and John the Baptist’s testimony concerning it:
Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptise with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit.”’
(1:32–33)
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the whole of God’s revelation from the beginning, in salvation history and through the prophets, pointed forward to the coming of his Son.
Despite the Father having testified to his Son, Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you. They had not heard his voice because their spiritual ears were closed to his revelation, both in the past and now. There were those in Old Testament times who heard God’s voice and had in some sense ‘seen’ God,104 but this was not the case with the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day.
It is a truism in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and certainly in the Gospel of John (1:18; 6:46), that no-one has ever actually seen God.105 While it is possible to interpret Jesus’ statement that the Jewish leaders have not seen his form along these lines, it is better to interpret it metaphorically. Their spiritual eyes, like their spiritual ears, were closed. All this was evident, Jesus said, for you do not believe the one he sent. If they were listening to God, they would accept the message he was conveying to them through his Son.
39–40. Jesus introduced his third corroborative witness, one that the Jewish leaders knew well: You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. The Scriptures had a central role in Judaism as they did in the life and teaching of Jesus. Through the diligent study of the Scriptures the Jewish leaders believed they would find eternal life. The Mishnah says:
the more study of the Law the more life . . . If a man has gained a good name he has gained [somewhat] for himself; if he has gained for himself words of the Law he has gained for himself life in the world to come.
(m. ‘Abot. 2:7)
The pursuit of eternal life through study of the Scriptures is valid, but in the case of the Jewish leaders, Jesus said, These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. They studied the Scriptures but could not see that they bore witness to Jesus, and therefore refused to come to him and receive life. These verses stand as a warning to all who make the study of Scriptures an end in itself and fail to relate to the one about whom the Scriptures testify.
41–42. Jesus added: I do not accept glory from human beings, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. Earlier Jesus said he did not accept human testimony, not even the testimony of John the Baptist (5:34); far less would he accept human praise, especially when it came at the expense of praise from God. But the Jewish leaders were different. Their desire for praise from one another and the absence of real love for God, Jesus implied, prevented them from accepting as valid the witness borne to Jesus.
43. There was irony, Jesus pointed out, in the unwillingness of the Jewish leaders to accept him: I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. They were ready enough to accept imposters but rejected their true Messiah. In Old Testament times the people of Israel often embraced false prophets while persecuting those sent by God. In New Testament times, Theudas and Judas the Galilean were accepted as Messiahs and led people in futile revolts against the Romans (Acts 5:36–37). Much later, Rabbi Akiba hailed Simon bar Kosiba as Messiah, and he led the tragic revolt of ad 132–135. The Jewish leaders were taken in by false Messiahs, but rejected their true Messiah.
44. Jesus stated clearly what was implied in 5:41–42 when he asked the Jewish leaders: How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? If their controlling motive was to secure praise from one another, they would never obtain praise from God for accepting the one he had sent. It is worth noting that the evangelist here refers to the only God. Despite insisting that he and the Father are one, Jesus did not see this as compromising monotheism in any way. A similar expression is found in 17:3, where eternal life is defined as knowing ‘the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent’.
45–47. Jesus introduced his final corroborative witness who was at the same time the accuser of the Jewish leaders: But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. Jesus, who did not come into the world to condemn the world, informed the Jewish leaders that they should not imagine he would accuse them before the Father. Rather it was Moses, in whom they trusted, who would be their accuser.
The Jewish leaders’ trust in Moses is mentioned by the evangelist in a number of places (5:45; 9:28–29). What they did not realize was that Moses also was a witness to Jesus. Jesus said: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. Philip knew this when he said to Nathanael, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’ (1:45). This is something Jesus explained to his disciples after his resurrection: ‘And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself’ (Luke 24:27). The prime example of Moses writing about Christ is found in Deuteronomy 18:15: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him’ (cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37). Jesus concluded by asking the Jewish leaders: But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say? If they could not understand and believe that Moses, the one in whom they trusted, wrote about Jesus, how then would they ever be able to believe what Jesus said, one in whom they certainly did not trust?
The account of Jesus healing the man at the Pool of Bethesda and its aftermath is replete with important theological insights. First, and unusually, Jesus took the initiative himself rather than responding to a request. He deliberately healed on the Sabbath, despite the antagonism of the Jewish leaders, who were critical of him and on occasions even planned to kill him for doing so (Mark 3:1–6; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6). Jesus did not break the Sabbath law, but rejected the ‘hedge’ placed around it by Jewish leaders.
Second, in defence of his actions on the Sabbath, Jesus insisted that God his Father is always at work, and he is too (5:17). The Father’s ‘rest’ after creation is not idleness; he continues to be active, for example, in his providential care for the world, his administration of justice (when people die on the Sabbath), and his creation of life (when children are born on the Sabbath). Like his Father, Jesus also continues to work on the Sabbath, on this occasion healing a disabled man. This prompted the Jewish leaders to try to kill him because he was ‘making himself equal with God’ (5:18), something the evangelist has already shown to be actually the case (1:1).
Jesus supported his claim to do what God does by insisting that, just as his Father raises the dead and gives them life, so he gives life to whomever he will (5:21). He added that ‘a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned’ (5:28–29). This will be so because the Father has entrusted future judgment to his Son (5:22).
For the sake of those who demanded corroborating testimony for his claims, Jesus cited five witnesses: John the Baptist, in whose ministry the Jewish leaders had been happy to rejoice for a while (5:33–35); the works which God had given Jesus to carry out (5:36); the testimony of God himself to his Son (5:37); the Scriptures that testify about Jesus (5:39–40); and Moses, who wrote about his coming (5:46).
The events described in chapter 5 – the healing of the disabled man and its aftermath – took place in Jerusalem. In chapter 6 the scene changes to Galilee, at first to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus fed about five thousand men (and presumably a similar number of women and children). Then comes the account of Jesus walking on the water to join his disciples, who were caught in the midst of a strong wind and a rough sea, whereupon they immediately reached the other shore to which they were heading. What follows is set on the western side of the Sea of Galilee, in Capernaum, where the crowd that had been with Jesus on the other side caught up with him, and he urged them not to work ‘for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life’, food which he could give them. Jesus then gave his extended discourse on the bread of life.
1. The feeding of the five thousand is the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels. The evangelist begins his description of this miracle with the rather vague words Some time after this, which refer back, apparently, to the healing of the lame man in Jerusalem and the confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders that followed (5:1–47). The geographical note, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), is puzzling because nothing has been said about Jesus returning from Jerusalem to Galilee.106 The evangelist provides two names of the Sea: the common New Testament name, the Sea of Galilee, and the name used later in the first century, the Sea of Tiberias. The latter is related to the major town and capital of Herod Antipas’ tetrarchy, situated on the western shore of the Sea. The far shore of the Sea of Galilee refers to the eastern seaboard and places this miracle either in the Gentile area of the Decapolis on the eastern shore, or in the region of Philip the Tetrarch to the north-east.
2. Having located the miracle geographically, the evangelist introduces those who are to be the beneficiaries: and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the signs he had performed by healing those who were ill. There are earlier references to signs Jesus had performed in Galilee (2:11; 4:46–54) and those performed in Jerusalem that had been witnessed by Galileans (4:45). Because many had witnessed these, the crowd followed him.
3–4. Seeing the crowd, Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples, possibly in the area known today as the Golan Heights. Perhaps he was seeking some rest or wished to teach his disciples before the crowd arrived – it was Jesus’ custom to sit to teach (8:2; cf. e.g. Matt. 5:1; 13:1–3; 24:3–8). The evangelist provides a final piece of information to set the scene: The Jewish Passover Festival was near. This will be significant as the story unfolds, for Passover was a time when Jewish people recalled their deliverance from Egypt through Moses and were looking for the Prophet like him who was to come. They expected the Prophet to bring deliverance and provide ‘manna’ from heaven as Moses had done (cf. 2 Baruch 29:3–30:1). Passover was a time when nationalistic fervour was high.
5–7. When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming towards him, he said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?’ In the Synoptic accounts of the feeding of the five thousand we learn that when the crowd came to him Jesus taught them and healed their sick, and then because it was already late in the day he miraculously provided food for them (Matt. 14:13–21; Mark 6:30–44; Luke 9:10–17). These details are omitted in the Gospel of John, but knowledge of them allows readers to understand why Jesus felt a responsibility to provide food for the people. If this episode took place on the north-eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee it would be logical for Jesus to turn to Philip and ask Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat? because Philip was a native of Bethsaida, a town located in this part of the country. But Jesus’ question to Philip had a different purpose: He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do, namely, to multiply loaves and fish to feed the crowd.
Testing can be negative (see 8:6) or positive as it is here. Jesus’ purpose was to test Philip’s faith in him and confirm it with the miracle to follow. Not realizing what Jesus intended by his question, Philip answered him, ‘It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!’ The niv’s ‘half a year’s wages’ provides a helpful equivalent to the ‘two hundred denarii’ found in the original (a working man’s wage for one day was one denarius), and highlights how much bread would have been needed to feed such a large crowd. This alerts the reader to the extraordinary nature of the miracle soon to be performed.
8–9. The next little vignette in the story concerns Jesus, Andrew and a small boy. As Jesus finished what he had to say to Philip, Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up, ‘Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish.’ Andrew and his brother Simon, like Philip, were from the town of Bethsaida (1:40–44). Andrew brought to Jesus a boy who had five little barley loaves (poor people’s bread) and two small fish. It is hard to imagine that Andrew thought this would be of any help in the situation, and so it is likely he only brought the boy to Jesus because the boy himself had taken the initiative and wanted to offer what he had. Andrew voiced his own attitude to the offering: but how far will they go among so many? The whole incident is reminiscent of 2 Kings 4:42–44, which recounts how twenty loaves of barley bread were brought to Elisha, but were regarded by his servant as completely inadequate to feed one hundred men. ‘But Elisha answered, “Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the Lord says: ‘They will eat and have some left over’”’ (2 Kgs 4:43).
10–11. The miracle itself is described in prosaic terms in just two verses. Jesus said, ‘Make the people sit down.’ The word people translates anthrōpous, which is generic, as is its translation. Included among these people would have been women and children (cf. Matt. 14:21), as is suggested by the fact that it was ‘a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish’ who provided the food that Jesus multiplied to feed the crowd. We are then told that There was plenty of grass in that place. This would only be the case during spring, which was also Passover time (cf. 6:4), and would make it suitable for the crowd to sit there. Mark’s Gospel adds that the people sat down ‘in groups on the green grass . . . in groups of hundreds and fifties’ (Mark 6:39–40). Two things should be noticed from that account: the historical memory about the place (the grass there was ‘green’), and that the disciples had obviously been involved in organizing the people to sit down ‘in groups of hundreds and fifties’. The Gospel of John continues, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). Here the evangelist does not use the generic term anthrōpoi but the gender specific andres (‘men’). Thus the crowd included five thousand men/males but may have numbered more than twice that many. Matthew 14:21 makes it clear that many more than five thousand men were involved: ‘The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.’
Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. Jesus probably used a traditional Jewish thanksgiving which, when uttered over bread, ran like this: ‘Blessed be thou, Yahweh our God, king of the world who causes bread to come forth from the earth.’ Parallel accounts indicate that Jesus did not personally distribute the bread and fish but delegated this task to his disciples (Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16). The evangelist emphasizes the greatness of the miracle by adding that the food distributed to the people was as much as they wanted.
12–13. When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, ‘Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.’ When God provided manna for Israel in the wilderness through Moses the people were not allowed to gather more than they needed nor to store it for future use, except on the day before the Sabbath. If they did, it went rotten (Exod. 16:16–20). When Jesus fed the five thousand (which is compared to the provision of manna in the wilderness later in the chapter [6:30–51]) the opposite was the case. The disciples were told to collect what remained and keep it, presumably for future use. So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. The twelve baskets may symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel; more likely, twelve baskets were filled simply because there were twelve disciples doing the gathering.
14–15. The evangelist relates the immediate aftermath of the miracle: After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ Moses had promised the Israelites: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him’ (Deut. 18:15). Knowing this promise, and having seen Jesus provide food in the wilderness as Moses had done, the people concluded that Jesus was the Prophet who is to come into the world: the Prophet about whom Moses had spoken.
Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. Moses had led Israel out of Egyptian captivity, and now perhaps the people wanted Jesus (who they believed was the Prophet like Moses) to free them from Roman occupation. They wanted to make him king by force.
The episode of the feeding of the five thousand began when Jesus went up on a mountain with his disciples (6:3). It ended when Jesus withdrew to a mountain by himself. He did this to escape the crowd who wanted to force him to be their king. The sort of kingship they had in mind was not what he had in mind. His kingship was ‘not of this world’ (18:36). Besides, later Jesus told the crowd that the only reason they followed him was ‘because you ate the loaves and had your fill’ (6:26)
The matter of Jesus’ kingship comes up repeatedly in the Gospel of John. Nathanael said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel’ (1:49). During Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem the crowd ‘took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “‘Hosanna!’ ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ‘Blessed is the king of Israel!’”’ (12:13; cf. 12:15). When Jesus was on trial before Pilate, Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus told him, ‘You say that I am a king’ (18:33, 37). While Jesus was held in Roman custody, the soldiers mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’ (19:3). In Pilate’s exchanges with the Jewish leaders he kept referring to Jesus as ‘the king of the Jews’, possibly sarcastically (18:39; 19:14–15), and when he had him crucified he insisted that the notice fastened to Jesus’ cross read, ‘jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews’ (19:19–22). The Jewish leaders, of course, refused to accept Jesus as their king (19:15–21), but the evangelist wants his readers to recognize that Jesus is indeed the true king, even though his kingship is not of this world (18:36).
16–18. After feeding the five thousand, Jesus had withdrawn again to a mountain alone. When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. The setting for what was to follow is filled out: By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. Though the Sea of Galilee was an inland sea, it was subject to strong winds which could make its waters treacherous. The fact that it was dark and the sea was rough probably did not concern the disciples overmuch. Some of them were professional fishermen who would have been used to being out on the sea at night (21:3; cf. Luke 5:5), and to strong winds and rough seas.
19–20. However, something occurred that did shake them: When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were frightened.107 This was the fifth sign performed by Jesus.108 He knew that his appearance walking on the sea was frightening his disciples, so he said to them, ‘It is I; don’t be afraid.’ He identified himself with the words egō eimi, which in at least one other place in this Gospel carry connotations of divinity (see ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154). Here they probably function simply as self-identification, as the niv translation implies.
21. The disciples realized it was Jesus and Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading. It may be that the evangelist wants us to see in this immediate arrival in Capernaum a further miracle. However, Michaels argues:
We are not meant to infer that Jesus and the disciples were all supernaturally transported halfway across the lake in an instant. The point is rather that by the time Jesus reached the disciples, their boat had already ‘advanced’ (v.19) to the other side, implying that Jesus had walked all the way across the lake.109
22–24. In these verses the evangelist explains how the crowd came to be in Capernaum and to hear Jesus’ bread of life discourse (6:26–59). The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realised that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. They assumed that Jesus was still there but soon found they were wrong. Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. Tiberias was on the opposite (western) shore of the lake, and boats from there landed on the eastern side where the feeding of the five thousand had taken place. Once the crowd realised that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. Presumably they thought that Jesus would not be long separated from his disciples, and knowing they had headed for Capernaum, the crowd went there looking for Jesus.
25. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, ‘Rabbi, when did you get here?’ Their question betrays no hint that they thought his crossing was miraculous. They just wanted to know when he had reached Capernaum, presuming, perhaps, that he had walked around the northern shore of the lake during the night.
26. Jesus did not answer their question. Instead, he went straight to the heart of the matter, exposing the real reason why the crowd had followed him: Jesus answered, ‘Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.’ The people had, of course, seen the signs performed by Jesus earlier (6:2) and, more recently, the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus was saying that they did not understand the significance of those signs. They did not recognize that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, in whom they should put their trust. They followed simply because they had eaten their fill of the loaves he had multiplied.
27. Seeking to redirect their efforts, Jesus said, Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. Jesus said, in effect: Do not follow me in the hope of more food provided miraculously to meet your physical needs – ‘food that spoils’ – like the manna provided through Moses. Instead, work for the food that endures (does not spoil), food that brings eternal life, food that the Son of Man will give you. The miraculous provision of food on the other side of the lake was meant to point to the food that endures to eternal life. Just as Jesus had distinguished between the water the Samaritan woman sought and the water he would give (4:13–14), so here he distinguished between the food the crowd sought and the food the Son of Man will give. This food endures to eternal life, like the water ‘welling up to eternal life’ (4:14). Calvin says: ‘Not that He prohibits His people from labouring to get daily food. But He warns them that the heavenly life must be put before the earthly.’110
Jesus, of course, is the Son of Man who gives this food. Son of Man was his preferred self-designation (see ‘Additional note: the Son of Man’, pp. 92–94). As the Son of Man, he was able to give this ‘food’ for on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. The evangelist uses for the second time (see 3:33) the technical term ‘to place a seal upon’ or ‘to certify’ (sphragizō). (See commentary on 3:33 for details of various uses of sphragizō in the NT.) Here in 6:27 it is used figuratively as a seal of approval, that is, as God’s imprimatur upon Jesus. The conjunction For (gar) makes it clear that it is because God has placed his seal of approval on him that Jesus can provide the food that endures to eternal life. It was, probably, by the bestowal of the Spirit at his baptism that the Father placed his seal of approval upon Jesus (1:33–34; see commentary on 5:37–38).
28–29. When Jesus told the crowd they should work for the food that endures to eternal life, they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ They wanted to know what works (pl.) God required of them, probably referring to some form of Torah obedience, so that they might qualify for the gift of the food that lasts for ever. Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.’ The work (sing.) that God requires of humanity is very simply stated: to believe in the one he has sent.111 The evangelist’s purpose for writing his Gospel was that people should ‘believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God’ (20:31). As becomes clear later in the chapter, this was a ‘work’ the crowd were not ready to perform (6:41–42).
Jesus’ status as the one whom he [God] has sent [into the world] is mentioned in many places in the Gospel of John (3:17, 34; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 20:21) and especially in Jesus’ great prayer (17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25). Believing in the one whom God sent secures the gift of the food that endures to eternal life because, when people believe in him, Jesus reveals himself to them and his Father also reveals himself to them. It is in relationship with God through Jesus Christ that people experience eternal life (17:3) and human hunger for God is met.
30–31. The crowd’s response is surprising: So they asked him, ‘What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?’ It is surprising because they followed him in the first place because they had seen the signs he had performed on the sick (6:2) and more recently they had witnessed his feeding of the five thousand (6:26). Why then ask for a further sign? Perhaps there is a clue in what they said next: Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’112 They were referring to the wilderness experience of Israel when for forty years God sent manna from heaven for the people to eat (Exod. 16:35). When the crowd saw Jesus provide food for them miraculously in the wilderness they identified him as the Prophet like Moses (6:14), but it seems they were expecting something more spectacular than what they had already witnessed. Jewish people in the first century spoke of Moses as the one who had given the manna from heaven (in cooperation with God), and they were looking for a second Moses/Redeemer who would do the same. Admittedly written later than the first century, but possibly representing first-century Jewish attitudes, is Qohelet Rabbah 1:9.1, which reads:
As the first redeemer was, so shall the latter Redeemer be . . . As the former redeemer caused manna to descend, as it is stated, Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you (Exod. xvi, 4), so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend, as it is stated, May he be as a rich cornfield in the land (Ps. lxxii, 16).
The crowd wanted to see Jesus bring down from heaven a continual supply of bread (see commentary on 6:34), just as Moses had supplied manna in the wilderness for forty years (Exod. 16:35; Josh. 5:12).
32–33. Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.’ This is a solemn declaration introduced by the formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin). In this declaration Jesus did three things: (1) He insisted it was not Moses (but God) who gave the manna. (2) He directed their attention away from that occasion altogether by saying that it was now the Father who was giving the true bread.113 In the past God gave manna from heaven (through Moses), but now he was giving the true bread from heaven (through his Son). What the Jewish people were expecting at the end time – manna from heaven again – Jesus said was being given now. (3) He explained what the true bread is: For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. In 6:27 Jesus said he would give people the bread of life. Here he implies, as he will shortly state explicitly (6:35), that he is the bread that comes down from heaven. Jesus said that this bread would give life to the world, probably meaning all people who believe, irrespective of their ethnic background – that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. In 4:42 the Samaritan townspeople said to the woman, ‘we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world.’ By this they meant that he was the Saviour not only of Jews but of Samaritans as well. In similar fashion, here in 6:33 Jesus says that the bread that comes down from heaven gives life to the world, meaning that all who believe in him, without distinction, will experience eternal life.
34. ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘always give us this bread.’ The crowd were looking for an ongoing provision of their needs, as was the case with the provision of the manna in the wilderness. Just as the Samaritan woman asked for the water that wells up continuously so she would not have to come and draw water any more (4:15), so these people were asking for a continuous supply of bread so that they would not have to provide for themselves any more.
35. The crowd misunderstood the nature of the true bread of which Jesus spoke, so Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.’ Jesus identified himself as the bread of life. This is the first of seven different ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Gospel of John (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5; see ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154). Because Jesus was the bread of life he could promise that those who came to him would never hunger, and, changing the metaphor, those who believed in him would never thirst (cf. 6:53–57). Hunger and thirst are metaphors for the human need to know God, and knowing God is the present experience of eternal life (17:3). Those who come to Jesus – that is, those who believe in him – are brought into relationship with God, and their hunger and thirst to know God are satisfied (see commentary on 4:13–14).114
36–37. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. They had seen him and some of the miracles which he performed (6:2), but still they did not believe (see commentary on 6:26). Lest it be thought that he was surprised or disappointed by this response, Jesus added: All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. The word translated All (pan) is neuter singular, not masculine plural as might be expected, thus depicting those whom the Father gave Jesus as a collective entity. In several places in the Gospel of John Jesus speaks of believers as those whom the Father has given him (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:2, 6, 9, 24). Viewed from the human side, those who come to Jesus are those who believe in him, but viewed from the divine side, they are those whom the Father has given to Jesus. The prologue says a similar thing in different words: ‘Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God’ (1:12–13).
Faced with lack of positive response, Jesus affirmed that all whom the Father has given him will come and believe in him. The saying whoever comes to me I will never drive away employs a strong double negative (ou mē), underlining the security of those who come to Jesus.
38–40. In these verses Jesus connects the eternal security of those who believe in him with his own mission: For [because] I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. The reason why none who come to him will be cast out is because Jesus came to do his Father’s will, and, he said, this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. The all (pan) whom the Father has given are once again depicted as a collective entity (cf. 6:37). Their eternal security is tied to the Son’s obedience to the Father, on the one hand, and to the will of the Father, on the other. For any of those whom the Father has given to his Son to be lost would mean that Jesus failed to carry out his Father’s will and that the will of the Father had been thwarted. Both of these things are unthinkable. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Those whom the Father has given him will receive eternal life in the here and now and be raised up on the last day. The last day is the day of great blessing for those who believe in Jesus (5:28–29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24), but a day of judgment for those who reject him (5:28–29; 12:48).
41–42. The evangelist explains the reaction of the Jews: At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ This is the first place in chapter 6 where those who listen and dialogue with Jesus are called the Jews. Up until this point they have been described as ‘the crowd’ (6:2, 22, 24) or ‘the people’ (6:14), or simply referred to as ‘they’ or ‘them’. Only here and in 6:52 are they spoken of as ‘the Jews’. In the Gospel of John this term very often refers to those who were opposed to Jesus (see Introduction, pp. 40–41).
Earlier (6:33–34) the crowd appeared to pass over Jesus’ claim to have come down from heaven because they were interested in the ‘bread’ he promised. But the Jews, realizing that the bread Jesus offered was not physical bread, took offence and grumbled, just as their Israelite forefathers had grumbled in the wilderness (cf. Exod. 16:2, 7, 12). They said, ‘Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I came down from heaven”?’ This is the second of only two occasions in the Gospel of John when Jesus is referred to as ‘the son of Joseph’ (1:45; 6:42). There is irony here, for the Jews were sure that they knew Jesus’ origins, but the readers of the Gospel know differently. The prologue says that Jesus is the Logos become flesh, and readers aware of Synoptic traditions would know that, although legally Jesus was the son of Joseph, he was not his natural son (cf. Matt. 13:55; Luke 3:23; 4:22). Because of their mistaken view about his origins, the Jews grumbled about Jesus’ claim to have come down from heaven.
43–44. ‘Stop grumbling among yourselves,’ Jesus answered. Then, showing he was not surprised or downcast because of their rejection, he said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them. In the Old Testament God ‘draws’ people to himself with ‘unfailing kindness’ (Jer. 31:3; cf. Hos. 11:4). Here, however, the Father draws people to his Son, and unless he does so no-one can come to him. Viewed from the human perspective, all may come to Jesus and believe in him, and in fact are required to do so (6:28–29). Viewed from the divine perspective, only those drawn by the Father can come and put their faith in Jesus, a perspective found also in other parts of the New Testament (Matt. 16:17; Acts 16:13–14). Concerning those whom the Father draws to him Jesus said, and I will raise them up at the last day. In the Gospel of John Jesus speaks frequently of ‘the last day’. For those who believe in Jesus, resurrection on ‘the last day’ is the consummation of the eternal life they experience now (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24), but for those who do not accept his word it is a day of reckoning (12:48).
45. Expanding on the idea of the Father drawing people to him, Jesus said, It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ The quotation is from Isaiah 54:13 (‘All your children will be taught by the Lord, and great will be their peace’) and is part of a long passage which speaks of the blessings to be showered upon the Jews at the restoration following their Babylonian exile. Among these blessings is that ‘All your children will be taught by the Lord’. Jesus took this text and applied it to his ministry: Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. People listen to and learn from the Father by listening to the teaching of his Son and learning from him. When Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven’ (Matt. 16:17).
46–47. Jesus explained why it was vital that people come to him: No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. It is a fundamental teaching of the Old Testament that no human being has seen God. The evangelist stresses this fact in the prologue: ‘No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known’ (1:18).115 People need to come to Jesus, for no-one else can reveal the Father to them. Then Jesus added: Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. This statement is introduced by the solemn formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin) and emphasizes that, while God cannot be seen, the gift of everlasting life, a relationship with the invisible God through faith in Christ (17:3), is available.
48–50. Picking up again the theme of 6:32–35, Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. The manna was not the true bread of life because all who ate that still died. So Jesus said, But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. The one who ‘eats’ the true bread from heaven will not die. To ‘eat’ the true bread is a metaphor for believing in Jesus (cf. 6:35), something which becomes abundantly clear when we compare the two statements that stand in parallel in this context: 6:47: ‘the one who believes has eternal life’; and 6:51: ‘Whoever eats this bread will live for ever.’
51–52. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. In this verse it is Jesus himself who gives the living bread, and for good reason: the living bread was his flesh which he would give for the life of the world. This is a metaphorical allusion to his death on the cross. Jesus, the Logos who became ‘flesh’ (1:14), became the bread of life for a sinful world by laying down his life so that others might live. However, this allusion was not appreciated by his hearers: Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Why the Jews argued among themselves is not explained. Perhaps some were disposed to accept what Jesus said even though they could not understand it, while others who took his words literally found them repulsive.
53–55. Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’ Once again he prefaced his words with the solemn introductory formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin). He made no concessions to their misapprehension and even heightened the repulsive nature of his words. To the idea of eating his flesh he added that of drinking his blood. If the Jews continued to take his words literally they would be disgusted and appalled. The drinking of blood was forbidden in the Old Testament (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:23), yet Jesus told them that unless they did so they would have no life in them – they would not experience eternal life which comes from a relationship with the Father. Having stated things negatively, Jesus then stated them positively: Whoever eats116 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. To understand properly what Jesus was saying in highly metaphorical language, readers must remember that he said the same thing in more straightforward terms in 6:40: ‘everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’ Placing these two verses side by side, it is clear that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood functions as a metaphor for believing in him, especially as the one whose vicarious death on the cross secures salvation.117 Continuing the metaphor, Jesus said, For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.118 When this metaphor is unpacked it means that Jesus is the source of true satisfaction; belief in him who gave his life for the world is the only way to satisfy human hunger and thirst for God.
56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as we have seen, is a metaphor for believing in Jesus. Those who believe in him, Jesus said, will remain in him and he in them. The mutual indwelling of Jesus and his disciples is developed further in 15:4–7. Their remaining in Jesus involves loyalty and fellowship and it continues as they obey his word. Jesus’ remaining in his followers involves his continuing fellowship with them. However, there are indications elsewhere in the Gospel that more than loyalty and fellowship are involved in this mutual indwelling. In 17:20–21 this mutual indwelling of Jesus and his disciples is modelled upon the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son, and is brought about through the Holy Spirit, who comes to dwell within the disciples (see 14:15–20).
57. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. Jesus lives because of the Father for ‘as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself’ (5:26). To feed on Jesus is to believe in him, and those who believe experience eternal life which Jesus gives them (3:15, 16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47). It is important to note that here Jesus speaks of feeding on ‘him’, rather than ‘eating his flesh and drinking his blood’, which supports the view that both these expressions are metaphors meaning ‘believe in him’.
58. Jesus concluded his discourse with this summary: This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live for ever. Now it is clear that Jesus himself was the true bread that came down from heaven. There was bread from heaven in Moses’ time – the manna the Jewish forefathers ate – but it did not prevent them from dying. Jesus promised that those who feed on him will live for ever. This does not mean that they will not die as others die. Rather it means that they will experience eternal life now in relationship with God, and this relationship will not be broken because of death; and Jesus will raise them up on the last day.
Some interpret Jesus’ words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in 6:51–58 as a reference to the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. It is understandable that people might make this connection after the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but Jesus’ words here must be interpreted in their own context, which clearly indicates that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a striking metaphor for believing in him. Those who believe in him benefit from his death on their behalf. Köstenberger comments:
Against a sacramental understanding are further that (1) the Jews would not have understood Jesus’ words in a sacramental sense; (2) the term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper; and (3) to do so would attribute inappropriate significance to such a practice.119
59. The evangelist closes his account of Jesus’ discourse with the words, He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. It was to Capernaum that the crowd came searching for Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand (6:24–25), and it was in the synagogue at Capernaum that Jesus gave his teaching on the bread of life.
60. The reaction to Jesus’ highly metaphorical discourse in 6:51–58 was not surprising: On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ While most references to ‘disciples’ in the Gospel of John relate to the Twelve, there are a number of places where ‘disciples’ refers to the wider group (4:1; 7:3; 8:31; 9:28; 19:38). It was many of this wider group who found what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood to be a hard teaching. They found it so hard, so offensive, because they did not understand that it was couched in metaphorical language. This group did not include the Twelve, as 6:66–67 makes clear.
61–62. Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’ He then said, Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! There are two main ways of construing these words: (1) if they saw him ascend (e.g. like Elijah) they might be prepared to accept his hard saying; or (2) if they saw him ascend their difficulties would only increase. The second alternative is most likely the correct one. The ascension of Jesus, the Son of Man, in this Gospel is frequently linked with his being lifted up on the cross (prior to his resurrection and ascension). If the disciples who grumbled about Jesus’ hard saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood should witness his ignominious death upon the cross, they would be scandalized still further. How could one who claimed to come from God end his life in such a way? The reference to Jesus ascending to where he was before reminds us that he is the one who came down from heaven (6:41, 42, 51, 58), the one introduced in the prologue as being with God in the beginning.
63. Addressing again the disciples who stumbled over his words, Jesus said, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The only other place in the Gospel of John where the Spirit and the flesh are placed in juxtaposition is 3:6, where Jesus tells Nicodemus that to see the kingdom of God he must be born again/from above because ‘Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit’. Here in 6:63 Jesus is saying to the disciples that, in and of themselves as people of the flesh, they can never experience eternal life. Only the Spirit (of God) can give life. Jesus then indicated the way the Spirit normally mediates life to people: The words I have spoken to you – they are full of the Spirit and life. It is because Jesus has been endowed with the Spirit ‘without limit’ that he can speak the words of God (3:34) and these words mediate eternal life to those who believe (5:24; cf. Deut. 32:47). There is no-one else whose words have this power (6:68). It is worth noting that one cannot believe in Jesus without believing his words.
64. Jesus knew that his words would mediate life to those who believed, yet sadly he had to say to these disciples, Yet there are some of you who do not believe. For the benefit of the readers the evangelist adds, For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. This is further testimony to the fact that Jesus ‘knew what was in each person’ (2:25). Perhaps this explains why he did not attempt to cajole people into belief nor worry when they rejected him. He knew from the beginning those who would not believe. He even knew which of his inner circle of disciples would betray him.
65. After his explanatory addition the evangelist returns to his account of Jesus’ words to the disciples: He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.’ The word translated enabled (dedomenon) in the niv is better translated ‘given’. Belief in Jesus is a gift bestowed by God. Unbelief was the obstacle to these disciples’ acceptance of Jesus and his words, and he now made it plain that it was only by the gracious gift of the Father that this unbelief could be overcome. In 6:44 Jesus said a similar thing: ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.’ Morris comments:
Unbelief is to be expected apart from a divine miracle. It is impossible for anyone to come to Christ without the Father’s giving him the grace to do so. Left to himself the sinner prefers his sin. Conversion is always a work of grace.120
66. The evangelist concludes his account of Jesus’ address to the wider group of followers with the words From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. The words translated From this time (ek toutou) may also be rendered ‘because of this’ (i.e. because of Jesus’ hard saying). Either way, many turned away at this time. The many disciples who turned away from Jesus included those who had followed him to Capernaum, not because they saw and understood the significance of the signs he performed, but because they had eaten the loaves and were filled (6:26).
67. ‘You do not want to leave too, do you?’ Jesus asked the Twelve. Jesus’ question (using the negative particle mē) expects a negative answer. He was not encouraging the Twelve to leave with the other disciples, but was giving them opportunity to do so if they wished.
68–69. On behalf of the Twelve, Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’ If they left Jesus there was no-one else to whom they could go who had the message of eternal life. Peter added, We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God. In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently referred to as ‘the Holy One’ (Isa. 40:25; 43:15; Hab. 1:12; 3:3) or ‘the Holy One of Israel’ (Ps. 71:22; Isa. 12:6; 30:12, 15; 41:20; 43:3, 14; 45:11; 48:17; 49:7 [2x]). Most of these references are found in Isaiah and it may be that the prophet’s vision of the Lord in the temple (Isa. 6:1–4) lies behind his references to God as ‘the Holy One’ and ‘the Holy One of Israel’. If so, these titles reflect the awesome majesty, glory and purity of the Lord.
Confessing Jesus as the Holy One of God, Peter used a title for Jesus found elsewhere in this exact form only in the Synoptic Gospels, where it is used by an evil spirit: ‘What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!’ (Mark 1:24/Luke 4:34). In this context, the title ‘the Holy One of God’ carries the idea that Jesus is the authoritative, powerful representative of God in whose hands, the demon knew, its fate rested. There the title is associated with the role of judgment. However, when Peter confessed Jesus as ‘the Holy One of God’, it was a positive and willing recognition that Jesus, as the authoritative agent of God, had the authority and power to bestow eternal life on those who believed (no-one else, Peter said, has the words of eternal life).
The words believe and know in Peter’s response are virtual synonyms and together they provide emphasis. These two verbs are brought together again in synonymous parallelism in 17:8, where Jesus, in his prayer to the Father, says of his disciples, ‘They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me’ (italics added). In 6:69, then, the Twelve are making a strong confession of faith similar in its significance to the confessions of Martha (11:27) and Thomas (20:28), and as such it contributes to the overall purpose of the Gospel of John: to encourage readers also to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31).
70–71. Following the confession of the Twelve, Jesus replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!’ He reminded them that, while the confession they made was theirs, the relationship they enjoyed with him was based on his choice. Yet even among those he had chosen there was a devil. Jesus may have referred to one of them as a devil because he knew that disciple was to yield to the devil’s enticements and betray him (cf. 6:64).121 In the Synoptic Gospels Peter is called ‘Satan’ (Matt. 16:23/Mark 8:33) because at one point he mouthed the sort of temptation that comes ultimately from Satan. It is a reminder that opposition to Jesus was satanic as well as human.
The evangelist identifies the one Jesus referred to as ‘a devil’: He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him. Judas is identified here as the son of Simon Iscariot (as also in 13:2, 26). It was usual to identify people by reference to the name of their father and the place from which they came. Iscariot could stand for the Hebrew ’îš qĕrîyôt, ‘man of Kerioth’. Both Judas and his father would, then, be men of Kerioth, a town to be identified possibly as Kerioth Hezron (Josh. 15:25) or Kerioth in Moab (Jer. 48:24).122
Twice in the Gospel of John it is stated explicitly that Jesus knew who was to betray him (6:64; 13:11), and his actions and words during the Last Supper also showed that he knew who he was (13:21–27). Beginning at 6:71 Judas is repeatedly and explicitly identified as the betrayer (6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 18:2, 5). However, even Judas’s betrayal of Jesus was made to serve God’s purposes: to win salvation for all who believed in him.
This chapter reports the fourth and fifth of the seven signs the evangelist records as evidence ‘that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God’ (20:31): the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ walking on the water. Both these miracles reveal Jesus’ authority over the natural world and, in the case of the feeding of the five thousand, his care for the hungry.
When the crowd witnessed the supernatural provision of food they concluded that Jesus was ‘the Prophet’ who Moses said was to come into the world, and they wanted to ‘make him king by force’ (6:14–15). They probably did so wanting their bellies to be filled, expecting Jesus to provide a continual supply of food for them as God had done through Moses. But Jesus told them not to labour for food that perishes, but rather for that which endures to eternal life. He said: ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live for ever’ (6:51); and ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day’ (6:54). The latter saying must be understood as a graphic metaphor meaning to believe in him. When it is unpacked it means that Jesus is the source of eternal life, and belief in him is the only way humans can satisfy their hunger and thirst for God. These sayings may remind modern readers of Jesus’ words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, but in their Johannine context they are to be understood as a striking, even a confronting, way of speaking about faith in him.
This chapter highlights the gracious and unmerited action of God in drawing people to Jesus Christ so that they put their faith in him and come to enjoy the benefits of salvation. These people are chosen by the Father and gifted to his Son (6:37). They are taught by the Father and drawn to put their faith in Jesus (6:44–45), and all this without any diminution of their responsibility to respond to that gracious call. Those whom the Father draws to Jesus and who come to him will never be turned away (6:37), and they join the number of those whom Jesus will raise up on the last day (6:44, 54).
The events recounted in chapter 6 took place in Galilee around the time of Passover (6:4). The long section 7:1 – 10:21 describes events taking place several months later, when Jesus went up to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles. Chapter 7 falls into eight sections, all relating to events that occurred just prior to and during that festival.
1. After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. Jesus knew that the Jewish leaders were looking for a way to kill him (cf. 5:18); nevertheless, he would soon go up to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles (7:10), where many more attempts would be made to seize him and put him to death (7:1, 11, 19, 20, 25, 30, 32, 44; 8:28, 37, 40, 59).
2. The feeding of the five thousand took place in March–April at Passover time (6:4). The events described in 7:1 – 10:21 occurred some six months later in September–October when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near. According to Leviticus 23:33–36, 39–43, the Festival of Tabernacles began with a solemn assembly on the first day and ended with another solemn assembly on the eighth day. The people were to live in booths, make daily offerings by fire, and rejoice before the Lord waving bundles of palm fronds, leafy branches, poplars and fruit. The Festival of Tabernacles commemorated the time when Israel dwelt in temporary shelters in the wilderness (Lev. 23:42–43). According to Deuteronomy 16:13–15, it took place after the gathering of produce from the threshing floor and the winepress. The people rejoiced in the fulfilment of the promise that ‘the Lord your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands, and your joy will be complete’ (Deut. 16:15). The festival, then, had a double purpose: to remember Israel’s time in the wilderness when they had lived in booths, and to rejoice before the Lord after harvest (in particular the grape, olive and fruit harvests). It also involved looking forward to a new exodus, the time when the kingdom of God would be brought in with all its attendant blessings. It was the most popular and joyful of the three pilgrim festivals (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles), and Josephus says that whole villages went up to Jerusalem to celebrate it (Wars 2.515). In New Testament times it involved other practices: the water-pouring and the great candle-lighting ceremonies; and these form the background to Jesus’ actions and teaching at this festival. These ceremonies will be described at the appropriate places in the commentary below.
3–5. Aware that the Festival of Tabernacles was near, and that thousands of people would converge on Jerusalem, Jesus’ brothers said to him, ‘Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do.’ In the first-century Mediterranean world there were lofty brotherhood ideals. Brothers were expected to give preference to one another above outsiders, to share confidences and even to make sacrifices for one another when demanded. While this was the ideal, in practice this was not always carried out. Rivalry, selfishness and conflict were often the sad reality.123
Jesus’ brothers (his siblings)124 have already been mentioned along with his mother in connection with the first miracle in Cana (2:12). Now they appear again, urging Jesus to ‘go public’ at the festival and to let his disciples see his miracles. By disciples here is not meant the Twelve but those people who would be in Jerusalem for the festival and who would be attracted to him (cf. 2:23; 4:45). His brothers shared with the Jewish crowds the view that the Messiah would command belief by miracles. They said to him: No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world. The brothers’ request was probably motivated by a desire to have him bring honour to their family, making it a reasonable request in terms of their culture.
By saying Since you are doing these things, his brothers showed that they knew about his miracles, and now they urged him to show himself to the world, which in this context meant the Jewish crowds who were in Jerusalem for the festival. Perhaps they had heard of the many ‘disciples’ who had ceased following Jesus after the bread of life discourse, and so now they urged him to do something to attract them back. What better place to demonstrate who he was than in Jerusalem at the popular Festival of Tabernacles?
The evangelist adds an explanatory comment: For even his own brothers did not believe in him. Why, if they did not believe in him, would they want him to do something in Jerusalem to attract his ‘disciples’ back? Perhaps the recent defection of many disciples had detracted from the family honour, and they wanted to see that restored.
6–7. Jesus told them, ‘My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.’ The word used for time in this verse (and in 7:8) is kairos, a word found in the Gospel of John only in these verses. Normally another word, ‘hour’ (hōra), is used – a word which carries heavy theological meaning and relates primarily to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and exaltation (see commentary on 2:4). That the word kairos (instead of hōra) is used in 7:6, 8 suggests that Jesus was simply saying that it was not yet the right time for him to go to this festival. Perhaps he knew that in the first few days the Jewish leaders would be expecting him (7:11) and would seek to kill him (see 7:1). For his brothers there were no such concerns. For them, any time will do. This approach is confirmed by Jesus’ next words: The world cannot hate you, but it hates me. Because the world (here meaning the Jewish leaders hostile to Jesus) had no reason to hate his brothers, they could go to the festival any time they liked. It was different for Jesus. He had to choose his time carefully because the world hated him and planned to kill him. The reason why it hated him, he said, was because I testify that its works are evil. Jesus came as light into the world and in both his person and his teaching he exposed its evil (see 3:19–21; 5:37–38, 41–45).
8–9. After telling his brothers that any time would do for them, he said: You go to the festival. I am not125 going up to this festival. This causes problems because, after his brothers departed, Jesus did go up to the festival (7:10). However, the context indicates that Jesus was not saying that he would not go to the festival at all, but that he would not go when his brothers told him to do so, or for the purpose for which they said he should go. The reason, he said, was because my time has not yet fully come. The time (kairos) was not right because he knew he would be expected to arrive at the beginning of the festival (7:11) and the Jewish leaders would be waiting to kill him (7:1). After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee, where he was in much less danger from his opponents.
Was Jesus lying when he told his brothers that he was not going up to the feast and then did so? Dealing with this issue, Wesley notes the frequent references to deception in Genesis (fifteen times) and that, while the majority of them are depicted negatively, three of them are treated positively, particularly Joseph’s deception of his brothers prior to their reconciliation.126 Was there, then, a positive use of deception on Jesus’ part? Wesley suggests that had the brothers known that Jesus would follow them to the feast later, they would have sought to ‘orchestrate opportunities’ for him to display his power and to bring honour to their family. This may have brought on prematurely the opposition to Jesus that in the divine plan was not to culminate until the next festival. Wesley further notes that if Jesus did knowingly employ deception, it conformed to the three criteria for deception that restores shalom: it is limited to the person who caused the original wrong, it must not disadvantage the deceived person, and it must not advantage the deceiver beyond his or her status prior to suffering the original wrong. It can be shown that Jesus’ ‘deception’ of his brothers met these criteria.127
Lincoln notes that Jesus’ change of plans fits
an emerging pattern in the characterization of Jesus. A request or suggestion is made to him and he rebuffs it, but then in a delayed response he accedes to it, yet on his own terms. This pattern was at work in his responses to his mother in accomplishing the first sign (2:3–10) and to the official from Capernaum in the second sign (4:47–53) and will recur in his reaction to the message from Martha and Mary in the account of the raising of Lazarus (11:3–15). Here Jesus refuses to act in accordance with his brothers’ agenda and timetable. He does eventually go [to] the festival but it is now a decision that is taken in line with the divine schedule. It is also on his own terms.128
Keener comments:
In general, ancient peoples, both Jewish and Gentile, condemned lying, but those who commented on it sometimes allowed exceptions. Scripture certainly permitted deception under extreme circumstances, especially to save life and sometimes (with prophets) to let the wicked remain in their folly. Later Jewish teachers also approved of deception to fight oppressors (Judith 9:10, 13) or to save one’s life from oppressors. Telling the truth could merit damnation if this act constituted betrayal of another to an oppressor. But whereas Jesus might have left an impression different from his plans, he does not explicitly lie here; he did remain in Galilee until it was time for him to go to the festival (7:9; 8:20, 59).129
10–11. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. His brothers had urged him to show himself to the world (7:4), but Jesus rejected this advice and chose to come to the festival not publicly, but in secret, and for good reason: Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, ‘Where is he?’ The Jewish leaders who were antagonistic towards Jesus were on the lookout for his arrival. Their antagonism is reflected in the question Where is he?
12–13. Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, ‘He is a good man.’ Others replied, ‘No, he deceives the people.’ Those who had witnessed his miracles, especially his healing of the sick, would say, He is a good man. Others, probably the Jewish leaders, were saying, He deceives the people, a very serious charge indeed (see Deut. 13:1–5).
But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders. People had good reason to be afraid of their leaders because they had decided to put out of the synagogue anyone who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Those who feared the leaders were also Jews, another reminder that not all Jews were antagonistic towards Jesus.
14–15. Not until halfway through the festival did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. He went up to Jerusalem in secret and waited until the festival was halfway through before showing himself in the temple. Showing no fear of his opponents, he began to teach in the temple courts, the most public area in Jerusalem. As they listened, The Jews there were amazed and asked, ‘How did this man get such learning without having been taught?’ Jesus was not known to have been a disciple of any of the leading rabbis, yet his teaching reflected extraordinary learning and this made a huge impression upon the hearers (see 7:45–46). While the crowds were impressed by Jesus’ teaching, the religious leaders would not have been. If a man had not studied under a learned rabbi, his teaching was suspect; his teaching was just his own.
16–17. Knowing what they were saying, Jesus answered, ‘My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.’ To teach without reference to learned rabbis would betoken arrogance, as if teaching on one’s own authority. Jesus claimed that he was not teaching on his own authority. The teaching he gave came from the one who had sent him, God the Father himself. To those who were inclined to question this claim, he said: Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. The impediments to knowing the truth about God are more likely a failure of obedience (lack of readiness to do God’s will) than anything else.
In the Gospel of John what is emphasized as God’s will is that people believe in his Son (6:28–29, 40; cf. 1 John 3:23). This suggests that only those who believe in Jesus will recognize the truth of his teaching. Believe that you may know! This is not surprising, for why should God reveal truth to those who refuse to believe in his Son?
18. Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory. His opponents would have agreed with this statement. In their own teaching they cited the authority of others – rabbi so-and-so says this, rabbi so-and-so says that. Not to do so would have been arrogant and evidence of seeking honour for oneself. Jesus did not appeal to the rabbis for his authority, but nor was he arrogant. He said, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. Such a statement applies to a person’s agent or representative. If the agent is a man of truth he will act only for the honour of his principal, and in that case it may be said that there is nothing false about him. On the lips of Jesus, however, the one who sent him refers to God the Father. Jesus claimed that he worked for his Father’s honour alone, and therefore he was a man of truth and there was nothing false about him. Literally rendered, this last clause would read: ‘there is no unrighteousness in him’ – something implied by Jesus when he later challenged the Jews: ‘Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?’ (8:46).
19. Jesus’ opponents prided themselves on knowing God’s will already because they knew Moses’ law (see 9:28–29; Rom. 2:17–20). Jesus asked them: Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me? The evidence that they were not interested in doing God’s will, not even as it was expressed in the law of Moses, was that they wanted to kill Jesus contrary to the law of Moses.
Jesus’ opponents may have thought that by killing him they would be doing God’s will and keeping the law of Moses. They probably believed that Jesus came under the strictures of Deuteronomy 13:1–5, where even a miracle-worker was to be put to death if he led people away from the living God. They knew that Jesus was a miracle-worker and they believed that he encouraged people to break the Sabbath. Therefore, they thought that he led people away from God and should be put to death. More than that, they believed that he was guilty of blasphemy because he claimed equality with God (5:18). Of course, Jesus’ opponents did not realize who he really was, and they were mistaken about the way the law of the Sabbath should be applied. This latter matter Jesus addresses in 7:21–24.
20. ‘You are demon-possessed,’ the crowd answered. ‘Who is trying to kill you?’ The crowd appear to have been ignorant of their leaders’ plans (5:18; 7:1). They may have taken Jesus’ statement about people wanting to kill him as evidence of the paranoia of a demon-possessed person, or they may simply have been speaking in an insulting way: ‘You are crazy!’
21–22. Ignoring the insult, Jesus said to them, ‘I did one miracle, and you are all amazed.’ He was referring to the healing of the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath (5:1–18). He continued, Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. The law of circumcision came from Moses in so far as it is found in the law of Moses (Lev. 12:3), but Jesus explained that the command to circumcise predated Moses, being first issued to Abraham (Gen. 17:10–13).130 Jesus reminded the crowd that, in apparent violation of the Sabbath law, they circumcised children on the Sabbath.
23–24. Jesus drove home his point: Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? Male Jews had to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Lev. 12:3). If the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, they were still circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. This was in apparent violation of the Sabbath law, but it was held not to be so because the law of circumcision overrode the Sabbath law (cf. m. Ned. 3:11: ‘Great is circumcision which overrides even the rigour of the Sabbath’). Arguing from the lesser to the greater, Jesus asked why, if they circumcised children on the Sabbath, were they angry with him for healing a whole man on the Sabbath (cf. 5:16–18)? Jewish scholars used a similar argument in defence of actions which were necessary to preserve the life of the whole person, which was more important than circumcision which affects only one member.131 Jesus applied their principle more widely – to healing people’s whole bodies even when they were not in immediate danger of death. Keener comments: ‘If the Sabbath could be superseded for (excising) a single member, how much more for (restoring) the whole person (cf. Mark 3:4)?’132
Jesus told the crowd: Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. Hearing that Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath, they jumped to the conclusion that he was a Sabbath-breaker, but their judgment was wrong. Jesus had been making a man perfect or whole, in the same way as circumcision made a man perfect. They needed to understand this so that they might learn to judge correctly.
25–26. At this point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’ Some of the Jerusalemites knew that their leaders were seeking ways to put Jesus to death. So they were amazed and said, Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. The apparent inactivity of the Jewish leaders in the face of Jesus’ public teaching led them to ask, Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? Being themselves impressed by Jesus’ learning without having been taught (7:15), and in the light of the miracles he performed in Jerusalem (2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47), the crowds wondered whether the authorities’ inactivity was a sign that they were beginning to suspect that Jesus was in fact the Messiah.
27. As they pondered this possibility, they faced another dilemma: But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from. The Jerusalemites’ statement needs to be explained carefully. On the surface, they appear to be saying that the genealogy and birthplace of the Messiah would be unknown. Clearly this was not the case, for it was well known that the Messiah was to be of the lineage of David and that his birthplace was to be Bethlehem (7:42; cf. Mic. 5:2/Matt. 2:4–6). The Jerusalemites thought they knew where Jesus came from, for he was commonly thought to be from Nazareth (1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19), the village in which he grew up but not where he was born (see Matt. 2:23).
The Jerusalemites did not have all their facts right. Because they thought they knew where Jesus came from, they believed he could not possibly be the Messiah. They also believed that the identity of the Messiah would not be known until he was revealed in glory. This belief is reflected in 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras) 13:52: ‘He said to me, “Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day”’ (nrsv). It is also reflected in the dialogue between the Christian apologist Justin Martyr and Trypho, his Jewish opponent. Trypho said to Justin, ‘But Christ – if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all’ (Dial. Tryph. 8:4).
28–29. Recognizing the Jerusalemites’ quandary, Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, ‘Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from.’ Because Jesus was making an important public declaration, the evangelist uses the verb ‘to cry out’ (krazō), as he does on three other occasions, all related to important public declarations (1:15; 7:37; 12:44). In this declaration Jesus acknowledged the people’s problem when working from their assumptions and said, in effect, ‘You think you know me; you think you know where I come from, and therefore you think I cannot be the Messiah.’ They did not know that Jesus had come from the Father.
Jesus continued: I am not here [lit. ‘I have not come’] on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. The word true (alēthinos) is used in two ways in the Gospel of John: (1) meaning ‘true’ in the sense of correct or reliable (4:37; 8:16; 19:35); and (2) meaning ‘genuine’ as in references to the true light (1:9), true worshippers (4:23), true bread (6:32), true vine (15:1) and the true God (17:3). It is in this second sense that Jesus says the one who sent him is true. He had been sent by ‘the true God’, or, as 17:3 has it, ‘the only true God’. Jesus added: You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me. They claimed to know God, but Jesus said that they did not know him at all. Jesus substantiated his own claim to know God on the basis that he came from God and was sent by God.
30. Jesus’ claim must have seemed like blasphemy to the Jerusalemites, for the evangelist says, At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. They probably wanted to seize him to bring him before the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy because he claimed that he knew God, was from him and was sent by him (7:28–30).
This is the second in a series of seven references to the hour (hōra) of Jesus (see 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). The ‘hour’ is an important concept in this Gospel. In the early part of the Gospel, things move towards the ‘hour’, which is the hour of Jesus’ passion, death and subsequent exaltation (see commentary on 2:4). No machinations of Jesus’ opponents could bring his ministry to a premature end; he would not surrender himself to their hands until his ‘hour’ had come. The sentiment of the psalmist’s prayer was true in Jesus’ case:
My times are in your hands;
deliver me from the hands of my enemies,
from those who pursue me.
(Ps. 31:15)
31. Despite the negative attitude of some of the Jerusalemites, Still, many in the crowd believed in him. These people, probably pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem for the festival, were prepared to ignore the common belief that ‘when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from’ (7:27). They said, ‘When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?’ For these people, the miracles they had witnessed outweighed the common belief. Such a response is exactly what the evangelist hoped for from those who read his Gospel (20:31), and clearly 7:25–31 contributes to his purpose.
32. The willingness of many in the crowd to believe in Jesus did not go unnoticed. The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him. There had been earlier attempts to arrest Jesus and plans to kill him (5:18; 7:1, 19, 20, 25, 30), and now another attempt would be made to arrest him. The temple guards sent to carry out this task would have been Levites who functioned as temple police to ensure good order in the temple precincts, but under the command of the chief priests they could operate in a wider sphere as well (see 18:3, 12).
33–34. [Therefore] Jesus said, ‘I am with you for only a short time, and then I am going to the one who sent me. You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come.’ The niv omits the word ‘therefore’ (oun) with which this verse begins and which suggests that it was in the light of the fact that temple guards had been sent to arrest him that Jesus said this to the Jews.
The evangelist recounts only two more visits made by Jesus to Jerusalem after the Festival of Tabernacles: one for the Festival of Dedication (10:22), the other for his final Passover (11:55; 12:1, 12–13). This was the short time during which he would be with them. Thereafter, he would return to the Father, albeit through death, resurrection and exaltation, and then, even if they looked for him, they would not be able to find him. Where he was going, his opponents could not come.
35–36. The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?’ The words where our people live scattered among the Greeks translate tēn diaporan tōn Hellēnōn, which rendered literally would read ‘the diaspora of the Greeks’, that is, Jewish people living among the Greeks.133 The crowd wondered if Jesus was going to leave Judea and Galilee, join the diaspora and then teach the Greeks/Gentiles. If he did so, his Jerusalem opponents would find it harder to find him. This was not Jesus’ intention, but readers of the Gospel would know that after his return to the Father, Jesus would send his Spirit to the disciples and then his message would be heard in the diaspora and by the Greeks/Gentiles.
The Jews again asked among themselves, What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’? Still they did not understand what he meant.
On the last day of the Festival of Tabernacles Jesus promised living water to those who believed in him (7:37). To appreciate the impact of Jesus’ promise we need to understand the first-century water-pouring ritual during this festival. According to the Mishnah (m. Sukk. 3:9; 4:4–10; 5:1–4), for the first six days of the festival they used to fill a golden flagon with water from the Pool of Siloam and carry it back to the temple. When they reached the Water Gate, three blasts on the shofar (ram’s horn trumpet) were sounded. When they arrived at the temple they processed around the altar and sang the Hallel (Pss 113 – 118), the people shaking their lulabs (bundles of myrtle, palm and willow bound up with a citron), while the priests shook theirs (made from willow[-poplar] branches). The flagon was taken to the priest on duty at the altar, who had two silver bowls, one for the water and the other for wine. These bowls were filled and then the contents were poured over the altar. On the seventh day they processed around the altar seven times. People believed that when the Messiah came he would provide water (as he would provide manna: see commentary on 6:30–31) just as Moses had done, a belief reflected in the later haggadic commentary on Ecclesiastes (dated between the sixth and eighth centuries ad):
As the former redeemer made a well to rise, so will the latter Redeemer bring up water, as it is stated, And a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim (Joel iii, 18).
(Qoh. Rab. 1:9.1)
It is significant that as in chapter 6, where the evangelist records Jesus’ bread of life discourse following the feeding of the five thousand, in chapter 7 Jesus’ offer of living water is made against the background of the water-pouring ceremonies.
37–38. The evangelist provides the context of Jesus’ proclamation: On the last and greatest day of the festival. The Festival of Tabernacles began with a solemn assembly on the first day, continued for seven days and was followed by another solemn assembly on the eighth day. When the evangelist refers to the last and greatest day of the festival it is difficult to know which day he means. If it was the eighth day, there would be no more water-pouring ceremonies and no more processions. These ceremonies had ceased. If it was the seventh day, when the priests and people processed around the altar seven times, singing the Hallel, shaking their lulabs and rejoicing before the Lord while the water was poured over the altar, the symbolism in Jesus’ proclamation would be striking. On the day when the last of the water-pouring ceremonies was performed amidst much singing and rejoicing, Jesus invited people to come to him, the one who provides the rivers of living water. It therefore seems preferable to say that the last and greatest day was in fact the seventh day, when the celebration of the Festival of Tabernacles reached its climax.
No matter whether the last and greatest day was the seventh or eighth day, on that day, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them [lit. ‘from his stomach’].’ The evangelist uses here also the word krazō, ‘to cry out’ or ‘to speak with a loud voice’, as he does elsewhere when important public declarations are being made (1:15; 7:28; 12:44). In 4:10, 13–14 Jesus offered living water to a Samaritan woman; now here a similar offer is extended to his own people. (See commentary on 4:10, 13–14 for a discussion of the meaning of ‘living water’.)
There are two ways of punctuating and therefore interpreting Jesus’ words. The first, represented by the niv translation above, implies that the streams of living water flow from within those who come to Jesus and drink – that is, from within those who believe in him.134 The alternative punctuation yields the following translation: ‘Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink, whoever believes in me. As the Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from him [lit. ‘his stomach’].’ Such a translation allows the first part of the text to be interpreted as Jesus’ invitation to those who believe to come and drink, and the second part as a comment by the evangelist explaining that the Scripture promised that rivers of water would flow from the Messiah.135
In favour of the first reading, it may be noted that when Jesus offered the Samaritan woman living water, he said it would become in her ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ (4:13–14), which is not that different from saying that ‘rivers of living water will flow from within them’. While the alternative reading seems a little awkward on first reading, there are a couple of things that can be said in its favour. When Jesus offered living water to the Samaritan woman, he clearly was the source of that living water. In 7:39 the living water is said to symbolize the Holy Spirit, and Jesus and the Father are the sources of the Spirit in the Gospel of John. Believers are obviously never the source of the Spirit. In the end, it does not really matter which reading is chosen because the living water, the Holy Spirit, is given by Jesus to his followers, and therefore he, not the believer, is ultimately its source. Once given, it may well up to eternal life within believers or flow out of them like rivers of living water, but always its source is Jesus.
The Scripture being cited here is difficult to identify as there is no passage in the Old Testament which reads just like this. One possibility is Isaiah 12:3: ‘With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.’ Although this text is not exactly like the quotation in 7:38, there is evidence that it was associated with the water-pouring ceremonies of the Festival of Tabernacles and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Talmud (y. Sukk. 5.1) Rabbi Joshua ben Levi cites Isaiah 12:3 when he says, ‘Why is it called the place of drawing? For from there they draw the Holy Spirit, in line with the following verse of Scripture, “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Is. 12:3).’ It is also possible that the evangelist’s allusion is to Ezekiel 47:1–11 or Zechariah 14:8.
While it is helpful to understand the background to Jesus’ invitation to all who are thirsty to come to him and drink, we must not fail to recognize and appreciate the gracious offer he extends: those who are thirsty may come to him and have their thirst quenched. A similar invitation is repeated in three texts in Revelation:
Rev. 21:6 – He said to me: ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.’
Rev. 22:1 – Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev. 22:17 – The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!’ Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
39. The evangelist explains Jesus’ words about rivers of living water: By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. An outpouring of the Spirit was expected at the dawning of the new age (see Ezek. 11:19; 36:26–27; 39:29; Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28). From the standpoint of those who heard Jesus speak, the reception of the Spirit was still in the future. The sending of the Spirit had to await Jesus’ glorification, something the evangelist goes on to explain: Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. The Gospel of John frequently speaks of Jesus being glorified, and it is nearly always in conjunction with his death, resurrection and return thereby to the Father (7:39; 12:16, 23, 28; 13:31, 32; 17:1, 5). On the eve of his death, Jesus said: ‘Very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you’ (16:7).
The evangelist’s statement that those who believed in Christ were to receive the Spirit only after Jesus had been glorified requires explanation. On the one hand, it has to be acknowledged that in Old Testament times various people did experience the Spirit’s activity, as the following examples show: the Spirit inspired people to prophesy (Num. 11:25–26, 29; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; 2 Sam. 23:2; Ezek. 11:5; Mic. 3:8), gave them particular skills (Exod. 31:3; 35:31; Num. 11:17), empowered them to fight battles (Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14) and provided them with visions (Ezek. 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1). In most if not all of these cases, the Spirit inspired specific people for specific purposes at specific times.
What appeared to change following Jesus’ exaltation was that the Spirit was given to all God’s people, all who believe in Christ (Acts 2:28–29; Rom. 8:9), and he remains with them for ever (John 14:16). They all experience him producing his fruit in their lives (Gal. 5:22–23), reminding them of Jesus’ teaching (John 14:26), and empowering them with his gifts for ministry (1 Cor. 12:4–11) and to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).
40. During the Festival of Tabernacles, people remembered the wilderness experience of Israel and Moses’ miraculous provision of water from the rock. They knew that Moses had prophesied that the Lord would raise up for them a prophet like him (Deut. 18:15). Jesus’ public declaration offering streams of living water to the thirsty on the last day of the festival was striking, and it is no wonder that On hearing his words, some of the people said, ‘Surely this man is the Prophet.’ They were identifying Jesus as the prophet like Moses.
41–42. Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Messiah come from Galilee?’ While some were prepared to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring in his kingdom, others were dissuaded from doing so because they believed that Jesus came from Galilee. They argued: Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? That the Messiah would come from David’s line is foreshadowed in 2 Samuel 7:12, and that he would come from Bethlehem is prophesied in Micah 5:2 (cf. Matt. 2:5–6). The irony was, of course, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His origins were not in Galilee, as these people supposed. More important than this, of course, is that Jesus’ real origins were in heaven, whence he had been sent by the Father.
43–44. The upshot was that the people were divided because of Jesus. Some were prepared to accept him as the Messiah, while Some wanted to seize him, but once again no one laid a hand on him (because his hour had still not yet come).
When the Pharisees heard the crowds whispering about Jesus and realized that many of them believed that he was the Messiah, they and the chief priests had sent temple guards to arrest him (7:31–32). This section tells of the return of the temple guards.
45–46. After observing events in the temple, Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ They had come back empty-handed, and those who had sent them wanted to know why. The temple guards, themselves Levites and religious men, had been deeply impressed by Jesus’ teaching, and their answer to the Pharisees’ and chief priests’ question Why didn’t you bring him in? was: No one ever spoke the way this man does. In the Synoptic Gospels the crowds were impressed with the way Jesus taught ‘as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law’ (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32) and with the way his teaching was accompanied by deeds of power (Mark 1:27; 2:10–12; Luke 4:36). But it appears that the evangelist wanted his readers to understand that the temple guards were impressed, not so much by Jesus’ authoritative speech, but by his gracious offer of living water. In chapter 7 the only teaching of Jesus the evangelist records between the dispatching of the temple guards and their return to those who had sent them is Jesus’ proclamation on the last day of the festival offering living water to all who were thirsty.
47–49. The reaction of those who had sent the temple guards was hostile: ‘You mean he has deceived you also?’ the Pharisees retorted. As far as these Pharisees were concerned, Jesus was a deceiver, and this assessment had rubbed off on some of the crowd (7:12; cf. Matt. 27:62–63). Appealing to their status as religious leaders, they asked the guards: Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? As the evangelist tells the story there is irony involved here, for in 7:50–51 one of their own number will speak up in defence of Jesus. And there were other rulers who believed in Jesus but were afraid to acknowledge it openly (12:42). Ignoring these things, the Pharisees, interrogating the temple guards, answered their own question: No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law – there is a curse on them. They thought that the temple guards had been influenced by the crowd, so they declared that the crowd were ignorant of the law and that there is a curse on them. Therefore, the temple guards should give no credence to their opinions.
The technical term used by the Pharisees which lies behind their reference to this mob is ‘the people of the land’ (Heb. ‘am hā’āreṣ), a derogatory term for Jews who did not carefully observe the prescriptions of the law and the Pharisaic traditions. It was virtually impossible for the Pharisees to associate with the people of the land because their ‘uncleanness’ was a threat to the Pharisees’ ritual purity.
50–51. Contrary to the statement that no rulers or Pharisees believed in him, Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, ‘Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?’ Nicodemus is described as the one who had gone to Jesus earlier (cf. 3:1–2) and as one of their own number, for he was both a ruler and a Pharisee (3:1). At this point Nicodemus did not declare his belief in Jesus, but he did speak up on a point of legal procedure and so questioned his colleagues’ hasty judgments about Jesus. In Deuteronomy 1:16–17; 17:2–5; 19:15–19 judges in Israel are commanded to investigate charges thoroughly before reaching a judgment. Charges were to be entertained only if supported by two or three witnesses. In the Mishnah there are more detailed instructions about the way hearings should be conducted, including the statement, ‘Even if the accused said, “I have somewhat to argue in favour of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is aught of substance in his words’ (m. Sanh. 5:4). The irony of this whole affair was that the Pharisees and rulers who condemned the crowd because they did not know the law were themselves acting in contravention of the law and their own traditions in making such a hasty judgment about Jesus, as Nicodemus reminded them.
52. However, these people were in no mood to listen to Nicodemus’s cautionary remarks. They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.’ By questioning their hasty judgments, Nicodemus had associated himself with Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee. When his peers asked him Are you from Galilee, too? it was an abusive question, for the Judeans looked down upon the Galileans. There is no reason to assume that Nicodemus was a Galilean. The claim of Nicodemus’s fellow councillors that a prophet does not come out of Galilee is problematic, for several of the Old Testament prophets came from Galilee (Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and perhaps Elijah, Elisha and Amos).
One of the early papyri (Papyrus 66) has a variant for 7:52 which reads ‘the prophet’ instead of ‘a prophet’. In this case the Pharisees would not be saying that no prophets have arisen from Galilee, which was clearly mistaken, but that there was no evidence that ‘the Prophet’ (the one like Moses; cf. Deut. 18:15) would come from Galilee (nor was there any evidence that he would not). Already the evangelist has said that some of the crowd were saying that Jesus was truly ‘the Prophet’ while others were saying he was the Messiah (7:40–41). Perhaps, then, what Nicodemus’s colleagues were saying to him was that there was no evidence that the Prophet or the Messiah would come from Galilee. If this were the case, readers of the Gospel would sense the irony of the situation, knowing that Jesus was not born in Galilee, but in Bethlehem in Judea.
This passage includes the second of three appearances of Nicodemus in this Gospel. The first is 3:1–15, where he approached Jesus by night saying: ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.’ The final appearance is in 19:38–42, where he brought 35 kg of spices and, with Joseph of Arimathea, who had asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, prepared it for burial and laid it in the tomb.
Three matters may be singled out here for special notice. First, in 7:16–18 Jesus spells out the prerequisite for anyone wanting to know the truth about his teaching, and it is not what people would normally expect: ‘Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.’ This enunciates a very important principle: recognizing the truth of Jesus’ teaching is not dependent upon intellectual ability or formal learning, nor is it a reward for the noble search for truth. It depends, rather, upon a person’s choice to do the will of God.
Second, in 7:21–24 Jesus addresses the narrow legalistic understanding of the law of the Sabbath insisted upon by the Jewish leaders. They criticized him for healing on the Sabbath (which was intended for people’s benefit), while approving the circumcision of boys on the eighth day after their birth when it fell on the Sabbath. Even under the old covenant some things took precedence over the Sabbath, and of course under the new covenant Sabbath observance, while a helpful practice, was no longer legislated (see Gal. 4:8–11; Col. 2:16).
Third, in 7:37–39, probably the most important passage in this chapter, Jesus invites all who are thirsty to come to him and drink, promising them access to ‘rivers of living water’. The evangelist explains: ‘By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified’ (7:39). What quenches ‘soul thirst’ is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. This was to be experienced by them after Jesus’ glorification (i.e. after his death, resurrection and exaltation). The Holy Spirit was, of course, active in Old Testament times in the lives of God’s people, particularly in empowering specific individuals at specific times for specific tasks. But in New Testament times the Spirit is active in a far greater way: he is given to all believers, not just specific individuals; he remains with them for ever, not just for a specific time; and he produces his fruit in their lives, he teaches them, and he empowers them all with gifts of ministry and to be Jesus’ witnesses.
This attractive story is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, it interrupts the flow of the account of Jesus’ interaction with the Jewish people, which is taken up again in 8:12, and more than 15% of its vocabulary is found only here in this Gospel. Despite its inauthenticity, Metzger says it has ‘all the earmarks of historical veracity’.136 It is consistent with what we know of the person of Christ from what is reflected in the rest of this Gospel as well as in the Synoptic Gospels.
7:53 – 8:2. Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Because it is unlikely that this passage belongs here, we have no clear idea what the historical context was. On a later visit to Jerusalem Jesus stayed at the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus in Bethany, which was on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives (12:1–11). At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered round him, and he sat down to teach them. It was the custom for teachers to sit while teaching. Jesus’ teaching was open and public: all the people gathered round him.
3–5. While Jesus was sitting and teaching, The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. This is the only place in the Gospel of John where teachers of the law (grammateis, often translated ‘scribes’) are mentioned. It is appropriate that they are here associated with the Pharisees in their encounter with Jesus, for it was to involve a question about the application of the law of Moses. Together, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law confronted Jesus with a woman caught in adultery, and They made her stand before the group. As far as the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were concerned, the woman simply provided the occasion for the encounter. Her humiliation would have been acute as she was made to stand before the group (lit. ‘in the midst’) surrounded by her accusers, and probably in the presence of ‘all the people’ (8:2) who were listening to Jesus’ teaching.
The teachers of the law said to Jesus: Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. They addressed Jesus as Teacher, which suggests that this story is all about an encounter between rival teachers. That the woman was caught in the act of adultery (the sexual encounter of a married man or woman with the wife or husband of another) means that there were eyewitnesses. The woman’s accusers continued: In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? They limited the application of the law by saying that it applied to such women, when in fact the law applied to both the adulterers and the adulteresses (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). If the law demanded the death of both the adulterer and the adulteress, and if the woman was caught in the act of adultery, one wonders about the discriminatory action of those who seized only the woman.
According to the law, the witnesses were required to cast the first stone (Deut. 17:7). That the teachers of the law said, In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women could imply that they were witnesses. On the other hand, the ‘us’ may be inclusive, meaning ‘us Jews’, and that would include Jesus as well. In any case, they wanted to know whether Jesus agreed with the law of Moses or not.
6a. They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. These words are located in different places in some manuscripts (D, M, 1071, itd), leading some scholars to suggest they were not part of the original story. Were this true, it could cast a different light on the motives of the teachers of the law. Perhaps they were not trying to trap Jesus but seeking his help to get them out of a dilemma. How could they be faithful to the law without putting this woman to death? This puts their motives in the best possible light, but that is building a rather large edifice upon a small foundation. It is better to read the passage and the motives of the teachers of the law in the light of these words in 8:6a. The rest of the story makes better sense if we do so, and there is evidence elsewhere to show that the Pharisees and teachers of the law did seek to trap Jesus with questions (Matt. 12:10/Mark 3:2/Luke 6:7). They knew he showed compassion towards sinners, and hoped that his compassion might lead him to make a statement contrary to the law. There would be dangers also if he supported the law, because he would be advocating capital punishment, which was for the most part forbidden to the Jews by the Romans.137
6b–8. When he heard what the teachers of the law said, Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. This action has been variously interpreted. Some say that Jesus was embarrassed to be confronted by a promiscuous woman (unlikely); others, that it was a ploy to gain time to think how best to answer (also unlikely). Appealing to Jeremiah 17:13, Augustine says,
He wrote with his finger on the ground, as if indicating that the names of people like these men were to be written in earth, not in heaven, which is where he told his disciples they should rejoice that their names were written.138
Another suggestion is that Jesus’ action was a sign of his refusal to debate the issue on the terms dictated by the teachers of the law. This would account for their persistence: When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ According to the Mosaic law, adulterers were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10), and witnesses to a capital offence had to cast the first stone when the accused was condemned to death (see Deut. 17:7). Whether this law was enforced by the Jews in the first century, and whether the Romans would have allowed it, is doubtful.
Jesus regarded the teachers of the law as witnesses to the offence, and according to the law they would be the ones to begin the execution if it was to go ahead. However, Jesus’ words challenged the accusers, implying that none of them was without sin and therefore they were in no position to condemn this woman. What sin Jesus was implying they were guilty of is not clear. Perhaps they too were guilty of adultery. Perhaps they were malicious witnesses in terms of Deuteronomy 19:15–21, because they were not interested in seeing justice done, but only in trapping Jesus. However, this is unlikely because in Deuteronomy 19:15–21 the malicious witness is a false witness; the question of motive is not mentioned.
Having said this, Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. This is probably best understood as an indication that Jesus was refusing further debate. We are not told what Jesus actually wrote, so it is pointless to speculate. What he wrote plays no part in the story because the teachers of the law, the crowd and the woman all responded to what Jesus said, not to what he wrote. Therefore, it did not need to be recorded.
9. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. This remarkable response was perhaps silent acknowledgment that in many ways they were no better than her. In the end, everyone had departed: the crowd, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Now only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there where she had been placed by her accusers. Augustine comments on what was possibly the woman’s reaction:
And because she had heard, ‘He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone at her’, she most likely expected to be punished by one in whom no sin could be found. But he who had repelled her adversaries with the voice of justice lifted on her the eyes of mercy.139
10–11. Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ This was the first time in the whole episode that anyone addressed the woman. Jesus spoke, not about her sin, but asked, Has no one condemned you? She replied, No one, sir. All her accusers had disappeared. Hearing her say this, Jesus declared: Then neither do I condemn you . . . Go now and leave your life of sin. Such a response reflects Jesus’ compassion for sinners and reinforces the teaching of the evangelist in the Gospel of John: ‘For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him’ (3:17). It should be noted that, while Jesus refused to condemn the woman, he did not condone her sin. He told her, Go now and leave your life of sin. He said something similar to the invalid he healed at the Pool of Bethesda: ‘See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you’ (5:14).
While this passage is not part of the original Gospel of John, it nevertheless reflects authentic aspects of Jesus’ person and teaching. First, he would not join in condemning the woman caught in the act of adultery because he came into the world to save people, not to condemn them. And besides, why should only the woman be accused when the man involved went off scot-free? Second, while he was unwilling to condemn the woman for her part in the sinful liaison, he did not condone the sinful action itself. Hence he said to her, ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’ As the evangelist says, ‘For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ (1:17).
Witherington comments on the use of this passage:
I do not encourage ministers to preach on this as a ‘Gospel Text’. It may, however, appropriately be used as an illustration of the character of Jesus when one is preaching on another Gospel text, much as we will use other sorts of illustrative material in a sermon.140
If, as most scholars think, 7:53 – 8:11 was not originally part of the Gospel of John, what we read in 8:12–20 would follow on from Jesus’ invitation to the crowd to come to him and drink (7:37–39). Jesus bears witness to the fact that he is the light of the world. The Pharisees challenge him because he bears witness to himself, something they regard as invalid testimony. Jesus defends the truth of his witness and says that God the Father himself testifies in his favour. Hearing his testimony, some ‘believe’ in him, and Jesus urges them to hold to the truth he teaches for it will make them free. These ‘believers’ take offence, claiming they have never been slaves to anyone, prompting Jesus to declare that those who commit sin are sin’s slaves. They claim to be children of Abraham, but Jesus says that they are in fact children of the devil. They respond by accusing Jesus of being ‘a Samaritan and demon-possessed’. He makes them another offer: ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death’, but to this they reply: ‘Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets . . . Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?’ Jesus’ final rejoinder is: ‘Very truly I tell you . . . before Abraham was born, I am!’
12. When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world.’ This is the second of seven ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Gospel of John (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). His claim to be the light of the world was made against the background of another Jewish practice at the Festival of Tabernacles: the great candle-lighting ceremonies which took place each night, except on an intervening Sabbath. These ceremonies are described in the Mishnah (m. Sukk. 5:2–3):
At the close of the first Festival-day of the Feast they went down to the Court of the Women where they had made a great amendment. There were golden candlesticks there with four golden bowls on the top of them and four ladders to each candlestick, and four youths of the priestly stock and in their hands jars of oil holding a hundred and twenty logs which they poured into all the bowls. They made wicks from the worn out drawers and girdles of the priests and with them they set the candlesticks alight, and there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the light of the Beth ha-She’ubah.
Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world contains more than allusions to the great illuminations of the Festival of Tabernacles. It fulfils Old Testament prophecies, especially those of Isaiah, which speak of the Servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), and indeed the Lord himself (Isa. 51:4), as a light to the nations.
Jesus added: Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. The metaphor is one of walking with and without the light of the sun. When unpacked it speaks of those who follow Christ by accepting his teaching and who walk no longer in the darkness of ignorance and under the power of the evil one (cf. 1 John 5:19). As the apostle Paul said, ‘he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves’ (Col. 1:13). As life in the darkness culminates in death, life in the light of Jesus Christ culminates in eternal life; it is the light of life.
In the prologue, the evangelist says of the Logos: ‘In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind’ (1:4), and in 1:14 he identifies Jesus as the Logos. To come to Jesus means to come to the one in whom is found the life of God. He is the light of men, the light of life. He is the ‘true light’ coming into the world that ‘gives light to everyone’ (1:9; cf. Matt. 4:16; Luke 2:32). John (the Baptist) bore witness to the light and encouraged people to believe in him (1:9; cf. 5:35). Jesus himself declared: ‘I am the light of the world’ (8:12a; 9:5), and promised that those who believe in him ‘will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (8:12b; 12:46). He urged people to believe in the light while he was with them and they had opportunity to do so (12:35–36).
13. The Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.’ According to rabbinic teaching, testimony to oneself was not valid in law; only testimony by another could be accepted. In the Mishnah, for example, we read: ‘So, too, if there were two men and one said, “I am a priest”, and the other said, “I am a priest”, they may not be believed; but when they testify thus of each other they may be believed’ (m. Ketub. 2:7). The Pharisees accused Jesus of bearing testimony to himself.
14. Jesus answered, ‘Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going.’ As the one who had come from God and was going to God (13:3), he was not subject to rabbinic rules concerning valid testimony. Even though he might accommodate himself to their rules (see 5:31–46; 8:17–18), he did not need to do so. What rendered Jesus’ testimony valid was something of which his opponents were completely ignorant: But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. They did not understand that he had been sent by God into the world and that he would shortly return to God. The testimony of God’s emissary did not need human validation.
15–16. You judge by human standards. Because they rejected the light of the world, the Pharisees were shut up to fallible human wisdom when they made judgments, and, particularly in respect of Jesus’ teaching, they were sadly mistaken. While his opponents judged him by human standards, Jesus said, I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. Jesus did not come to judge or condemn the world, but to save it, so he reserved judgment. However, he insisted that if he were to judge, his decisions would be correct because, unlike the Pharisees, he stood with the Father and his judgments would be in accordance with his Father’s will.
17–18. Alluding to Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15, Jesus said, In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. The testimony of one person is no basis for convicting anyone of a crime; there must be two or three witnesses. When Jesus spoke of your own Law he was not distancing himself from the law. In the Old Testament, Moses and Joshua spoke to the Israelites of ‘your God’ and of ‘the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you’ without distancing themselves from either God or the land (Deut. 1:10, 21; Josh. 18:3). Jesus was reminding the Pharisees of the provisions of the law which both he and they accepted.
The law said that the testimony of two witnesses was valid, and Jesus insisted that he was not a lone witness: I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. Readers know that there could be no more valid witnesses than God the Father and his unique and only Son. Jesus had other witnesses as well (John the Baptist, the works Jesus performed, the Scriptures and Moses; cf. 5:31–47), but they were not of the same order as Jesus himself and the Father.
19. The Pharisees thought that Jesus was appealing to a human father as his second witness: they asked him, ‘Where is your father?’ Presumably they wanted him to be present so they could question him. However, Jesus’ response related not to their question Where is your [human] father? but to the fact that they did not know his [heavenly] Father: You do not know me or my Father . . . If you knew me, you would know my Father also. If they had understood to whom Jesus was referring, this would have been exceedingly confronting to the Pharisees, who were proud of their knowledge of God (see Deut. 4:7; Rom. 2:17). The evidence that they did not know the Father was that they did not know Jesus. They did not realize that those who see Jesus see the Father also – something that Jesus would explain to his disciples during the Last Supper (14:8–10).
20. The evangelist concludes this part of his account by describing the place where Jesus’ exchange with the Pharisees took place: He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. The words translated the place where the offerings were put (tō gazophylakiō) literally rendered would be ‘the treasury’. Josephus uses gazophylakion for the treasury chambers where vast sums of money were stored (Wars 5.200; 6.282). Jesus would neither have had access to nor have taught in these rooms. The same word is used in Mark 12:41, 43; Luke 21:1 for the boxes into which people placed their offerings. The niv rendering assumes that Jesus was teaching near these boxes. It was a public place, in the Court of Women (see Mark 12:41–44), the place where the great lampstands were lit at night during the Festival of Tabernacles – an appropriate place for Jesus’ proclamation that he was ‘the light of the world’.
Despite the fact that the Pharisees rejected his teaching and thought it was dangerous, Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come. This is the third of seven references to Jesus’ ‘hour’ (hōra) (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), a significant theme in this Gospel. The first three references all say that Jesus’ hour had not yet come; the last four indicate that his hour had come. The hour towards which everything was moving was the hour of Jesus’ glorification, which took place through his death, resurrection and exaltation. This ‘hour’ was determined by God, not by Jesus’ opponents. Once again, therefore, the evangelist says, no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.
In the previous passage, 8:12–20, the Pharisees challenged the validity of Jesus’ testimony. In 8:21–29 Jesus warns his opponents that, unless they change their attitude and believe in him, they will die in their sins.
21. Once more Jesus said to them, ‘I am going away.’ This was the third time during the Festival of Tabernacles that Jesus said he was going away (7:33; 8:14, 21), but on this occasion it carried an ominous warning: and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. As sin here is singular, it refers, not to individual sins (cf. 8:24), but to the great sin of unbelief.
At the beginning of the festival Jesus’ opponents had been looking for him with evil intent (7:1, 11). Jesus now told them that after he had gone they would look for him again, but they would not find him because, he said, Where I go, you cannot come. When Jesus went away, through his death and resurrection, he would return to the Father, and because they did not believe in him they could not follow him there. They would die unforgiven in their unbelief. This warning is repeated and expanded in 8:24 (see commentary on that verse).
There are a couple of ways to understand Jesus’ opponents’ looking for him. Perhaps they would not be looking for Jesus himself – glad perhaps that he had departed the scene – but they would be looking for the Messiah, and they would not find him because Jesus was their Messiah and he would have already gone. They would die in their sin while looking for another. Alternatively, as Morris suggests, ‘Jesus may mean that their moment of insight will come too late. Only after they have crucified Him will they realize who He is. Then their seeking of Him will be in vain.’141
22. This made the Jews ask, ‘Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, “Where I go, you cannot come”?’ They wondered if Jesus would commit suicide (a grievous sin in Jewish eyes, though in times of defeat in battle it could be regarded as more noble than submitting to capture and slavery). There is perhaps some irony here. The Jews asked if he would commit suicide, but already they themselves were planning to kill him (7:1).
23–24. While Jesus’ opponents wondered what he meant, he continued, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.’ His opponents, like the rest of humankind, were from below (this world), but he was not from this world; he was from above (heaven) (see 3:13, 31; 6:38–51). When he returned to heaven they would not be able to follow him or find him. Repeating the ominous warning of 8:21, Jesus said, I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he,142 you will indeed die in your sins. Unlike in verse 21, where Jesus said that those who do not believe in him will die in their ‘sin’ (singular), meaning the great sin of unbelief, here he says that they will die in their ‘sins’ (plural), probably meaning actual sins they commit in unbelief.
Jesus came into the world so that those who believe in him might not perish but have eternal life (3:16). But the sins of those who would not believe would remain unforgiven and their guilt would remain (see 9:41). To die in their sins meant that they would bear themselves the consequences of their sins (cf. 3:36). The only escape was to believe in Jesus, and even at this stage he held out this possibility to his opponents: the warning if you do not believe implies that an opportunity to believe still remained.
25. Jesus’ opponents challenged him: ‘Who are you?’ they asked. The you (sy) is emphatic, so the question functions as a challenge: ‘Who do you think you are?’ His opponents knew that people were saying he was ‘the Prophet’ or the Messiah (7:31, 40–41), but they rejected those ideas (see 7:47–48). As translated in the niv, Jesus’ response to this challenge was: Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. The wording of Jesus’ response is notoriously difficult to translate.143 The nrsv translates it as, ‘Why do I speak to you at all?’ If we adopt this translation, then Jesus refused to answer their question, asking why he should bother speaking to them at all. Such a response seems appropriate given the challenging way in which his opponents addressed him. This interpretation makes 8:25b a suitable transition to 8:26, with its warnings about judgment. However, there is a difficulty with this approach because Jesus did speak to them further. It is better, then, to adopt the niv translation: ‘Just what I have been telling you from the beginning’. He had publicly declared who he was – the Son of Man (5:27), the one sent by God (5:23–30, 36–38; 7:16, 28–29, 33) and the Son of God (5:25–26) – but his opponents rejected these claims.
26. Jesus continued: I have much to say in judgment of you. The theme of judgment in the Gospel of John is complex (see ‘Additional note: judgment’, pp. 126–127). Jesus introduces it here in response to the unbelief of the Jews. He still had much to say in judgment of his opponents, and it would be in accord with the Father’s will: he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world. Jesus was sent into the world to declare what he had heard from the Father – to expose sin, yes, but also to offer salvation and eternal life. The Father who sent him is reliable and it was his message that Jesus proclaimed.
27–28. When Jesus spoke of the one who had sent him, his opponents did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. Knowing this, Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.’ There are two other occasions in the Gospel of John when Jesus speaks about being ‘lifted up’; on both these occasions being ‘lifted up’ refers to his death on the cross (3:14; 12:32), and this is its meaning here also. In the other two references, the passive voice is used (‘the Son of Man must be lifted up’, ‘when I am lifted up’) and those who would do the lifting up are not identified. Here Jesus told his opponents that they were the ones who would ‘lift him up’; they would be responsible for his crucifixion. When they lifted him up, Jesus said, you will know that I am he.
It is not clear whether the discovery by the Jews of who Jesus was would be one of joy leading to salvation or one of despair leading to destruction. In the context of rejection and challenge on the part of the Jews and of strong rejoinder on the part of Jesus, their discovery was more likely to be one of despair leading to destruction. When they have ‘lifted him up’, and when they see the crucified one risen and exalted, and coming with the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24:30), they will realize who he is. Then they will realize that he said and did nothing on his own, and that all that he said was what the Father taught him – but then it will be too late.
29. Jesus concluded this exchange with the Jews with the words: The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. Because Jesus always did what pleased the Father, the Father never abandoned him. He protected Jesus throughout his ministry, and no attempts to bring it to a premature end succeeded (see 7:30; 8:20).
30–32. Even as he spoke, many believed in him. To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.’ To be true disciples they had to hold to his teaching (lit. ‘remain in my word’). The hallmark of the true disciple is remaining in Jesus’ word – that is, obedience to his teaching (see 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10; 17:6). Perhaps the ‘believers’ needed this exhortation to continue in his word because there were many present who rejected it, and they would urge them to reject it also. If they did hold to his teaching, accepting the good news of the gospel, Jesus promised: Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Jesus spoke of freedom from sin (as the next verse makes plain) and all it involves: freedom from condemnation (5:24), darkness (8:12), the power of the evil one (17:15; cf. 1 John 5:18) and death (5:24; 8:51).
33. These people who ‘believed him’ were not true disciples, for straightaway they rejected what Jesus said: They answered him, ‘We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone.’144 This is the first of eleven references to Abraham in the Gospel of John, all of which are found here in the latter part of chapter 8 (vv. 33, 37, 39 [3x], 40, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58). They all relate to a claim by the ‘believers’ that they were Abraham’s children and to their rejection of Jesus’ teaching. Reference to Abraham in the context of the Festival of Tabernacles is not surprising because of the Jewish tradition that Abraham himself celebrated this festival and was the first to do so (Jubilees 16:20–31).
Jewish people rightly thought of themselves as Abraham’s children, and elsewhere Jesus himself used the expression for them (Luke 13:16; 19:9). But in some cases this led to presumption. Many believed that because they were Abraham’s descendants they would automatically inherit the kingdom of God. John the Baptist warned them not to presume upon this (Matt. 3:9/Luke 3:8). Jesus warned that not all Jews would inherit the kingdom (Matt. 8:11–12).145 By presuming they would inherit the kingdom on the basis of physical descent from Abraham alone, many Jewish people were on shaky ground.
To claim that the Jewish nation had never been slaves of anyone would be absurd. The nation had been in slavery in Egypt and in Babylon. Therefore, those who made this claim were thinking in individual rather than national terms. Köstenberger comments:
Freedom was considered to be the birthright of every Jew. The law laid down that no Jew, however poor, should descend to the level of a slave (Lev. 25:39–42). The Mishnah states, ‘Even the poorest in Israel are looked upon as freemen who have lost their possessions, for they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (m. B. Qam. 8.6).146
To be referred to as a slave was regarded as deeply insulting by those with the status of freedmen or the elite. The ‘believers’, who prided themselves on being Abraham’s descendants, were incensed by Jesus saying that if they held to his teaching they would be truly free, for it implied that they were presently enslaved. Although the Jewish people were languishing under Roman occupation, the Pharisees believed that they were spiritually free despite the occupation,147 and these ‘believers’ apparently thought the same. So they said to Jesus, How can you say that we shall be set free? Once again the you (sy) is emphatic (cf. 8:25), indicating that their words are intended as a challenge to Jesus: ‘How can you say that we shall be set free?’
34. Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.’ The ‘believers’ boasted of their spiritual freedom as children of Abraham, but Jesus warned them that they were still in bondage because of their sins. This bondage was not something they could break free from themselves. Later, the rabbis used various metaphors to describe the insidious enslavement of sin: ‘At the beginning it is like a spider’s thread, but finally it will be like a ship’s rope’ (R. Akiba, c. ad 135); ‘at the beginning it is like a guest, later it will become the ruler of the household’ (R. Jicchaq, c. ad 300); ‘at the beginning it is weak like a woman, afterwards it will be strong like a man’ (R. Schĕmuël, c. ad 325) (Str-B 2, p. 523).
35–36. Jesus used a household metaphor to drive home his point: Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it for ever. Literally translated, this verse would read: ‘the slave does not remain in the house(hold) [oikia] for ever, the son remains [in it] for ever.’ In this statement Jesus is ‘the son’148 who remains for ever in God’s house(hold).149 As the Son, he was able to make those who were slaves free, and Jesus said, So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Those whom he released from slavery to sin enjoyed freedom from judgment (3:18; 5:24) and from the power of death (5:24; 8:51), and an end to alienation from God as they were adopted into his family (1:12).
37. Because of their misplaced pride in being children of Abraham, the ‘believers’ could not accept Jesus’ teaching about freedom. So he said to them, I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. The word descendants translates sperma (lit. ‘seed’), used also by the ‘believers’ of themselves in 8:33. Jesus agreed that they were physical descendants (sperma) of Abraham, though later he would deny that they were true children (tekna) of Abraham.
The niv’s translation ‘because you have no room for my word’ is not as good as the nrsv’s ‘because there is no place in you for my word’, seeing that in this sentence the subject is ‘my word’, not ‘you’ (hoti ho logos ho emos ou chōrei en hymin). Jesus was saying that his word did not find a place in the ‘believers’ because of their prejudices. It was like the seed sown on the path in the parable of the sower.
It is surprising that Jesus accused the ‘believers’ of being ready to kill him. It would seem that Jesus, who knew what was in people, knew how shallow their belief was and how quickly they would turn against him and join their leaders in being ready to kill him. This was so, he said, because ‘my word finds no place in you’.
38. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father. His teaching was based on what he had seen in the Father’s presence. What they were rejecting was a revelation of God. In rejecting it and being ready to kill him, they were doing what they had heard from their father – not Abraham, as they claimed, but the devil, as 8:39–47 makes clear.
39–41. In response to Jesus’ statement that they were doing what they had heard from their ‘father’, the ‘believers’ answered: Abraham is our father. Falling back on their claim to be descendants of Abraham, they rejected the implication in Jesus’ words that they were children of someone else. ‘If you were Abraham’s children,’ said Jesus, ‘then you would do what Abraham did.’ Jesus acknowledged that they were Abraham’s seed (sperma; 8:37) – that is, Abraham’s physical descendants – but he denied that they were Abraham’s children (tekna). He said that if they were indeed the true children (tekna) of Abraham, they would behave as Abraham did. (Paul makes a similar point in Rom. 4:12.) This was not the case with the ‘believers’, as Jesus pointed out: As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Once more, Jesus accused them of wanting to kill him (cf. 8:37), something they wished to do because they could not accept the truth he told them – truth he had heard from God. Jesus said, Abraham did not do such things: Abraham was renowned for his humble acceptance of the word of God, even when he did not understand it (see Gen. 12:1–4; 22:1–14). Having said that they were not acting as Abraham did, Jesus added: You are doing the works of your own father. The ‘believers’ were incensed once more and declared: We are not illegitimate children, perhaps implying that Jesus was. In Hosea 2:4 God, speaking through the prophet, called Israel ‘children of adultery’ because they had forsaken him and gone after other gods. The ‘believers’, sensing that Jesus was accusing them of being spiritual illegitimates, asserted, The only Father we have is God himself. They claimed not only that they were Abraham’s children, but that they were children of God also. There is scriptural warrant for such a claim, for Israel was regarded as God’s son (Exod. 4:22) and God was regarded as Israel’s Father (Deut. 32:6, 18; Jer. 31:9).
42. Without denying the truth of the Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that it did not apply in their case: If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. Jesus denied the claim of the ‘believers’ that God was their Father. The evidence for this was that they did not love him, the one who came from the Father and was present among them. Jesus added, I have not come on my own; God sent me. If they rejected the one whom God had sent, they could not claim that God was their Father. As Jesus said to the Jewish leaders in 5:23, ‘Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him.’
43. Jesus explained the fundamental problem with the ‘believers’: Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. His language (lit. ‘speech’, or what he said) was not clear to them because they were unable/unwilling to hear his message. The verb ‘to hear’ (akouō) means not only to hear, but also to heed or obey what is said. Obedience is the key to understanding (cf. 7:17: ‘Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God’). These people were not willing to obey Jesus’ message; no wonder it was not clear to them.
44–45. Having rejected the claim of the ‘believers’ that God was their Father, Jesus told them who their father was: You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. Witherington comments:
throughout this whole discussion, the underlying assumption is that one’s origins determine one’s character. Jesus’ true source, and likewise his opponents’ true source, determine their respective characters. The desire to kill Jesus shows that the opponents are in tune with the will of their parent, the devil, who has always been a murderer.150
The devil is mentioned three times in the Gospel of John, always in relation to people who did the devil’s work. Judas Iscariot is said either to be a devil (6:70) or to have been motivated by the devil (13:2) because he planned to betray Jesus. In 8:44, the ‘believers’ are said to belong to their father, the devil, because they were intent upon carrying out the devil’s desire by killing Jesus (cf. 8:37, 40). They were acting, not like Abraham (see 8:39), but like the devil because He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. The ‘believers’ rejected Jesus’ call to hold to the truth and enjoy true freedom (8:31–33), and became like the devil, who did not hold to the truth and was a murderer from the beginning. This is probably an allusion to Genesis 3, where the devil tempted the first couple to disobey God and so caused them to lose eternal life. Then their sin spread to Cain, who murdered his brother Abel (1 John 3:8 also refers to the devil sinning ‘from the beginning’). Jesus then described something of the nature of the devil: When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. The words the niv translates as he speaks his native language rendered literally would read, ‘he speaks from his own self’. By nature, in his own self, the devil is a liar and the father of lies. This is an allusion to Genesis 3, where the devil, through his lie, introduced sin into the world, and in that sense the devil is the father of lies. Lincoln comments:
The fierceness of the polemic, especially at this point, offends modern sensibilities and indeed this verse is often considered a locus classicus of Christian anti-Semitism. Its rhetoric, however, should first be heard from within its first-century context. The accusations in this passage would not have sounded any different from some of the fierce indictments of Israel in its own Scriptures. Most of the charges Jesus makes in this chapter reflect those found in the prophets, in particular, those made by Yahweh against the people in Isaiah [cf. e.g. Isa. 1:1–9].151
When Jesus told the ‘believers’ that they were of their father the devil, he was speaking ethically, and as a Jew to Jews. The statement is not anti-Semitic, nor is the Gospel of John as a whole anti-Semitic. Its purpose is to show the love of God for all peoples and to encourage Jews and Gentiles to put their faith in Christ and so experience eternal life.
The ‘believers’, Jesus said, were prepared to do the work of the devil, the father of lies, Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Here is irony. They were prepared to do the will of the father of lies, but they would not believe the one who told them the truth! It was because the truth cut across their misplaced pride in being the descendants of Abraham.
46. Jesus then asked, Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? The verb translated prove . . . guilty of sin is elenchō, a verb used in only two other places in the Gospel of John: in 3:20, where it is translated ‘expose’ (‘Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed’); and in 16:8, where it is translated ‘prove . . . to be in the wrong’ (‘When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’ [italics added]). In 8:46 Jesus challenged the ‘believers’ to expose the sin in him which prevented them from accepting the truth he taught. Knowing that they could not do this, he asked the question which logically followed: If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Jesus was pressing home the point. If they could not prove him guilty of sin, they must face the possibility that he was telling the truth; and if he was telling the truth, they would have to show why they did not believe him.
47. Jesus explained the underlying causes of belief and unbelief. First he stated the matter positively: Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. Then he stated it negatively in relation to those who rejected his word: The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. Jesus had already told them that they were children of their father, the devil – they listened to him and did his will. It was because they belonged to the devil and not to God that they would not heed the word of Jesus.
48. The ‘believers’ were incensed at Jesus’ statement that they ‘do not belong to God’ and they heaped abuse on him: The Jews answered him, ‘Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?’ There were Samaritan prophets who made great claims (see Acts 8:9–11) whom Jews regarded as demon-possessed. It was in this vein that they called Jesus a Samaritan and demon-possessed. This is not the first or last time that Jesus is branded as demon-possessed in the Gospel of John (see 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). In the Synoptic Gospels, the teachers of the law, to explain Jesus’ miraculous powers without recognizing that God was with him, said: ‘He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons’ (Mark 3:22/Matt. 9:34; 12:24).
49–50. ‘I am not possessed by a demon,’ said Jesus, ‘but I honour my Father and you dishonour me.’ Jesus rejected their defamatory statement, asserting rather that he was intent upon honouring God, his Father, and that the Jews were guilty of dishonouring the one who was honouring God. He insisted, I am not seeking glory for myself. As one who was honouring his Father, Jesus was not seeking glory for himself. He added, but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. God the Father is judge of all and he seeks glory for the Son. In the Old Testament, the righteous committed their case to the Lord, the righteous judge, who vindicated them. Jesus did not have to defend himself or seek his own glory. The Father would vindicate him and glorify him as well (cf. 17:4–5).
51. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death. This statement was introduced with the solemn formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin), underlining the importance of what he was saying to his opponents. If any of them would change their minds and give heed to Jesus’ word, they could still receive the gift of eternal life and never see death. It is clear that this did not mean that those who believed would not experience physical death, for obviously all but the last generation would do so. Rather, it meant that the eternal life which people experience now through belief in Jesus will not be interrupted by physical death. As Jesus said: ‘The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die’ (11:25–26).
52–53. The evangelist tells how Jesus’ gracious words were misunderstood and rejected: At this they exclaimed, ‘Now we know that you are demon-possessed!’ They felt confirmed in their opinion that Jesus was demon-possessed, and explained why: Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever keeps your word will never taste death. Taking Jesus to mean that none who kept his word would experience physical death, they pointed out that even Abraham and the prophets had died, and mockingly asked, Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. The Jews’ question Are you greater than our father Abraham? recalls the question of the Samaritan woman: ‘Are you greater than our father Jacob?’ (4:12). In both cases the evangelist hopes his readers will see the irony involved, for Jesus was indeed greater than Abraham, Jacob and the prophets. The Jews challenged Jesus with the words Who do you think you are? (lit. ‘Who are you making yourself?’). They were convinced he had an inflated opinion of his own importance because he claimed the divine prerogative of preserving people from death. They believed that he was glorifying himself.
54–55. Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.’ Self-glorification is meaningless, and Jesus was not interested in it. However, he told the Jews, My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Jesus did not need to glorify himself because the Father did that for him (cf. 12:28; 13:31–32; 17:1, 5). His Father was the one his opponents claimed as their God, but Jesus knew that they did not know God and said, Though you do not know him, I know him. This was something Jesus could not deny: If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. They were liars because they claimed to know God when they did not. Jesus would be a liar if he denied that he knew God when he did. He did know him, and kept his commands.
56. Acknowledging the claim of the Jews that Abraham was their father only for the sake of argument, Jesus said, Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad. How to interpret Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw his day is difficult, especially in the light of what Jesus said to his disciples: ‘For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it’ (Luke 10:24).
There are several ways in which Jesus’ statement here in 8:56 has been interpreted. Some appeal to Genesis 17:17, which records Abraham’s laughing reaction to the promise that he and Sarah would have a child in their old age, viewing this not only as his joy at the promise of Isaac, but also as his joyful hope for the day of the Messiah (cf. Jubilees 15:17; 16:19–20). Others appeal to Genesis Rabbah 44:22, which describes a disagreement between two rabbis concerning what God revealed to Abraham:
R. Johanan b. Zakkai and R. Akiba disagree. One maintains: This world He revealed to him, but not the next. The other maintains that He revealed to him both this world and the next. R. Berekiah said: R. Leasar and R. Jose b. R. Hanina disagreed. One maintained: He revealed to him [the future] until that day; while the other said: He revealed to him the future from that day.
Despite the disagreements of the rabbis concerning the exact nature of what God had revealed to Abraham, they all assumed that something of the future was revealed to him. Two of them spoke about ‘that day’ – the day of the Messiah – being revealed to him. Thus, it is claimed, Jesus was alluding to the Jews’ own belief that Abraham saw my day, the day of the Messiah.
Early Church Fathers made other suggestions. For example, Gregory the Great said: ‘Abraham saw the day of the Lord when he hospitably received three angels as a prefiguration of the most holy Trinity [Gen. 18:1–3].’152 Irenaeus said: ‘Abraham was a prophet and saw in the Spirit the day of the Lord’s coming and the dispensation of his suffering through whom both he himself and all who trust in God would be saved, following the example of his faith.’153 Morris’ conclusion is:
We cannot . . . feel confidence in any of the proposed occasions, and it may be significant that Jesus does not specifically refer to any. In other words He may well mean that Abraham’s general attitude to this day was one of exultation, rather than refer to any one specific occasion in the life of the patriarch.154
Michaels prefers to identify Jesus’ day as the last day, the day of resurrection:
not only because it draws on sayings within John’s Gospel itself, but because of traces elsewhere in the New Testament of a belief that Abraham foresaw or somehow anticipated a future resurrection. Paul wrote of God’s promise to Abraham, and of Abraham’s calling ‘in the sight of God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were’ (Rom 4:17), and the author of Hebrews claimed that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac because ‘he reasoned that God was able to raise from the dead – from which, in a manner of speaking, he did receive him back’ (Heb 11:19; my italics).155
57. While we might have difficulty explaining exactly what Jesus meant, the response of his opponents shows that they took him literally: ‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ they said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’ The mention of Jesus being not yet fifty years old is puzzling in the light of Luke 3:23, which says he was ‘about thirty years old when he began his ministry’. There is some evidence that Jewish people spoke of people achieving a jubilee of years (fifty years of age) or even two jubilees (one hundred years of age). To say that a person was not yet fifty years old was equivalent to saying that he or she had not yet even achieved his or her first jubilee. Such a comment was not intended to reflect accurately a person’s age. There is therefore no real conflict with Luke 3:23. There is a stipulation in the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 14:7–10; cf. 1QSa 1:13–18) that candidates for some offices in the Qumran community were not to be younger than thirty nor older than fifty years of age. Neither the evangelist nor Luke was trying to provide precise information about Jesus’ age. Both reflect a knowledge of the traditions concerning age requirements for public office.156
Jesus, of course, did not say that he had seen Abraham, but that Abraham had seen his day.157 Based on their own misunderstanding, and recognizing that Jesus was clearly not fifty years of age, his opponents thought that what Jesus said was ludicrous, and said so.
58. Responding to the Jews in terms of their misunderstanding, Jesus made a solemn pronouncement. Beginning with the formula ‘Very truly I tell you [amēn amēn legō hymin],’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ Jesus’ opponents ridiculed the idea that he could have seen Abraham (their statement, not his), but in response Jesus gave them something far more astounding to think about. He claimed to have existed prior to Abraham’s birth (just as God existed prior to the creation of the world; cf. Ps. 90:2). This comes as no surprise to readers of the Gospel of John because in the prologue we are informed that the Word who became flesh in the person of Jesus was with God in the beginning. But there is more than this involved in Jesus’ statement before Abraham was born, I am! The words I am (egō eimi) are used in a number of different ways on the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of John (see ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154). Here they are clearly used in an absolute sense, representing the divine name. Thus, when Jesus said to the Jews before Abraham was born, I am! he was identifying himself with God, who said to Moses, ‘I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: “I am has sent me to you”’ (Exod. 3:14). Perhaps Jesus was also implying that Abraham, great though he was, had lived and died, while he, Jesus, because he is one with God, remains for ever as the ‘I am’.158
59. Jesus’ opponents understood the implications of what he said and because they did not believe in him they regarded it as blasphemy of the worst sort. The evangelist says, At this, they picked up stones to stone him.159 Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy prescribed in the Old Testament (Lev. 24:14–16, 23; cf. 1 Kgs 21:13–14). In terms of the law they would have been right to stone him – that is, unless Jesus was who he claimed to be. Later on, the Jews made another attempt to stone Jesus, this time stating explicitly that they were doing so because they were convinced he was a blasphemer (10:31–33). But both then and now their attempts were unsuccessful. On this occasion Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. All the indications are that Jesus hid himself, not because he was afraid, but because his ‘hour had not yet come’. Jesus would return quite openly to the temple again (see 10:22–23; 12:20–22).
It is ironic that at the Festival of Tabernacles the Jews rejected Jesus and, as it were, turned their backs on him. The Mishnah describes one of the daily rituals of this festival:
When they [two priests] reached the gate that leads out to the east, they turned their faces to the west and said, ‘Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord’ (m. Sukk. 5:4).
While their priests were dissociating themselves from their forefathers who had turned their backs on the temple of the Lord and worshipped the sun, the Jews were turning their backs on the Lord himself as he visited them in the person of his Son.
This passage, including as it does Jesus’ witness to the Jewish people, their charges against him and his counter charges, focuses upon their respective origins. Jesus insists that he is from God, and says that they are from the devil. In the course of the exchange Jesus makes a number of important statements. First, he describes himself as ‘the light of the world’ and promises that those who follow him will never walk in darkness but will enjoy the light of life (8:12). They will not stumble about in ignorance, but as they embrace his teaching and promises they will know where they are headed: on the way to eternal life with their Lord.
Second, addressing those Jews who ‘believed’ in him, Jesus urged them to hold to his teaching and so truly become his disciples. Then they would know the truth, and that truth would set them free (8:31–32). The truth of Christ, applied by the Holy Spirit to the hearts and minds of believers, has the power to set them free from the power of sin and all it involves: from condemnation (5:24), darkness (8:12), the power of the evil one (17:15; cf. 1 John 5:18) and death (5:24; 8:51). Sadly, those ‘believers’ whom he addressed thought that they had never been in slavery to anyone, not realizing that those who sin are slaves to sin. Nevertheless, Jesus still held open an incredible offer to them: ‘if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed’ (8:36).
Third, Jesus makes the astounding statement: ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death’ (8:51). Similar statements are found in 5:24; 6:40; 11:25. Together, they promise that death is not the last word for believers. Though they die, yet shall they live; they will have eternal life, and the Lord will raise them up on the last day.
Fourth, in response to the Jews’ rejection of his promises of eternal life on the grounds that even Abraham had died, Jesus declared his superiority to the patriarch in the words ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ (8:58). The words ‘I am’ are here used in the absolute sense, representing the divine name, thus showing that Jesus was identifying himself with God.
The story of the healing of the man born blind, which constitutes the sixth sign the evangelist adduces in support of Jesus’ messiahship, is set in Jerusalem and took place after Jesus left the temple at the conclusion of the Festival of Tabernacles (8:59 – 9:1). It is noteworthy that, as in the case of the healing of the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:6), Jesus did not act in response to a request but took the initiative himself. In contrast with the attitudes towards Jesus on the part of those described in chapter 8, the man born blind functions as an example of genuine faith. The account of his healing and its aftermath is a brilliant and dramatic presentation comprising eight scenes.
1–2. Jesus left the temple (8:59) and As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. The evangelist’s reference to the man’s congenital blindness prepares his readers for the extraordinary miracle that is to follow. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ This question reflects a view that all suffering is punishment for sin of one kind or another (cf. Job 4:7). There is a general connection between sin and suffering due to the fall. There is sometimes a direct connection between a particular sin of an individual and suffering (see 5:14), but not always (see Luke 13:2–5). Congenital afflictions raise the problem of sin and suffering in an acute way. The disciples’ question implied that congenital afflictions were punishments (1) for sins of unborn children committed either in their mothers’ wombs or by their pre-existent souls; or (2) visited upon children for the sins of their parents (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; Tobit 3:3; but see also Ezek. 18:1–20), possibly a sin of the mother during pregnancy.
3. Jesus rejected both these explanations for the man’s affliction: ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’ Jesus did not himself offer a third explanation: he spoke rather of the opportunity it provided for a display of God’s power in the extraordinary healing he was about to perform. The works of God means, as it nearly always does in the Gospel of John, the work that God does through Jesus (cf. 5:36; 14:10–11; 17:4).
4. Before healing the man, Jesus made a statement about the importance of carrying out the works of God while it was still possible to do so: As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. Jesus was sent into the world to do the works given him by the Father to perform (4:34; 5:36; 17:4). He associated his disciples with him in doing this work: we must do the works of him who sent me. Jesus’ work was to reveal the Father through his teaching and actions/miracles (1:18). For Jesus, night would fall, and the opportunity for work in the world cease, when he was betrayed by Judas, arrested, tried and crucified. Before ‘nightfall’ he was determined to continue his work, unhindered by the machinations of his enemies (cf. 11:7–11).
Verses 3 and 4 punctuated as they are in the niv (and most other English versions and modern Greek texts) present an unattractive theodicy. They imply that God allowed the man to be born blind so that many years later God’s power could be shown in the provision of his sight. However, it is not necessary to read the text in this way. Two things need to be noted. First, the words, ‘this happened’ have been added by the niv translators and there are no corresponding words in the Greek text. Second, early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were not punctuated; later editors added the punctuation. Rendered literally and without punctuation, 9:3–4 would read: ‘Jesus replied neither this man sinned nor his parents but so that the works of God may be revealed in him it is necessary for us to work the works of him who sent me while it is day night is coming when no-one is able to work.’ It is possible to punctuate this so as to provide the following translation: ‘Jesus replied, “Neither this man sinned nor his parents. But so that the works of God may be revealed in him it is necessary for us to work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no-one is able to work.”’ Punctuated in this way, the text implies, not that the man was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him, but that Jesus had to carry out the work of God while it was day so that God’s work might be revealed in the life of the man born blind.160
5. Concluding the discussion with his disciples, Jesus said: While I am in the world, I am the light of the world. The Logos incarnate in Jesus Christ was the true light coming into the world (1:4, 5, 7). He brought the light of truth into the world – truth about God (1:18) and about the human condition (3:19–21). For unbelievers, this light would shine only as long as Jesus was in the world. As he said in 12:35, ‘You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you.’ For those who believed, however, the light would continue to shine even after Jesus’ departure, so that they would never walk in darkness (8:12). Michaels comments: ‘What better vindication of Jesus as “the Light of the world” than giving sight to a man born blind?’161
6. After saying this, he spat on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. The words After saying this link Jesus’ action in healing the man with his previous saying, ‘While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’, suggesting that the healing is an illustration of that saying.
On two other occasions Jesus used saliva in acts of healing (Mark 7:33; 8:23). Here he used saliva to make mud, mixing it with dirt. This becomes significant later in the story when we are told that he performed the healing on a Sabbath, because the act of kneading (which is involved in making mud from saliva and dirt) was regarded as one of the thirty-nine forms of work which violated the Sabbath (see commentary on 5:9b–10). The verb translated put . . . on is epichriō, which means ‘to anoint’. It is found only here and in 9:11 in the New Testament. According to the Mishnah, normal anointing such as one might do on weekdays was allowable on the Sabbath, but anointing with special substances not normally used was forbidden, because that constituted a healing activity, which was not allowed (m. Sabb. 14:4).
7. After Jesus had made mud and anointed the blind man’s eyes, ‘Go,’ he told him, ‘wash in the Pool of Siloam’ (this word means ‘Sent’). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. Unlike Naaman, who objected when Elisha sent him to wash in the Jordan (2 Kgs 5:10–14), the man born blind responded with unquestioning obedience when Jesus sent him to wash in the Pool of Siloam – an example of true faith. After he washed, he came home seeing.
The Pool of Siloam was the source of the water used in the water-pouring ceremonies during the Festival of Tabernacles (see commentary on 7:37–39). The evangelist explains that Siloam means ‘Sent’. The consonants of the Hebrew verb ‘to send’ (šālaḥ) are the same as those of the Hebrew for Siloam (šilōaḥ), which allowed popular etymology to make the link. It has been suggested that the pool was called Siloam (‘Sent’) because its water was ‘sent’ from the Gihon spring through Hezekiah’s tunnel. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the evangelist added this explanation to connect the name of the pool with the fact that Jesus sent the man to wash there, so as to make clear that the miracle occurred because Jesus sent him, not because of any healing qualities in the water itself.
8–9. Jesus’ healing of the man born blind produced an immediate transformation: he no longer sat and begged. Confronted with this reality, His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, ‘Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?’ The answers were various: Some claimed that he was. Others said, ‘No, he only looks like him.’ The latter thought it was impossible for a man born blind to have been healed, and so distrusted their eyes – the man before them must be someone else. No-one bothered to ask the man whether he was the one who used to sit and beg, But he himself insisted, ‘I am the man.’ In responding, he used the formula egō eimi (lit. ‘I am’, here correctly rendered I am the man) often used by Jesus himself, sometimes with the same basic meaning, ‘I am he’, but at other times with much greater theological significance (see ‘Additional note: egō eimi’, pp. 153–154).
10–12. Confronted with the man’s insistence that he was the one born blind, his neighbours asked, ‘How then were your eyes opened?’ . . . He replied, ‘The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.’ The man knew Jesus’ name (The man they call Jesus), but as yet he had not seen him – he was still blind when he left Jesus and went to the pool to wash. So when his neighbours asked Where is this man? he could only respond, I don’t know. He would not have known Jesus if he saw him!
13–14. What follows is puzzling: the neighbours brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. This action might have arisen from a desire on their part to bring to the Pharisees’ attention evidence of the great miracle that Jesus had performed. However, the next words foreshadow the difficulties their action would create: Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. Mixing saliva and dirt was regarded as kneading, and applying an unusual salve was regarded as healing. Both these actions were prohibited on the Sabbath according to Pharisaic tradition (see commentary on 9:6). Whether intended or not, the neighbours’ action provided the Pharisees with evidence against Jesus, and threw the man born blind to the wolves.
15. Hearing that the miracle had been performed on the Sabbath, the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. They were not interested in the miracle that had occurred, nor in the benefits it procured for the man. They wanted only to know how it was done, because they wanted evidence to use against Jesus. The man responded more cautiously to the Pharisees than he had to his neighbours: ‘He put mud on my eyes,’ the man replied, ‘and I washed, and now I see.’ He made no reference to Jesus ‘kneading’ saliva and dirt to make mud – only that he put mud on his eyes. He did not say that Jesus sent him to the Pool of Siloam to wash – only that he washed, with the result that now I see.
16. Confronted with the man’s simple testimony, the Pharisees were divided in their opinions: Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’ For them, the overriding concern was Sabbath observance. No matter what miraculous signs Jesus performed, he could not possibly be from God because he violated God’s law. Such reasoning, though based on a false interpretation of the Sabbath law, followed warnings found in Deuteronomy 13:1–5. There the people of Israel were warned about those who performed miraculous signs and at the same time led people away from God. Such people were to be put to death because they preached rebellion against the Lord. Some of the Pharisees appear to have interpreted Jesus’ action this way. He had performed a miracle, but he had also broken the Sabbath law. He must be a sinner and therefore could not be from God.
But others asked, ‘How can a sinner perform such signs?’ For this second group, the nature of Jesus’ signs, especially the healing of a man born blind, forced them to ask whether one who did such things could be described as a sinner – that is, a violator of the law. Their reasoning was defective (false prophets sometimes produce miracles, as Deut. 13:1–5 attests), though their conclusion was correct. Because of differing opinions, they were divided.
17. Being divided in their opinions, Then they turned again to the blind man, ‘What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.’ Why, when they could not agree among themselves about Jesus, they should ask the man for his opinion is not clear. At first it seems that they asked him because, as the one who had benefited from Jesus’ healing, he ought to know about his benefactor. But as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that they were in no mood to receive the man’s testimony (9:24). The man gave his opinion without hesitation: He is a prophet. In the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, prophets were known to be miracle-workers, and it seemed to the man that his benefactor must fall into this category.
18–19. It appears that their earlier questions about how the man born blind had been healed were asked with mental reservations, just going along with the report about a miracle for the time being. In fact, the evangelist says, They [lit. ‘the Jews’] still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. Up until this point in the narrative, the authorities had been referred to as ‘Pharisees’ who were probably more sympathetic. Hereafter they are designated ‘the Jews’ (hoi Ioudaioi, often rendered appropriately in the niv as ‘the Jewish leaders’, or, as here, simply as they) and are portrayed as antagonistic. Being unwilling to accept the testimony either of the man’s neighbours or of the man himself, they summoned his parents, from whom they demanded answers to three questions: ‘Is this your son?’ they asked. ‘Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?’
20–21. The man’s parents answered the first two questions in the affirmative: ‘We know he is our son,’ the parents answered, ‘and we know he was born blind.’ But the third question involved hidden dangers for them and they responded cautiously: But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself. A Jewish boy comes of age at thirteen years and one day. He is then able to give legally viable testimony and his vows are then valid.162 The parents pointed out that their son had come of age and therefore he could answer for himself. They must have heard from their neighbours, if not from their son, how his sight had been restored, but they were afraid to say so in front of the Jewish leaders.
22–23. His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. This is the first of three occasions in the Gospel of John where belief in Jesus as the Messiah is linked with the threat of expulsion from the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). The word the evangelist uses in each case is aposynagōgos, a word found in the New Testament only in the Gospel of John; it is not in the lxx and is unknown in extra-biblical literature. It means ‘put out of the synagogue’ or ‘excommunicated’. Excommunication could take two forms: temporary, for remedial purposes (Heb. nidduy), and permanent (Heb. ḥērem), although it is not clear whether this distinction existed among the Jews in New Testament times. That some form of excommunication was practised is evident, not only from the three texts in the Gospel of John, but also from the beatitude in Luke 6:22 (‘Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man’). Paul called for remedial excommunication for the incestuous person in 1 Corinthians 5:4–5, 6–7, 13, and permanent expulsion may be implied by references to cursing or anathematizing people in Mark 14:71; Acts 23:12, 14, 21; Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; Galatians 1:8–9. The evangelist reiterates: That was why his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him’ – they were afraid of excommunication.
The evangelist’s three references to expulsion from the synagogue of Jews who believed in Jesus suggest that, when he wrote, those who contemplated such a step still faced this threat. While this does not mean that what the evangelist says about the threat of excommunication in Jesus’ day is anachronistic, it does suggest that he wrote at a time when there was tension between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian community. Jews would know that they could not confess Jesus as the Messiah and continue as members of the synagogue,163 something which was possible in the early years of the Christian movement.
24. Following the interrogation of the man’s parents, the Jewish leaders could no longer deny that a miracle had been performed, so A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. ‘Give glory to God by telling the truth,’ they said. ‘We know this man is a sinner.’ They were convinced that Jesus was a sinner because he had violated their Sabbath rules. They demanded that the man born blind Give glory to God by telling the truth because they suspected that he was hiding something. In similar fashion, Joshua exhorted Achan to ‘give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel’ by acknowledging the truth he was hiding when his sin was discovered (Josh. 7:19–20). The Achan passage is cited in the Mishnah, where a person condemned to death by stoning is urged to make a final confession ‘giving glory to God’ by acknowledging his sin (m. Sanh. 6:2).
25. The man was not intimidated by these demands: He replied, ‘Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!’ He did not wish to engage in debate about Jesus’ character; he simply reiterated the one undeniable fact: I was blind but now I see! Keener comments: ‘Again this is Johannine irony; the man does not respond the way they intend, but he does glorify God by testifying of God’s works through Jesus (9:25–33).’164
26. Realizing that they were making no progress by trying to get the man to testify against Jesus, the Jewish leaders took another tack: Then they asked him, ‘What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?’ They reverted to their previous question about what Jesus had actually done to give the man his sight (cf. 9:15a), hoping perhaps that the man might say something that would show that Jesus was a Sabbath-breaker and therefore a sinner.
27. The man’s response reflects growing boldness. He answered, ‘I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?’ He had already answered this question (9:15b) and they did not believe his response then. What had changed? Either naïvely or cheekily he asked whether their repetition of the question indicated that they also wanted to become Jesus’ disciples. His question implies that he now considered himself as one of Jesus’ disciples.
28–29. The Jewish leaders responded indignantly to the man’s suggestion: Then they hurled insults at him and said, ‘You are this fellow’s disciple!’ They interpreted the man’s question whether they ‘also’ wanted to become disciples of Jesus as an admission that he was his disciple. They claimed for themselves what they believed was a higher loyalty: We are disciples of Moses! This is one of several places in the Gospel of John where Jewish allegiance to Moses is set over against the claims of Jesus (5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19–23; [8:5]; 9:28–29), as if being a disciple of Moses was incompatible with being a disciple of Jesus.
There is evidence that the claim to be disciples of Moses was made by the Pharisees to the exclusion of the Sadducees (Str-B 2, p. 535). It is ironic that they claimed to be disciples of Moses while rejecting Jesus, the one to whom Moses bore witness (see 1:45; 5:46).
In support of Moses’ credentials, and to disparage those of Jesus, they added: We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from. Moses’ credentials were established by the fact that God spoke to him, sending him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and giving him the law for Israel (Exod. 33:11; Num. 12:2–8). As for Jesus, the Pharisees believed that he was without credentials. His family and place of origin (important for establishing identity in the ancient world) were unknown to them (cf. 7:27–28) and so they regarded Jesus as a nobody.
30–33. In the face of the insults heaped upon him, the man’s boldness only increased: The man answered, ‘Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.’ Their unbelief was remarkable in the light of what Jesus had done, and their ignorance of Jesus’ origins reflected an appalling lack of knowledge on their part. Here was one who could cure congenital blindness, and they knew nothing about him! Michaels comments:
But to the man born blind, ‘what is amazing’ is not so much the miracle itself as the delicious irony of the religious authorities’ reaction to it, in particular their ignorance of who Jesus is and where he is from. The man’s ‘amazement’, unlike theirs, is closer to amusement than offense, as when one savors a good joke and says, ‘Oh, that’s marvelous!’165
The man then proceeded to give the Jewish leaders a lesson in theology: We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. The Jewish leaders had rightly insisted that God spoke to Moses; the man born blind pointed out that God listens to Jesus! That God listens to Jesus proved that the Jewish leaders were mistaken when they said that Jesus was a sinner (9:24). That God listens to Jesus was evident from the fact that he granted him the power to give sight to one born blind.
It is noteworthy that, in connection with Jesus’ provision of sight for him, the once-blind man observed that God listens to Jesus, suggesting that it was Jesus’ relationship to God that enabled him to perform this miracle. In 11:41–43, a similar connection between Jesus’ prayer and his ability to restore Lazarus to life is made:
Then Jesus looked up and said, ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.’
When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’
The statement of the man born blind includes an implicit definition of a godly person: one who does God’s will. The man drove home his point: Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. This is the first and only instance in the entire biblical record of one born blind receiving sight. Restoring sight to the blind (but not necessarily to those born blind) is something done by God himself (Ps. 146:7–8) and also predicted of the servant of the Lord when he acts to bring salvation to his people (see Isa. 42:7).166
That Jesus had healed him, one who had been born blind, added to the man’s conviction that Jesus was from God, as otherwise he could do nothing. Applied to Jesus, the blind man’s argument was correct, but applied generally to all miracle-workers, it could be misleading. False prophets sometimes do things to deceive the elect (see Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22), although there is no evidence of their ever having healed the congenitally blind.
34. This lesson in theology from an unlearned man was more than the Jewish leaders could abide, even though provision of sight to the blind was known to be one of the blessings of the messianic age (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). To this they replied, ‘You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!’ They resented his presumption in pointing out their ignorance, but they had no answer to his simple, straightforward theology. Therefore, they resorted to abuse. Their insulting assertion that he was steeped in sin at birth may reflect the view that his blindness was due to sin (cf. 9:2). Their reaction showed that they rejected the man’s opinion about Jesus, the significance of the miracle and the claims of the one who had performed it. They were people who rejected the light, preferring the darkness, because their deeds were evil (1:5, 9–11; 3:19–21).
The evangelist’s final words in this section, And they threw him out, could mean that they thrust him from their presence in anger, or that they excommunicated him because he supported Jesus (cf. 9:22).
35. Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ Since receiving his sight, the man born blind had been taken to the Pharisees by his neighbours (9:13), left to answer for himself by his parents (9:23), and interrogated, insulted and thrown out by the Jewish leaders (9:24–34). Through it all, his appreciation of Jesus grew. At first he referred to him as ‘The man they call Jesus’ (9:11), then he said that he was ‘a prophet’ (9:17) and most recently he argued that he must be a ‘godly person who does his [God’s] will’ (9:31). After all this the man was found by Jesus, who, probably hearing that the Jewish leaders had thrown him out, actively sought him.
Jesus caught up with him in a public place, probably the temple precincts (9:40). He asked him, Do you believe in the Son of Man? The evangelist has already presented Jesus as the Son of Man, the one in whom God reveals himself (1:51), who has come down from heaven (3:13), the one upon whom God has set his seal of approval (6:27) and who will ascend again to heaven whence he came (6:62), and later in the Gospel he speaks of the Son of Man as the one who will return to his place of glory through death and resurrection (12:23; 13:31). See ‘Additional note: “the Son of Man”’, pp. 92–94.
36–37. The man’s response to Jesus’ question was typically straightforward: ‘Who is he, sir?’ the man asked. He knew about the Son of Man; all he needed to know was in whom this glorious figure was to be revealed. So he said, Tell me so that I may believe in him. In response, Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.’ With his new-found sight, the man had already seen the Son of Man but not yet recognized him. In fact, Jesus himself, his benefactor, the one now speaking to him, was the Son of Man.
38. Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshipped him. He was making his final step to faith in Jesus. That he worshipped him shows that he identified Jesus as the glorious Son of Man of Daniel 7:13–14. The man born blind had now been blessed with spiritual as well as physical sight. The story of his journey to faith in Jesus is a powerful example for the readers of the Gospel of John, intended to lead them to similar faith, which is the purpose of the Gospel (20:31).167
39. In the light of the immediate response of faith on the part of the man born blind, on the one hand, and the obstinate refusal of the Jewish leaders to believe, on the other, Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ Jesus’ purpose in coming into the world was not to judge the world (3:17; 8:15), but there was a sense in which judgment occurred because of his very presence in the world (3:18). This is illustrated by the reactions of the man born blind and the Jewish leaders respectively. The man born blind knew very little. He did not know whether Jesus was a sinner or not (9:25) and he did not know who the Son of Man was (9:36); all he knew was that once he had been blind but now he could see (9:25). To this ‘blind’ person Jesus revealed himself as the Son of Man, and the blind man ‘saw’! The Jewish leaders claimed to know. They ‘knew’ that Jesus was not from God (9:16), that he was a sinner (9:24) and therefore not the Messiah. Those who were sure that they could ‘see’ were confirmed in their blindness. Judgment had occurred with Jesus’ coming into the world. It functioned like the ministry of the messengers of the gospel, which Paul described as ‘the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life’ (2 Cor. 2:15–16).
40. Jesus and the man born blind were not alone when he told him that he was the Son of Man, nor when he said that he had come into the world to make the blind ‘see’ and to render ‘blind’ those who thought they could ‘see’. Hence Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ The form of their question in the original language is better translated, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’ They expected a negative answer.
41. Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.’ If they, like the man born blind, had been prepared to acknowledge their ignorance, they, like him, would not be guilty of sin. However, because they claimed to know and were unwilling to learn, their guilt remained. Their presumption of knowledge kept them from seeing the truth. They were like the one described in Proverbs 26:12: ‘Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.’ The Pharisees here function as a negative example, something to be avoided by those who read this Gospel. They were guilty of unbelief, the cardinal sin in the Gospel of John.
The account of the provision of sight for the man born blind incorporates several important theological lessons. First, when the disciples asked whose sin was responsible for the man’s congenital blindness, his own or his parents’, Jesus clearly indicated that neither was responsible. Though on another occasion he appeared to link a man’s lameness to his sin (5:14), in the case of the man born blind, his affliction was not linked to his sin or to that of his parents. What Jesus emphasized was that, irrespective of the cause, his blindness provided an opportunity for a demonstration of the healing power of God.
Second, the healing of this man did not involve restoration of previous sight once enjoyed and later lost, but provision of sight never before experienced. This has prompted some to see in Jesus’ anointing of the man’s eyes with mud made with his saliva a creative act similar to God’s creation of man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7).
Third, the account documents a journey from ignorance to saving faith on the part of the man born blind. After Jesus anointed his eyes, the man obeyed his command, went and washed in the Pool of Siloam and received his sight. At first he told his neighbours that he was indebted to ‘The man they call Jesus’ (9:11). Later, when questioned about Jesus’ identity, he replied, ‘He is a prophet’ (9:17). Then, when the Jewish leaders told him that Jesus must be a sinner because he had healed on the Sabbath, he said that Jesus must be a godly person because ‘We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will’ (9:31). Finally, when Jesus found him, after he had been thrown out by the Pharisees, and revealed himself as the Son of Man, he straightaway responded, ‘“Lord, I believe,” and he worshipped him’ (9:35–38).
Fourth, that Jesus intentionally found the man after he had been thrown out by the Pharisees reveals him to be the one who seeks and saves those who are lost. This prepares the reader for what follows in chapter 10, where Jesus reveals himself as the good shepherd.
Finally, Jesus again reveals himself as ‘the light of the world’ (9:5), as he did at the Festival of Tabernacles (8:12). This picks up a major theme of the prologue, where the Word is described as ‘the light of all mankind’ that ‘shines in the darkness’ and ‘gives light to everyone’ (1:4, 5, 9). Jesus’ provision of sight for one born blind functions as an illustration of his role as the light of the world. However, the reactions of the man born blind, on the one hand, and of the Jewish leaders, on the other, illustrate what happens when people are exposed to the light. Some embrace it, while others reject it. As Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind’ (9:39). This double reaction to the light is spelled out in detail by the evangelist in 3:19–21.
Jesus’ action in seeking the man born blind after he had been thrown out by the Jewish leaders (9:35) prepares the way for the evangelist’s presentation of Jesus as the good shepherd in 10:1–21. It continues the account of his ministry at the Festival of Tabernacles, and has connections with the account of the healing of the man born blind.
To appreciate this parable, it is important to understand its setting in a small Jewish village. Bailey says that most village families owned a few sheep, and that their houses had small walled courtyards where the sheep were kept overnight. Because each family had only a few sheep, a shepherd for each household was not economical, so several households would share one shepherd to look after their sheep. Often the shepherding was done by a son (or two daughters) from one of these families. If such a person was not available, a hired hand was employed. Early each morning the sheep would be taken out to graze in the open country. The shepherd moved from house to house, and because he was known to the doorkeepers, they opened their courtyard doors to allow him to call out the sheep. The sheep knew his voice and eagerly followed him into the open country to graze. The walls of the courtyards could be up to 6½ ft (2 m) high. One who was not the shepherd and who had ulterior motives would have to climb over the walls because the doorkeeper would not admit him, and, of course, the sheep would not recognize his call and would flee from him.168
1. The parable of the sheepfold in 10:1–6, like the whole of 10:1–21, has links with the story of the healing of the man born blind in chapter 9. It is addressed to the Pharisees who ‘threw him out’ (see 9:34), who Jesus said were guilty of wilful spiritual blindness (9:41b): Very truly I tell you Pharisees . . . Although the word Pharisees is not found in the original, its inclusion in the niv is appropriate (cf. 9:40). Addressing these Pharisees, Jesus said: anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. He implies that, far from being true shepherds of Israel, they are thieves and robbers who do not care for the sheep, something all too evident in their treatment of the man born blind.
The niv translation of this verse is unfortunate in that it refers to the gate and the sheepfold, giving the impression that the setting of the parable is the open country instead of the village. The primary meaning of the word translated gate (thyra) is ‘door’, and that of the word translated sheepfold (aulē) is ‘court’ or ‘courtyard’. When rendered appropriately in this context, these words reflect a village setting, not the open country. Only thieves and robbers sought to enter the courtyard other than through the door, for they knew that the doorkeeper would not admit them.
2–4. In contrast, The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him. Once again the niv translation is unfortunate. The word translated gatekeeper, thyrōros, is a cognate of thyra, ‘door’, and is better translated ‘doorkeeper’ or ‘porter’ in this context, not ‘gatekeeper’. Likewise, the word translated gate is better rendered ‘door’. A gatekeeper might be appropriate in the open country, but a doorkeeper guards the entry to courtyards in the village. When the doorkeeper opens the door for the shepherd, the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. There is some evidence that Ancient Middle Eastern shepherds did know their sheep by name. In the parable, the shepherd calls the sheep by name and leads them out of the courtyard into the narrow streets of the village. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. The shepherd leads (not drives) them, going on ahead. This part of the parable is reminiscent of Moses’ prayer for a successor in Numbers 27:16–17:
May the Lord, the God who gives breath to all living things, appoint someone over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the Lord’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.
5. The opposite would be true if a stranger tried to bring out the sheep: But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognise a stranger’s voice. In fact, when a sheep is bought from one owner and placed with different sheep in its new owner’s courtyard, it experiences trauma for the first few days. It hears the voice of a shepherd calling out the sheep in the mornings, but it is not the voice to which it is accustomed, and it runs from him, even though it is desperate to get out to the countryside to graze. It was no wonder that the blind man gave no heed to these Pharisees, but gladly followed Jesus.
6. Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them. The word translated figure of speech (paroimia) is equivalent to the Hebrew word māšāl and is used with a wide range of meanings, including parable, riddle, fable, allegory and proverb, all of which involve something enigmatic. Jesus’ figure of speech refers here to the whole of verses 1–5, and may be described as enigmatic because those whom he addressed did not understand what he was telling them.
In the original, those who did not understand are described simply as ‘they’, which is rendered again in the niv as the Pharisees. This is appropriate in the light of the fact that it was the Pharisees who had questioned the man born blind, insulted him and thrown him out (9:13, 28, 34). These were the thieves and robbers of 10:1 and ‘the stranger’ whose voice the sheep do not recognize of 10:5.
The setting of this passage is different from that of 10:1–6. There it was the village setting: the courtyards and the narrow streets onto which they opened. Here the setting is the open country into which the shepherd led the sheep for grazing and where, in the summer months, shepherds and sheep might spend the night. Overnight the sheep were placed in roughly constructed stone-walled enclosures. The top of the dry-stone wall was covered with thorns to keep out wild animals. Inside the enclosure the sheep were safe so long as the entrance was secured by the shepherd. He slept across the entrance, acting as the ‘gate’ to the sheep enclosure.
7. The Pharisees did not understand, Therefore Jesus said again, ‘Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.’ This is the third of seven ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Gospel of John (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). It is introduced with the solemn formula Very truly I tell you (amēn amēn legō hymin) to emphasize the importance of what is said. The word thyra is appropriately rendered gate in this context. Jesus portrays himself as the shepherd who makes himself the ‘gate’ to the enclosure to protect the sheep.
8. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers. There may be an allusion here to Old Testament passages such as Jeremiah 23:1–8 and Ezekiel 34 in which these prophets pronounced judgment upon the shepherds of Israel for their failure to care for the people. Jesus may also have had in mind messianic pretenders (cf. Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22), but most likely he was referring to those who had treated the man born blind so badly. Of such leaders Jesus said, the sheep have not listened to them. The man born blind certainly did not listen to them. Those who belong to Jesus, the true shepherd, do not respond to voices such as theirs.
9. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. Just as the sheep entering the stone enclosure of which the shepherd himself was the gate were safe, so too people who believe in Jesus are eternally safe and secure (cf. 10:27–30). Just as the shepherd led his sheep out to pasture during the day and brought them in at night, so too Jesus provides for those who believe in him.
Jesus’ statement whoever enters through me will be saved is just one of many universal promises he makes in this Gospel (cf. 4:14; 5:24; 6:35, 37, 51, 54, 56, 58; 7:38; 8:12, 47, 51; 10:9; 11:26; 14:21), besides those the evangelist himself includes (3:16, 18, 21, 33, 36).
10. Jesus added: The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. He depicted those Pharisees as sheep-stealers who had no thought for the well-being of the people – they came only to kill and destroy. They were like the wicked shepherds of Israel denounced by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see commentary on 10:8). Contrasting his own ministry with theirs, Jesus said, I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. The imagery is that of a shepherd ensuring that his sheep are well cared for and contented. Jesus, the good shepherd, came into the world so that people might have (eternal) life, and have it to the full. To have eternal life is to know God through Jesus Christ (17:3). To have it to the full could refer to enjoying the richness of life in relationship with God in the here and now, or to resurrection to eternal life at the end of the age (5:24–29), or both.
11. For Jesus to bring life to the full for his followers there was a cost, as he explained: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. This is the fourth of the seven ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Gospel of John (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). The background imagery is still shepherding in the open country. There the shepherd has to put his own life on the line to protect his sheep from wild animals. Jesus presented himself as a good shepherd who was prepared to do likewise. A shepherd would rarely if ever actually die in protection of his sheep (to do so would leave the sheep defenceless). Jesus was extending the imagery beyond its normal limits and pointing forward to the time when he would in fact lay down his life for the sake of his people.
12–13. There was a big difference between a shepherd from one of the families who owned the sheep and someone from outside who was just paid to do a job. This is the background to Jesus’ next statement: The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. Hired hands worked for wages, not out of care for the sheep because they did not belong to them. Gregory the Great regarded as a hired hand one who
does not pasture the Lord’s sheep out of his deep love for them but for a temporal reward . . . He is eager for earthly advantages, rejoices in the honor of preferment, feeds on temporal gain and enjoys the deference offered by other people.169
So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Being motivated by self-preservation, the hired hand flees in face of danger and deserts his post – with dire results: Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The sheep are left defenceless in the attack and are scattered. Jesus saw the common people of his day as ‘sheep without a shepherd’ (Matt. 9:36/Mark 6:34).
The reason why the hired hand flees in the face of danger is further explained: The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. Because the sheep did not belong to the hired hand or his family, he did not care for them in the same way as a family member would, and that is why he would desert the sheep and flee. Jesus was referring primarily to the Pharisees, who were not carrying out their responsibility of care for the people.
14–15. Contrasting himself with the Pharisees, who were like hired hands, Jesus said: I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me – just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. Unlike the Pharisees, who did not know the people, Jesus did know his people and they knew him. When Jesus spoke about the Father ‘knowing’ him, he did not mean that he knew about him or was acquainted with him, but that he enjoyed an intimate personal relationship with him. It is amazing that Jesus said that his knowledge of his disciples and their knowledge of him involved a similar intimate personal relationship.
Jesus reiterated what he said earlier: and I lay down my life for the sheep. The imagery is the same: those who shepherd in the open country must be prepared to put their lives on the line for the sheep. Jesus said that he would actually lay down his life for the sake of his sheep (the disciples). It was his love which led him to do this for them (cf. 15:13: ‘Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends’), and this love made him the good shepherd.
References to Jesus as the good shepherd recall Jeremiah 23:2–4, where God himself promises to gather the scattered people Israel, and Ezekiel 34:11–16, where God promises to look after his sheep, providing them with good pasture, caring for the injured and weak, and shepherding the flock with justice. There are also possibly allusions to Psalm 23, in which God is again depicted as the good shepherd. So Jesus’ claim to be the good shepherd was more than a claim to do what the national leaders of his day failed to do: it was also a claim to be one with God the Father, who is ‘the good shepherd’ of his people.
16. In the Old Testament, God is depicted as the true shepherd of Israel, and Jesus’ own ministry was predominantly to Israel also (Matt. 15:24; cf. Matt. 10:5–6). However, Jesus widened his role as the good shepherd when he said: I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. The allusion is to Gentile people, those who are not part of Israel. They too must hear the message of the gospel. Of these Jesus said: They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be [lit. ‘they shall become’] one flock and one shepherd. Jesus was foreshadowing apostolic times when his gospel would be taken to non-Jews – to Samaritans and Gentiles: something that would take place through the preaching of his disciples.
17–18. In 10:11, 15 Jesus said that he would lay down his life for the sheep. In those texts, laying down his life was motivated by love for the sheep. In 10:17–18 another aspect of Jesus’ motivation is implied: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. Here is implied what will be stated explicitly very shortly: that Jesus laid down his life in obedience to his Father, an obedience which drew out again the Father’s love for his Son. In the plan of salvation, it was required that the Son lay down his life for his people; but that was not the end of it: he laid down his life only to take it up again (lit. ‘in order to take it up again’) – he would rise from the dead. This is one of the few places in the New Testament where the resurrection of Jesus is attributed to the action of Jesus himself. In most other places it is God who raises Jesus from the dead.
While Jesus’ life, humanly speaking, was taken from him by the actions of evil men, those actions were not outside his control. He said: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. In his account of the passion, the evangelist portrays Jesus, not as a victim of circumstances, but as one who was in control of his destiny. In two places this is particularly clear: (1) in the betrayal and arrest scene, when Jesus identified himself to those who came to seize him and they fell backwards to the ground; (2) during the Roman trial, when Pilate said to him, ‘Don’t you realise I have power either to free you or to crucify you?’ and Jesus replied, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above’ (19:10–11). These incidents show that Jesus was in control of his own destiny. He had the authority to lay down his life and to take it up again because that was what he had been commanded to do by his Father.
19–21. When he had finished his teaching about the good shepherd in 10:7–18, The Jews who heard these words were again divided. Many of them said, ‘He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?’ But others said, ‘These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon.’ It was clear to this latter group, as it would be to any fair-minded person, that Jesus’ sayings were not the ravings of a demon-possessed man. And, remembering how Jesus had given sight to the man born blind, they asked: Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? It was not only the words of Jesus that bore testimony to who he was, but also his works (cf. 10:25).
Verse 21 brings the section 10:1–21 to an end, and also indicates its connection with the story of the healing of the man born blind in chapter 9 and his treatment at the hands of the Pharisees. These verses also bring to a conclusion the longer section 7:1 – 10:21, which records Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem during the Festival of Tabernacles. At this time many Jewish people believed in him (7:31, 40–41; 8:30), but the hardcore leadership rejected him and his message (7:32; 10:20).
Jesus depicted the Jewish leaders who expelled the man born blind as strangers to whose voices believers (the sheep) would not listen, and himself as the true shepherd whose voice they recognized. It is by the ongoing work of God’s grace in the lives of believers that they are able to hear the voice of the Lord, and are protected from those who would lead them astray.
Jesus the good shepherd contrasted himself with the Jewish leaders, who were like hired hands who did not care for the sheep. They exercised leadership, not out of genuine love and care for people, but only for what they could gain for themselves. They were like the shepherds of Israel whom the Lord castigated through his prophet: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock’? (Ezek. 34:2).
What the shepherds of Israel failed to do is precisely what Jesus as the good shepherd actually does for his people. However, he does much more. He not only seeks and cares for his sheep, but he does what no other shepherd is called upon to do: he lays down his life for the sheep (10:11, 15). This he does, not only for those of the fold of Israel, but also for those from other nations, thus forming out of them one flock under one shepherd (10:16). Ultimately, people from all nations will hear his voice, believe in him and be incorporated into the body of his disciples. Believers from different races would become ‘one flock’ (a church made up of Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles) led by ‘one shepherd’ (Jesus himself).170
The setting for 10:22–42 is the Festival of Dedication, or Hanukkah (celebrated in November–December), and thus differs from that of the preceding section, whose setting was the Festival of Tabernacles (celebrated in September–October). The Festival of Dedication is not one of the festivals prescribed by the Mosaic law. It celebrates an event which took place in intertestamental times. Following the victories of Alexander the Great in the fourth century bc, Greek culture and language were introduced to the subjugated nations, including Judea. After the death of Alexander, this policy was continued by the rulers who held sway over Judea, first the Ptolemies of Egypt up until about 200 bc, and thereafter the Seleucids of Syria. Hellenization, as the spread of Greek culture and language is called, flourished as many in the subjugated nations, including many Jews, were attracted to it. However, when Antiochus IV became ruler of the Seleucid empire, he tried to force Greek culture upon the peoples he ruled. For the Jews, this meant that practices such as Sabbath observance and circumcision were prohibited, and the books of the law were burnt. In 167 bc the temple in Jerusalem was desecrated by offering swine’s flesh on the altar, and Jewish people were required to offer sacrifice to pagan deities. This led pious Jews to revolt against Antiochus IV, a revolt led by Mattathias and his sons. They fled to the mountains, from where they conducted guerrilla warfare against the Seleucid armies. Their campaign was crowned with success and in 164 bc the temple was rededicated to the worship of Yahweh. The rededication of the temple and the institution of the annual remembrance in the Festival of Dedication is described in 2 Maccabees 10:1–8 (nrsv).
The Festival of Dedication was modelled on the Festival of Tabernacles (for details of this festival, see commentary on 7:2). It lasted for eight days, involved the carrying of palm fronds and branches, and eventually included the singing of the Hallel (Pss 113 – 118). According to the Talmud, lamps were lit in the people’s homes as well as in the temple (b. Sabb. 21b).
22–23. Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Festival of Dedication, celebrated in November–December, took place in winter. Solomon’s Colonnade was located on the eastern side of the temple precincts, overlooking the Kidron Valley. It was a covered area with a cedar-panelled ceiling spanning 49 ft (15 m) supported by white marble columns 38 ft (11.5 m) tall. It offered protection from cold winds and was used as a meeting place where people discussed Scripture after ceremonies in the temple. In Acts 5:12 we learn that early Christians used to meet in Solomon’s Colonnade.
24. As Jesus was walking in Solomon’s Colonnade The Jews who were there gathered round him, saying, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’ Their request did not arise from a genuine desire to know if Jesus was the Messiah and, if he was, to believe in him (as Jesus’ response to them in 10:25 indicates). Rather, it was another attempt to get Jesus to say something that would incriminate him.
25–26. Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe.’ Jesus appears to have been cautious in the way he responded to the Jews, possibly because of the mistaken ways messiahship was understood by them, so that to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would be misleading.
While Jesus never claimed publicly among the Jews that he was the Messiah, in various ways his words and works had indicated who he was. He told Nicodemus that he was the Son of Man who came down from heaven (3:13–14). He told the Jewish leaders that the works he did were the works of his Father (5:17). He said that God had entrusted all judgment to him, and had granted him to have life in himself so that he could raise the dead, both of which are divine prerogatives (5:22, 24–26; cf. Deut. 32:39). He told the people of Jerusalem that he had been sent by God (7:28–29). He also publicly invited those who were thirsty to come to him and drink, promising to give them the streams of living water of which the Scriptures spoke (7:37–38). He said to the Jews who ‘believed’ in him, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ (8:56, 58), appropriating for himself the divine name. He presented himself as the good shepherd (10:11, 14), identifying himself with God who in the Old Testament is the shepherd of Israel. Despite all these things, Jesus said, you do not believe.
The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. He performed many miracles in Jerusalem (see 2:23; 3:2; 7:21, 31; 9:16), but still the Jews refused to believe. They refused to believe, Jesus said, picking up the imagery of 10:1–21, because you are not my sheep. This indicates that, even in the matter of those who do not believe, God’s sovereignty and election operate. This does not remove people’s responsibility for their unbelief, nor does it compromise the reality of the invitation extended to them to believe (cf. 10:37–38).
27–28. The response of Jesus’ disciples was the opposite: My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. Concerning them, Jesus said, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. The gift of eternal life is depicted in several ways in this Gospel. It is (1) like water for the thirsty (4:14; 7:37–38); (2) something experienced now, culminating in the resurrection on the last day (5:24–26); (3) like bread for the hungry (6:27); and (4) a relationship with the living God (17:3). Those to whom Jesus gives eternal life shall never perish: they are safe in his hands (cf. 10:29). Morris comments:
It is often emphasized that the important thing about eternal life is its quality rather than its quantity. It is life of a certain kind, and not simply life that goes on for ever. While there is truth in this, yet we should not overlook the point that in fact eternal life does not end. It is this aspect that is prominent here. Those to whom Christ gives the gift will ‘never perish’.171
29–30. Underlining the eternal security of those who follow him, Jesus said, My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all;172 no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. Jesus referred to his disciples repeatedly as those the Father had given him (6:37, 39; 17:2, 6, 9, 24; 18:9). Because the Father is greater than all, the security of believers is guaranteed – no-one can snatch them out of his hand. Jesus implied that, just as his disciples are in his hand (10:28), so too they are in the Father’s hand, because, as he said, I and the Father are one (cf. 14:8–11). This is the first explicit statement of Jesus’ oneness with the Father. Describing this oneness, the evangelist does not use the masculine form of the adjective ‘one’ (heis), which would suggest that Father and Son are one person. Instead he uses the neuter form (hen), suggesting that the oneness of Father and Son here is oneness in mission and purpose. Father and Son are at one in their commitment to prevent anyone from snatching believers out of their hands. The nature of oneness here is functional;173 later in the Gospel it involves unity of being (see 17:21–23).
31–33. Jesus’ claim to be one with the Father provoked an angry response: Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ The good works performed by Jesus in Jerusalem and already described include the healing of the lame man (5:1–9) and giving sight to the man born blind (9:1–7). But he had performed many more than these, as general references to his works in Jerusalem indicate (2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 10:25, 32–33). Perhaps Jesus drew attention to these works in the hope that his opponents might yet recognize their significance as far as his true identity was concerned – that the works were from the Father with whom he was one. Perhaps he was confronting them with the injustice of their plan to stone him. In any case, they brushed aside his reference to his works and focused upon his claim to be one with the Father: ‘We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy.’ In the Mishnah (m. Sanh. 7:5), blasphemy involves the pronunciation of the divine name itself (the Tetragrammaton, yhwh), which does not coincide with what Jesus said. However, it seems that inappropriate use of other names for God, acts of idolatry and arrogant disrespect for God and Jewish leaders could also be seen as blasphemous.174 Why they thought Jesus was guilty of blasphemy is clear enough: because you, a mere man, claim to be God. What Jesus said would have been blasphemous if he and the Father were not one. Augustine comments:
See how the Jews understood what the Arians do not. The reason they are angry is that they could not conceive of Jesus’ words, ‘I and my Father are one’, in any other way but that he meant the equality of the Father and the Son.175
34–36. Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, “I have said you are ‘gods’”?’ The expression Law is here used in its widest sense, meaning the entire Old Testament, including the Psalms from which the quotation comes. By referring to your Law, Jesus was not denigrating or distancing himself from the law, but reminding his opponents that his appeal was to what they too held as sacrosanct. Jesus’ argument, based on the quotation from Psalm 82:6, ran: If he called them ‘gods’, to whom the word of God came – and Scripture cannot be set aside – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? These verses are best understood in the light of the giving of the law at Sinai and rabbinic exegesis of Psalm 82:6–7 in relation to the Sinai events. The full text of Psalm 82:6–7 reads:
‘I said, “You are ‘gods’;
you are all sons of the Most High.”
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.’
The statement ‘You are “gods”’ was understood in later rabbinic exegesis to be God’s word to the Israelites at Sinai when they received the law. God said to them, ‘You are “gods”’ because, in receiving the law and living by it, they would be holy and live, like gods. But because they departed from the law and worshipped the golden calf while still at Sinai, he said to them, ‘you will die like mere mortals.’176 The opening words of Jesus’ argument, If he called them ‘gods’, to whom the word of God came, suggest that he interpreted the quotation from the psalm in relation to the Sinai events as did later rabbinic scholars. Jesus reminded his Jewish opponents that the Scripture cannot be set aside. Both Jesus (7:38; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12) and his opponents, especially the Pharisees (5:39; 7:42), regarded the Scriptures as authoritative, as did the evangelist (2:22; 19:24, 36, 37; 20:9). To be a follower of Jesus involves a commitment to the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, as well as to the gospel message.
Jesus’ question, based on his reading of Psalm 82:6, was that if God named those to whom he gave his law ‘gods’, why should he be charged with blasphemy if he, as the one whom God himself set apart as his very own and sent into the world, said ‘I am God’s Son’? It is an argument from the lesser to the greater: if those to whom the law was given could be called ‘gods’, then surely the one whom God had commissioned and sent into the world could call himself ‘the Son of God’ without being guilty of blasphemy. Jesus used the exegetical methods of his opponents to show that they had no grounds for accusing him of blasphemy. It did not mean that Jesus endorsed this approach.
There is a possible irony in Jesus’ reference to his being set apart . . . and sent into the world: while the Jews were celebrating the rededication of the temple, they were rejecting the one ‘dedicated’ (i.e. set apart) by God and sent into the world.
37–38. Jesus said to his opponents: Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. Several times Jesus claimed that he did the works of his Father (5:36; 10:25, 37–38; 14:10; 17:4). He now told them not to believe him if he did not do the works of God. However, there is a corollary: But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works. The works of Jesus were the works of God, and Jesus invited his opponents to believe in him on account of the works, even if they would not believe what he said. This, he said, was so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Though belief based on miracles is not ideal (4:48), many did believe because of his miracles (7:31). Sadly, there were many who saw the miracles and still refused to believe (12:37). Nevertheless, the evangelist records Jesus’ miracles to engender belief in his readers (20:31).
39. Jesus’ opponents could not counter his arguments, so Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. Several attempts had already been made to arrest or kill Jesus, but they had all failed (7:30, 32, 44; 8:20). Jesus did not allow fear of such attempts to deter him from his mission (see 11:7–10). The reason was that his hour had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). His times were in God’s hands, and all attempts to bring his ministry to a premature end failed for that reason.
40–42. After yet another failed attempt by Jesus’ opponents to arrest him, the evangelist says: Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptising in the early days. Jesus left Jerusalem, thus concluding his stay there for the Festival of Dedication (10:22–39), and made his way to the place where John baptized (cf. 1:28). There he stayed, and many people came to him. Just as many people had come out to see John, now they came out to see Jesus at the same place. They said, ‘Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.’ In the Synoptic Gospels, John is presented as a preacher of repentance in the light of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God, but in the Gospel of John he is presented primarily as a witness to Jesus (1:6–8, 15, 19, 32–34; 3:26, 28; 5:33). The people who came to see Jesus testified to John’s faithfulness: he never performed a sign, but all that he said about Jesus was true – the ultimate endorsement of a witness. As the people remembered the witness of John and then encountered the one of whom he spoke, in that place many believed in Jesus. Thus John’s witness bore its intended fruit.
Jesus said of the Jewish leaders, ‘you do not believe because you are not my sheep’ (10:26). Only those whom the Father has given Jesus come to him (cf. 6:37; 10:29), and no-one can come to him unless the Father ‘draws them’ (6:44). This underlines two very important truths: (1) God chooses those he draws to Christ; and (2) it is therefore an immense privilege to be included among his people. Alongside this, it is important to remember that Christ will never reject those who wish to come to him (see 6:37).
Jesus said that those whom the Father has given him will never perish, because no-one can snatch them out of his hand or out of his Father’s hand. He emphasized that he and the Father are one in power and purpose. The Jews regarded such a claim as blasphemous, as it would be if made by anyone else – but it was not so in Jesus’ case. The evangelist has already informed his readers: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (1:1).
The account of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus occupies a pivotal place in the Gospel of John. It is the last and greatest of Jesus’ signs that the evangelist records, and as such is the high point of Jesus’ work in the world (1:19 – 12:50). However, Lazarus’s death and restoration to life also foreshadows the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the focus of the second part of the Gospel, Jesus’ return to the Father (13:1 – 20:31). It not only foreshadows these events, but it is also the main factor, humanly speaking, which precipitated them. News of Lazarus’s restoration to life spread like wildfire among the people, and the Jewish leadership decided that they needed to eliminate Jesus to deal with the threat his popularity posed to their position (11:45–53, 57; cf. 12:10–11). The evangelist’s account of the raising of Lazarus comprises six scenes.
1–3. Now a man named Lazarus was ill. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This is the first reference to Lazarus. The evangelist does not expect his readers to know who he was, so he explains that he was from Bethany, a village situated on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, and the home of Mary and Martha, adding later that he was the brother of these two sisters. The evangelist presumes that his readers will know who Mary and Martha were, perhaps from a reading of Luke’s Gospel (see Luke 10:38–42). However, he provides a further description of Mary: This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay ill, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. In the Gospel of John, the story of Mary anointing Jesus’ feet comes in the next chapter (12:1–8), so people reading the Gospel for the first time would not have encountered it yet. The evangelist, therefore, assumes that his readers already knew about the anointing, perhaps from oral tradition, or from parallel accounts in Matthew 26:1–13; Mark 14:3–9.177
Having explained Lazarus’s relationship to Mary and Martha, the evangelist continues: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, ‘Lord, the one you love is ill.’ Implied in this message was a request that Jesus come and heal Lazarus (cf. 11:21–22, 32), similar to the implied request in Jesus’ mother’s word to him at the marriage in Cana: ‘They have no more wine’ (2:3). Both resemble polite indirect communication practised in many different cultures today. The basis of the sisters’ request was Jesus’ love for their brother (cf. 11:5).
4. Jesus’ response to the message was enigmatic: When he heard this, Jesus said, ‘This illness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.’ Presumably Jesus was still ‘across the Jordan’ (10:40), some distance from Bethany, when he received the news of Lazarus’s dire situation. The way this is recounted suggests that when Jesus received the news, Lazarus had not yet died (This illness will not end in death). If one had not read the story before, one would assume that Lazarus’s sickness would not be fatal, though that interpretation is ruled out as the story unfolds (see 11:11–14). Lazarus was to die, but by restoring him to life, Jesus would be glorified, and this in turn would redound to God’s glory. Glory would be brought to God through Jesus’ actions, for in them God’s power and love would be manifested for all to see (cf. 11:40).
Cyril of Alexandria comments:
Jesus saw that in the end, Lazarus’ illness and death would be for the glory of God. This is not to say that the sickness came on Lazarus so that God should be glorified, for it would be silly to say this, but rather, since the sickness had come upon Lazarus, Jesus foresaw the wonderful conclusion to Lazarus’ illness.178
5–6. Jesus’ next words have puzzled many: Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed where he was two more days. The sisters’ implied request to Jesus to come and heal their brother was based upon his love for Lazarus (11:3). In 11:5 the evangelist reiterates Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters. This shows that Jesus’ failure to respond in the normal way, staying where he was for two more days, was not due to any lack of love for either Lazarus, who was on the verge of death, or for his sisters, who had sent the urgent request for help. Jesus’ delay was not at odds with his love, but motivated by it. How could this be? When Jesus arrived, Lazarus had been dead for four days. Had Jesus left immediately, Lazarus would still have been dead for two days by the time he arrived. So nothing would have been gained by an immediate departure. However, there was something to be gained by waiting two days before setting out. The spirit of the departed was thought to hover around the body for three days in the hope of a resuscitation.179 The raising of Lazarus after four days, then, would be clearly seen as a manifestation of the glory of God (cf. 11:4), which would strengthen the two sisters’ faith.
7–8. Having delayed for two days, then he said to his disciples, ‘Let us go back to Judea.’ Jesus was outside Judea when he received the message, perhaps still at the place where John used to baptize (see 10:40). His disciples were reluctant to return to Judea: ‘But Rabbi,’ they said, ‘a short while ago the Jews there tried to stone you, and yet you are going back?’ They reminded him of attempts made by the Jews to stone him a couple of months earlier during the Festival of Dedication (10:31, 33), implying that it would be dangerous for him to return there.
9–10. However, Jesus would not let fear of his opponents determine his course of action: Jesus answered, ‘Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Anyone who walks in the day-time will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light.’ The Jewish day was reckoned from sunrise to sunset, and night from sunset to sunrise. The twenty-four-hour period was divided roughly into twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. One who goes about in the day does not stumble because he or she has light. Those who walk about in the night stumble because they have no light. Jesus regarded the period of his ministry as the ‘day’ (cf. 9:4), and during the ‘day’ he would accomplish his Father’s purpose without stumbling – that is, without being deflected by reminders of previous attempts by the Jews to stone him, or because of the real possibility that they would try to do so again if he returned to Judea. Despite his disciples’ fears, then, Jesus was determined to go into Judea, in his own time, to respond to the request of Mary and Martha, trusting that God was ordering his steps. Köstenberger comments:
The primary thrust of Jesus’ illustration in 11:9–10 is to assure his disciples that as long as they are with him, the light of the world, they are secure from stumbling . . . Until his hour arrives, Jesus and his followers will be protected from the threats of the Jews.180
11–13. After he had said this, he went on to tell them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.’ While Jesus described Lazarus as our friend, it was Jesus alone who could wake him up. Jesus was speaking metaphorically, but, failing to understand this, His disciples replied, ‘Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.’ There was no need for Jesus to risk his life in Judea if Lazarus was merely asleep; he would wake up in due course. The evangelist explains the meaning of Jesus’ metaphorical statement and the nature of the disciples’ misunderstanding: Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. Sleep was a common metaphor for death (see e.g. 1 Kgs 2:10; 2 Kgs 8:24; 2 Chr. 9:31 nrsv).
14–15. To make things clear for his disciples, he told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe.’ Jesus was not saying that he was glad that Lazarus was dead (which would be callous indeed), but that for his disciples’ sake he was glad that he was not there to prevent it, because he knew that he was going to restore Lazarus to life and, when his disciples saw that, it would be a tremendous boost to their faith. By saying, But let us go to him, Jesus invited his disciples to come and see the manifestation of God’s glory (cf. 11:4).
16. Seeing that Jesus was determined to return to Judea despite the danger, Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples [lit. ‘the fellow disciples’], ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him.’181 In the Synoptic Gospels Thomas appears only in lists of Jesus’ disciples. We learn much more about him from the Gospel of John, where he features in four separate places: here in 11:16, urging his fellow disciples to follow Jesus into Judea, even if it means death; in 14:5, where he speaks on behalf of the other disciples, telling Jesus that they do not know where he is going; in 20:24–29, where he expresses his unwillingness to believe that Jesus has risen from the dead unless he sees him for himself; and in 21:2–3, where he is numbered among those disciples who go fishing with Peter, and to whom Jesus appears again following his resurrection.
Thomas distinguished himself from those disciples who tried to dissuade Jesus from returning to Judea (11:8) by his exhortation to them to follow Jesus and die with him. At one level, Thomas missed what Jesus had in mind: they were not being invited to accompany Jesus on a suicide mission, but to see a manifestation of the glory of God and to believe (cf. 11:4, 15). At another level, however, Thomas’s words were true: Jesus was on his last trip to Judea and there he would die. Despite his professed willingness to die with Jesus, when the crunch came Thomas was among those who forsook him and fled (16:32; cf. Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50). In the end, only the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ and the women stood by him at the cross (19:25–27). In any case, Jesus’ death was unique, and no-one could die with him.
17. After telling his disciples that Lazarus was dead, Jesus made his way back to Judea. On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Lazarus was still alive when news reached Jesus of his sickness (11:4), though he must have died very shortly afterwards. Jesus waited two days before heading back to Judea, a journey of two days, arriving when Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days.
18–19. Now Bethany was less than two miles [3.2 km] from Jerusalem, and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. Bethany lay to the east of Jerusalem on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles (lit. ‘fifteen stadia’) away, which indicates the danger Jesus might face from the Jewish leaders there.
Keener comments:
Palestinian Judaism required burial of the deceased on the day of death, but six days of mourning (for a total of seven) followed, in which the bereaved family members would remain at home while others came to supply food and express sympathy. Such intense mourning for at least a week after death is common to various traditional cultures.182
Martha and Mary must have been well off and well known, for many Jews came from Jerusalem to comfort them. It is important to note that here Jews are presented in a positive light, coming to comfort those who were followers of Jesus in their loss. It is a reminder that the Gospel of John is not anti-Semitic, as it is sometimes suggested, and that its presentation of Jews is not monochrome.
20–22. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. Why the sisters’ response to the news of Jesus’ approach was so varied is not explained, though it has been suggested that while Martha went out to meet Jesus, Mary stayed at home to receive visitors.
‘Lord,’ Martha said to Jesus, ‘if you had been here, my brother would not have died – a sentiment expressed three times: by Martha (v. 21), Mary (v. 32) and the Jews who came to comfort the sisters (v. 37). Martha’s words expressed disappointment: Jesus had failed to appear before her brother died. Despite her disappointment, she continued: But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask. Whatever Martha’s expression of confidence in Jesus meant, she was not expecting him to restore her brother to life straightaway, as her subsequent response to Jesus makes clear (11:24). She seems to be expressing a general belief in Jesus’ relationship to God and that God listened to his prayers.
23–24. Overlooking Martha’s disappointment and maybe even her reproach, Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ These comforting words could be taken to mean either, ‘Your brother will rise again in the general resurrection on the last day’ or ‘Your brother will be restored to life immediately’. She did not realize that Jesus was speaking of an immediate restoration to life, so Martha answered, ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ This was orthodox Pharisaic (but not Sadducean) belief (see Matt. 22:23/Mark 12:18/Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8), a belief shared by Jesus (5:21, 29; Luke 14:14; 20:35–36). For Martha to make this statement probably reflects the sort of consolation offered by those who came to support her in her grief, but it showed no understanding of what Jesus meant. He was about to restore her brother to life, a symbol of resurrection on the last day.
25–26. To move her beyond the orthodoxy of the Pharisees, Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. This statement contains the fifth of seven ‘I am’ sayings with predicates in the Gospel of John (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9; 10:11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 5). It involves three claims: (1) Jesus himself is the resurrection and the life – that is, the Father has given him to have life in himself and to bestow resurrection life upon whomever he will (5:21, 26). (2) People who believe in him, even if they die (as Lazarus had done) will live: Jesus will raise them from death on the last day. What he would soon do for Lazarus would foreshadow the resurrection of the last day. (3) People who live and believe in him will never die. This will be literally true of the last generation of believers. Of other believers it is true in the sense that not even death can break their relationship with God. With these claims, Jesus made himself central to the Jewish hope of the resurrection and eternal life, and by asking Martha Do you believe this? he encouraged her to recognize it.
27. Martha’s response took the form of a confession: ‘Yes, Lord,’ she replied, ‘I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.’ She had moved beyond her previous beliefs (11:22: ‘I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask’) and Pharisaic beliefs (11:24: ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day’). She was now affirming Jesus’ central role in bringing about the resurrection on the last day, adding that she believed he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the one whom the Father sent into the world. The title the Son of God is known to have been used as a messianic title among first-century Jews (see commentary on 1:34). Martha’s confession echoes Nathanael’s confession (1:49) and is an example of the faith the evangelist hopes will be evoked by his Gospel in the hearts and minds of his readers (20:31).
28. Martha was given a message to convey: After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. ‘The Teacher is here,’ she said, ‘and is asking for you.’ Her message for Mary was that Jesus is asking for you (lit. ‘calling for you’). The reason why Martha called her sister aside (lit. ‘secretly’) to convey this message was probably so that Mary could slip away unnoticed, while Martha received those who had come to offer comfort. This proved to be impossible (see 11:31).
Despite Martha’s recent confession of Jesus as ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’, when she spoke to Mary she referred to him simply as The Teacher. This was probably the way they spoke of him among themselves and should not be interpreted as evidence that Martha was already drawing back from her confession or that it had been insincere. Unlike many of the rabbis, Jesus was pleased to be a teacher of women as well as men, and to include them among his disciples.
29–31. When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. This meant that Mary had to leave the house and the village to meet him. Martha’s efforts to enable Mary to meet Jesus privately failed: When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. Thinking she was going to the tomb, the Jews would have felt obliged to accompany Mary and share in the mourning there.
32. When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ Mary did two things. First, she fell at his feet. Perhaps the evangelist wants us to see in Mary’s prostration an act of worship.183 Second, and seemingly in tension with her worship, she reproached him, as Martha had done (11:21), for not coming in time to prevent her brother’s death. Perhaps these two things can co-exist, reflecting her faith in Jesus and her despair at the same time.
33. When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. The word translated deeply moved is embrimaomai. It is a rare word, found only here and in 11:38 in the Gospel of John, and elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matthew 9:30 and Mark 1:43; 14:5. In Matthew and Mark its meaning is ‘to rebuke’ or ‘to give a stern warning’. Two interpretations of embrimaomai in 11:33 have been suggested: (1) Jesus was ‘deeply moved’ with compassion for Mary when he saw her weeping; or (2) he was ‘deeply moved’ with anger. In the latter case, there have been a number of suggestions why he might have been angry: (1) because of the faithless weeping and wailing of Mary and the Jews – they were grieving, as Paul said, ‘like the rest of mankind, who have no hope’ (1 Thess. 4:13); (2) with death itself, the consequence of sin, which caused such pain; or (3) with himself, for not having come sooner to heal Lazarus and so prevent his death and the grief it caused Mary and Martha. This last suggestion is unlikely because Jesus knew he was going to raise Lazarus from death. The first suggestion has most to commend it because the text says that it was when Jesus saw Mary weeping like the rest that he became angry – she had joined them in faithless grief.
34–35. Jesus asked Mary and the Jews who were with her Where have you laid him? to which they replied, Come and see, Lord. The evangelist then simply tells us, Jesus wept. How Jesus’ weeping is interpreted depends on how his being ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (11:33, 38) is understood. If he was moved with compassion, his weeping would have been a sign of his sorrow at the death of Lazarus and the pain it caused his friends. This is hard to reconcile with the fact that he knew that he would shortly raise Lazarus from death. If he was moved with anger, his weeping might have reflected deep disappointment with the faithless weeping and wailing of Mary and the Jews.
The weeping of Mary and the Jews is denoted by the Greek word klaiō, used very often in the context of weeping and wailing (see e.g. Matt. 2:18; Mark 5:38–39; 16:10; Luke 8:52). When the evangelist records that Jesus wept, he uses a different and rare word, dakryō, found only here in the New Testament. Perhaps he is showing by his choice of words that Jesus’ weeping was of a different nature from that of Mary and the Jews. He was not joining with them in their weeping and wailing.184 Perhaps he was expressing his sorrow at the faithlessness he found all around him. Hippolytus suggests it was ‘to give us an example of sympathy and kindliness toward our fellow human beings’;185 the apostle Paul later urged people to ‘Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn’ (Rom. 12:15), while also reminding them not to ‘grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope’ (1 Thess. 4:13).
36–37. Seeing Jesus weep, the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ They interpreted Jesus’ weeping as a sign of his love for Lazarus (cf. 11:3) and his grief at his death. But did the evangelist agree with them? Has he included their comment because it correctly interprets the reason for Jesus’ weeping, or simply because that is what the Jews (mistakenly) thought, without endorsing it? Did the Jews fail to realize that Jesus was weeping because of their faithlessness, not because of the death of Lazarus? Seeing Jesus weeping, some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ Jesus’ healing of the man born blind during the Festival of Tabernacles was well known among the Jews, and some of them asked the question that was also in the minds of Mary and Martha (11:21, 32): had he come earlier, could he not have kept Lazarus from dying?
38. Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. Jesus was still in a state of some agitation when he came to the tomb. The word used for deeply moved is again embrimaomai, signalling perhaps his deep sympathy for his friends, possibly his anger in the face of the faithless weeping and wailing all around him, or maybe his reaction to death itself, which reigned over people because of sin, and which he was to overcome as the last enemy through his cross and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:26).
The tomb is described as a cave (spēlaion), suggesting a natural cave, rather than a man-made rock tomb (in Heb. 11:38; Rev. 6:15 spēlaion is used in reference to naturally formed caves). When the body of the deceased man, Lazarus, was put into it, a large stone was placed across the entrance, as was later to be the case when Jesus was buried (cf. 20:1).
39. ‘Take away the stone,’ he said. This instruction created problems: ‘But, Lord,’ said Martha, the sister of the dead man, ‘by this time there is a bad odour, for he has been there four days.’ Despite her earlier confession (11:23–27), Martha was not expecting a miracle. She was concerned that by the fourth day the corpse would be starting to decompose and give off a bad odour. The fourth day has another significance in Jewish belief. The soul of the departed was believed to keep coming back to the body of the dead person for three days in the hope that it might resuscitate. When it saw the change in the colour of the face that takes place by the third day, it departed permanently. The person was then well and truly dead. That Lazarus had been in the tomb four days indicated that there was no hope of resuscitation, thus highlighting the greatness of the miracle Jesus was about to perform.186
40. Unperturbed by Martha’s objection, Jesus reminded her of what he had said earlier (something not recorded by the evangelist): Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God? Addressing Martha individually (using the second-person singular), he urged her not to focus upon the apparently hopeless situation of her dead brother, but to remember what he had said to her about her seeing the glory of God that was about to be manifested when Lazarus was restored to life.
41–42. Jesus’ reply was enough to satisfy Martha’s objections, So they took away the stone. All was now ready. But before Jesus acted, he prayed: Then Jesus looked up and said, ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.’ It is noteworthy that Jesus begins his prayer with the words Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me – a reminder to us that the Lord’s ears are always open to the righteous (Ps. 34:15; 1 Pet. 3:12).
On this occasion, Jesus’ prayer was not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of those standing around him. His prayer was public to make it clear that what he was about to do was connected with his commission from God. All this was to make it easier for the people, his disciples, Mary, Martha and the Jews, to believe that he had been sent by God.
43–44. When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ In 5:28–29 Jesus had said, ‘Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out.’ He was speaking of the command that would bring about the general resurrection on the last day. His word of command to Lazarus foreshadowed the command he would give on the last day, and its effect upon Lazarus foreshadowed what would occur then: The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth round his face. It is a reminder to us that Jesus’ word is all-powerful, needing no other accompanying rituals to effect its purpose, something the centurion in Capernaum knew very well (see Matt. 8:9; Luke 7:8).
In the Mishnah, reference is made to both burial ‘clothes’ (m. Sanh. 6:5) and ‘wrappings’ for corpses (m. Kil. 9:4; m. Sabb. 23:4; m. Ma’asS. 5:12). It was the latter that were used for Lazarus’s hands and feet. The word used for the cloth (soudarion) around his face is the same as that used for the grave cloth on Jesus’ face (20:7). Some say that Lazarus emerging from the grave with his hands and feet still bound in grave clothes is ‘a miracle within a miracle’. This is not necessary as we can think of him shuffling along, his feet only loosely wrapped in the strips of linen.
When Lazarus emerged from the tomb, Jesus said to them, ‘Take off the grave clothes and let him go.’ His concern was not to bathe in the glory of what he had done, but to care for the one who had been restored to life. Such also was the case following the raising of Jairus’s daughter described in Luke 8:51–55. When Jesus had restored her to life, he said to those standing by: ‘give her something to eat’ (Luke 8:55).
This passage describes two flow-on effects of the raising of Lazarus: belief on the part of many of the Jews (11:45), and the plot by others to kill Jesus (11:46–53).
45. Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. The great miracle Jesus performed led them to believe. In earlier parts of the Gospel, belief based upon miracles proved to be superficial (2:23–25; 6:14; cf. 6:66; 8:31–38), but the evangelist gives no hint of that being the case on this occasion. On the contrary, these Jews function as an example of those who see the signs and believe (20:31). Their belief is another reminder that the Jews in the Gospel of John are not always opponents of Jesus.
46. While many of the Jews who came to comfort Mary and Martha believed when they saw Jesus restore Lazarus to life, some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Like the lame man healed by Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda, who informed the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had healed him (5:15), these people ran off to inform the Pharisees about the raising of Lazarus. They must have known that these Pharisees were enemies of Jesus.
47–48. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. This is the only explicit reference to the Sanhedrin in the Gospel of John, though there are repeated references to meetings of the ‘chief priests and the Pharisees’ (7:32, 45; 11:57; 18:3). The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy men, presided over by the high priest, and was modelled on Moses and the seventy elders. It was the highest ruling body of the Jews, with responsibility for local rule over Jews in the Roman province of Judea. Included in its responsibilities were the investigation of charges related to violations of the Mosaic law and the assessment of claims made by people to be prophets or the Messiah. Politically, the Sanhedrin walked a tightrope, answering to Pilate, the prefect of Judea, while at the same time trying to stay in favour with the majority of the Jewish people.
There was an urgent matter to be discussed at this meeting of the Sanhedrin: ‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. ‘Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.’ Members of the Sanhedrin faced a real dilemma. The many miraculous signs Jesus performed in and around Jerusalem (see 2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:18, 37) were leading large numbers of the Jewish people to believe in him as the Messiah. If this continued, and the majority of the people gave their allegiance to him, it would certainly come to the notice of the Roman governor and would be seen as a threat to imperial rule in Judea. This would invite a Roman crackdown, involving, the Sanhedrin thought, the taking away of our temple (lit. ‘our place’) and our nation (the people). If they stood by while the populace acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, the Romans would remove them from office and from their privileged position in regard to the temple and the people. However, it was increasingly hard for the Sanhedrin to move against Jesus because of growing popular support for him.
Chrysostom questions the need for the Sanhedrin’s concern:
‘For if,’ says one of them, ‘the Romans learn that this man is leading the multitudes, they will suspect us and will come and destroy our city.’ Tell me, where did he teach revolt? Did he not permit you to give tribute to Caesar? Didn’t you want to make him a king and instead he fled from you? Didn’t he lead a normal and unpretentious life, homeless and having no possessions of his own? Therefore they said this, not from any such expectation but out of malice.187
49–50. A drastic resolution to their problems was proposed by their president: Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,188 spoke up, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’ Caiaphas was high priest in the year that Jesus came to Jerusalem for the last time – in fact, he was high priest from ad 18 to 36, the longest-serving high priest in the first century. Seeing the members of the Sanhedrin caught on the horns of a dilemma, he spoke rudely to them (You know nothing at all!) and argued for a ruthless solution: do away with Jesus! His argument was that it was better that one man, Jesus, be put to death than that the whole Jewish nation should perish because of a Roman crackdown.
51–52. The evangelist comments on Caiaphas’s drastic suggested resolution: He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation. There is evidence in the writings of Josephus that a high priest might function as a prophet and that it was thought that a ‘true priest’ was necessarily a prophet.189 There is also evidence in rabbinic writings that it was thought that people might prophesy without knowing that they were doing so (Str-B 2, p. 546). In any case, the evangelist explains that Caiaphas was not speaking on his own when he said that Jesus would die for the nation – a reminder that God is able to use even the plans of evil people to achieve his purposes.
The evangelist explains further that Jesus would die not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. Some suggest this means that Jesus’ death would benefit not only Jews of the Holy Land, but also Jews of the diaspora, those scattered throughout the world. Alternatively, and perhaps closer to the mark, is the suggestion that this text refers not only to Jews but also to Gentiles. Such a gathering of disparate peoples is foreshadowed in 10:16, where Jesus, as the good shepherd, says, ‘I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.’ The prophet Isaiah also spoke of a day when God would gather the Gentiles into his people (Isa. 56:6–8).
53. Caiaphas’s words were taken at face value as counsel to do away with Jesus, So from that day on they plotted to take his life. The verb translated plotted (ebouleusanto) is better translated ‘resolved’, as it was an official decision of the Sanhedrin. Their resolution contrasted markedly with what Jesus himself resolved to do. The Sanhedrin resolved to sacrifice an innocent man to retain their place in the nation. Jesus was ready to sacrifice himself to gather the scattered children of God.
54. Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples. While Jesus did not allow fear of the authorities to determine his activities (11:7–10), he took appropriate action to preserve his life.
There is no other mention of a village called Ephraim in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. In the Old Testament, Ephraim is one of the sons of Joseph, and there are many references to the tribe of Ephraim and the hill country of Ephraim, but not to a village or town named Ephraim. However, in Josephus’s account of the conquest of Judea by Vespasian there is such a reference. He says that, passing through the hill country of Judea, ‘he captured the small towns of Bethala and Ephraim’ (Wars 4.551). This Ephraim has been identified with the modern Et-Taiyibeh, 4 miles (6.5 km) north-east of Bethel. Perhaps Jesus withdrew to this village because someone there offered him lodgings. It was far enough away from Jerusalem to avoid his opponents, yet close enough to be able to return for Passover (cf. 11:55; 12:1).
Recounting Lazarus’s death and restoration to life enabled the evangelist to highlight a number of important theological matters. First, he resolves the apparent conflict between Jesus’ love for the Bethany family (mentioned three times, 11:3, 5, 36) and his decision to wait two days before responding to their sad news (11:6). Martha and Mary were clearly puzzled and distressed by the delay (11:21, 32; cf. 37). The evangelist records that Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe’ (11:15). He knew that the delay would mean that his disciples, and the sisters, would see a manifestation of the glory of God as he restored Lazarus to life (11:4, 14–15, 40).
Second, travelling to Bethany to be with Martha and Mary meant risking persecution and death at the hands of the Jewish leaders, both for Jesus and his disciples (11:8, 16). He taught his disciples that if they walked in the light of day – a metaphorical reference to following him as the light of the world – they need not fear, because he and they would be protected until his hour came (11:9–10). As believers, we can say with the psalmist: ‘My times are in your hands’ (Ps. 31:15).
Third, the central theological statement of this passage is Jesus’ word: ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die’ (11:25–26). Jesus is ‘the resurrection and the life’ because God the Father has granted him to have life in himself and to bestow it upon whomever he will (5:21, 26). This means that those who believe in him, even though they die, will live, being raised up on the last day. It also means that those who believe in him will never die, something that clearly may be predicated of the last generation of believers but is also true of all believers, in the sense that not even death can break their relationship with God. Implicit in Jesus’ statement that he is the resurrection and the life is a claim to divinity, because bestowing life is a divine prerogative (see Deut. 32:39).
Fourth, after reporting Caiaphas’s word to members of the Sanhedrin, ‘You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish’, the evangelist comments, ‘He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation.’ This might reflect the belief that a high priest could function as a prophet. What is more important is the fundamental theological fact that God can and does use even unbelievers to verbalize important truth, even when it is not their intention to do so. The evangelist complemented what Caiaphas said by adding that Jesus was to die ‘not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God’. His death was to make salvation available not only to the people of Israel, but also to those of the Gentile world, something Jesus himself taught: ‘I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd’ (10:16).
This long passage depicts events taking place leading up to and including Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem for Passover. The people were wondering if he would come to the festival, and the Jewish leaders had given instructions that they should be notified of his whereabouts when he did, so that they could arrest him (11:55–57).
On his way to Jerusalem Jesus visited Bethany, where Mary anointed his feet and where he had restored Lazarus to life. When the Jewish leaders saw the crowds assembling and believing in Jesus as a result of Lazarus’s restoration to life, they made plans to kill Lazarus as well (12:1–11).
When Jesus finally arrived in Jerusalem, the crowds met him with palm branches and hailed him as the king of Israel (12:12–19). Among those coming to the festival were Greeks who wanted to meet Jesus, and when he heard about this, Jesus declared that his ‘hour’ had come, and that when he died a great harvest would follow.
The evangelist explains that, even though Jesus had performed many signs, most of the Jews did not believe in him. Some did but were afraid to confess it openly, for fear of expulsion from the synagogue (12:36b–43). The passage concludes with Jesus’ final public declaration that he had come as light into the world and those who believed in him would not remain in darkness, and a warning of the consequences for those who rejected him (12:44–50).
55. When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. This was the third (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55) or possibly the fourth (see 5:1) Passover festival that occurred during Jesus’ ministry, and the second or third which he attended. The ceremonial cleansing for which many came early to Jerusalem was carried out in the numerous miqwaot (ritual immersion pools) on the temple mount, some of which were located near the entrance staircases on the southern side of the temple precincts.190 Ritual purity was required of lay people at Passover because the men had to enter the Court of the Priests to bring their lambs to be sacrificed.191 Those requiring ritual cleansing needed to undergo it seven days before Passover (cf. 12:1).
56. The evangelist says that when the pilgrims came up to Jerusalem They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, ‘What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the festival at all?’ The form of the question in the original language (introduced with ou mē) indicates that a positive answer was expected: ‘He is coming to the festival, isn’t he?’ On a recent visit to Bethany, just 2 miles from Jerusalem, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and Jerusalem was buzzing with news of this event (11:45–48). So as people gathered in the temple precincts, they awaited Jesus’ appearance with great anticipation.
57. But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him. In 11:47–53 the evangelist tells of a meeting of the Sanhedrin called to deal with the ‘threat’ Jesus posed, at which a decision to kill him was taken. To facilitate the implementation of this decision, the chief priests and the Pharisees ordered the people to notify them of Jesus’ location once it was known. This was the dangerous situation into which Jesus came to celebrate his last Passover.
If Jesus was ‘deeply moved’ because Mary had joined in the faithless weeping and wailing of her ‘comforters’ when he met her after the death of Lazarus (11:33), this passage shows that she redeemed herself with an extravagant act of devotion: anointing Jesus’ feet with costly perfume.
1–2. Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany. Like many others (11:55), Jesus was making his way to Jerusalem for Passover. En route he came to Bethany, now described as the place where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, reminding us of the fame now attached both to Lazarus and to Bethany because of what had happened there. Not surprisingly, Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honour [lit. ‘for him’]. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. It is not specified in whose house this dinner was held. The natural assumption is that it was held in the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, though if harmonization with the Matthean and Marcan accounts is sought, this dinner would have to be placed in the house of Simon the Leper, also in Bethany (Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9). Both Lazarus and Jesus would then have been Simon’s guests, and Martha would have been enlisted to help serve. The guests are described as reclining at the table. They would have been reclining, leaning on their left elbows, with their heads towards the low U-shaped table (triclinium) and their feet away from the table.
3. It was the arrangement of guests around the triclinium that made possible what occurred next: Then Mary took about a half a litre of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair.192 Guests were served from the inside of the triclinium, but Mary came around the outside and therefore could pour her perfume over Jesus’ feet. She anointed his feet with about a half a litre of pure nard. The niv is very free in its rendering of this phrase, which should read, ‘a pound of pure nard’ (i.e. indicating weight not volume). The word for ‘pound’, litra, denotes a Roman pound weighing 11.5 oz (326 g). That much perfume was a very large amount indeed. Nard is an extract from an aromatic plant, Nardostachys jatamansi, found in northern India and Italy. The perfume was expensive because it was imported from a great distance, as well as having to be extracted from plant material. The process of extraction usually involved large amounts of plant material yielding only a little aromatic oil. Just how expensive this perfume was is revealed in 12:5. Anointing Jesus’ feet with so much expensive perfume was an act of great devotion.
Mary’s wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair also expressed great devotion. A woman’s long hair was regarded as her glory (1 Cor. 11:15; cf. 1 Pet. 3:3). Each time Mary’s anointing is mentioned, reference is made to her wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair (11:2; 12:3). Köstenberger comments:
The act is all the more striking since Jewish women (esp. married ones) never unbound their hair in public, which would have been considered a sign of loose morals . . . The fact that Mary (who was probably single, as no husband is mentioned) here acts in such a way toward Jesus, a well-known (yet unattached) rabbi, was sure to raise some eyebrows.193
In Luke 7:44 Jesus contrasts the lack of love in the welcome accorded him by Simon the Pharisee with the love shown by a sinful woman: ‘Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.’ Whatever else it signified, wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair revealed the depth of Mary’s devotion to him.
One effect of Mary’s act of devotion was that the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume, a fact not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. The fragrant power of perfume was measured by the extent of its permeation. This is reflected in the Midrash on Ecclesiastes 7:1: ‘[the scent of] good oil is diffused from the bed-chamber to the dining-hall while a good name is diffused from one end of the world to the other.’ The scent of Mary’s perfume filled the house.
4–6. One of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ‘Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.’ From a utilitarian approach to things, Judas’s objection would have been justified. The perfume was very valuable – worth a year’s wages (lit. ‘300 denarii’, one denarius being a working man’s wage for one day). One has only to calculate what this means in today’s currencies to realize how much money would have been involved. Great good could have been done for the poor with such a large sum of money. However, the evangelist is quick to explain: He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. Judas’s disapproval of Mary’s action was related, not to loss of opportunity to do more for the poor, but to his own loss of opportunity to steal from the common purse. He was the ‘treasurer’ of the little band of disciples (cf. 13:29) and used that position to help himself to the funds entrusted to them by those who supported Jesus’ ministry (see Luke 8:2–3). Greed also appears to have been a motivating factor when Judas agreed to betray Jesus (see Mark 14:10–11; Matt. 26:14–16).
7–8. Jesus’ approach was not utilitarian, and he spoke up in defence of Mary: ‘Leave her alone,’ Jesus replied. Jesus’ words were addressed to Judas (the command Leave her alone is in second-person-singular form). After rebuking Judas, he explained Mary’s motive: It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. The word translated burial (entaphiasmos) really means ‘preparation for burial’. As the niv construes these words, Jesus is saying that Mary originally purchased this expensive perfume for use in preparing his body for burial, but now instead she was using it to express her devotion to him while he was still alive. In the parallel accounts, Jesus tells his disciples that the woman who anointed him did so to prepare him for burial (Matt. 26:12/Mark 14:8). He saw it as a symbolic embalming of his body for burial.
There is another way of construing these words of Jesus, which rendered literally read: ‘Leave her alone so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.’ For Jesus to say that she should be able to keep the perfume for the day of his burial makes no sense, but if he meant that she should keep it (her action) in her memory until the day of his burial, it would do so. When Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea actually anointed Jesus’ body for burial after the crucifixion (19:38–42), she would know that her act of devotion had preceded and foreshadowed theirs.
In response to Judas’s utilitarianism, Jesus said: You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me. Jesus was then addressing not just Judas, but all his disciples (the you here is plural). There was no need to reproach Mary for the extravagance of her devotion, as if it disadvantaged the poor. There would be no shortage of opportunities for them to do good to the poor, and the Jewish people were always expected to be mindful of them (cf. Deut. 15:11: ‘There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed towards your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land’). Acts of devotion and acts of compassion for the poor are not mutually exclusive. Jesus reminded them that the time for expressions of devotion was growing short: they would not always have him in the way they had him at that time.
9. Many of the Jews who had come up to Jerusalem for the Passover festival were asking whether Jesus would appear (11:55–56). It did not take long for news that he was in Bethany to reach them: Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. Their natural curiosity made them want to see not only Jesus, but also Lazarus. Like many, they were attracted by sensations.
10–11. The effect of Lazarus’s restoration to life had a powerful impact upon the crowd, and this made things even more difficult for Jesus’ opponents. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him. The chief priests (mostly of the Sadducean party) had most to lose. They cooperated with the Romans in the administration of the province of Judea, and Jesus’ increasing fame was a threat to their position. Earlier, the Sanhedrin, of which the chief priests were a most influential part, had decided to kill Jesus to remove the threat. Now Lazarus was adding to that threat, so the simple solution was to kill him as well (indicating, incidentally, that Lazarus’s restoration to life was not a resurrection in the fullest sense; he could be killed).
The triumphal entry is one of the few events in Jesus’ ministry that is recorded in all four Gospels (Matt. 21:1–11/Mark 11:1–11/Luke 19:28–40/John 12:12–19). It was a crucial event in which Jesus, by a dramatic act, presented himself to Jerusalem as its king, in accordance with prophecy.
12–13. The next day the great crowd that had come for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. It was the day after the anointing at Bethany, and the pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover heard that Jesus was approaching. The population of Jerusalem swelled enormously at Passover time. Josephus, a first-century Jewish writer, says that when a count was taken on one occasion, the numbers present for Passover reached 2,700,000,194 a figure which is hard to believe, given the size of first-century Jerusalem. Certainly, vast numbers of people came to Jerusalem for this festival. No doubt influenced by Jesus’ growing fame, They took palm branches and went out to meet him. Palm fronds were used by pilgrims at the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Dedication as part of the worship (see commentary on 7:2 and 10:22–39). Palm branches were also used as symbols of victory and kingship. By meeting Jesus with palm branches, the crowd showed that they were welcoming him as king. Earlier in his ministry, he had eluded the crowds who wanted to make him king (6:15), but now he accepted their gesture and its significance.
As well as waving palm branches, the crowd was shouting, ‘Hosanna!’ ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ This acclamation is based on Psalm 118:25–26. The literal meaning of ‘Hosanna’ is ‘save now’. By the first century the word may have lost its literal sense and been used, as it is today, simply as a shout of praise. The words Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! in their original context are addressed to pilgrims coming to the temple:
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
From the house of the Lord we bless you.
The Lord is God,
and he has made his light shine upon us.
With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession
up to the horns of the altar.
(Ps. 118:26–27, italics added)
The ‘you’ in these verses is plural, and the picture is of those already at the temple blessing God for the arrival of other pilgrims. There would have been nothing surprising, then, about the crowds welcoming Jesus in this way. However, in Jesus’ case more was involved, because they greeted him with palm branches (symbols of victory and kingship) and the acclamation, Blessed is the king of Israel!195 Jesus accepted the acclamation of the pilgrims, unlike his reaction to earlier attempts by the crowd to make him king (see 6:15).
14–15. To make his final approach to Jerusalem, Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it. The evangelist’s brief account omits the description of the disciples being sent to bring the donkey, found in the other Gospels. His focus is upon the way Jesus’ action fulfilled the Scripture.
Jesus did not need to ride the last couple of miles – he was used to walking long distances and would have been physically fit. Also, pilgrims usually approached the holy city on foot. Jesus’ action made a statement. The evangelist makes this plain by his Old Testament quotation: as it is written, ‘Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.’ The quotation is from Zechariah 9:9,196 where the Lord is portrayed, not in militaristic fashion mounted on a war-horse, but as a king of peace sitting on a donkey. In fact, the following verse says:
I will take away the chariots from Ephraim
and the war-horses from Jerusalem,
and the battle-bow will be broken.
He will proclaim peace to the nations.
(Zech. 9:10)
In conscious fulfilment of this prophecy, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey to show that he was the king of the Jews: not the militaristic Messiah of popular expectation, but the universal prince of peace.
16. At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realise that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him. In this matter, as in others, Jesus’ disciples realized their significance only in the light of the Scripture after Jesus’ death and resurrection (2:22; 13:7, 12, 28). Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit, when he came, would make things clear to them (14:26; 16:12–15).
17–18. Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. As a result, Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. Thus the numbers meeting him continued to swell. The evangelist refers to the raising of Lazarus as this sign. It is the last and greatest of the signs recorded in 1:19 – 12:50, the record of Jesus’ work in the world.
19. The escalating popularity of Jesus caused consternation among his opponents: So the Pharisees said to one another, ‘See, this is getting us nowhere.’ This may refer to the order they gave that anyone who knew Jesus’ whereabouts should make it known to them, so that they might arrest him (11:57). However, events had moved on quickly. Jesus was now appearing openly and in public places. Even though the Pharisees knew where he was, they could not arrest him because he was held in such high esteem by the populace – as the Pharisees said to one another, Look how the whole world has gone after him!
20. People of many ethnic backgrounds were attracted to the monotheism and ethical purity of Judaism, and many came to Jerusalem for the pilgrim festivals (cf. Acts 2:5–11). Thus it is no surprise when the evangelist says: Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. These Greeks went up to worship, indicating that they were not pagan Gentiles but proselytes or God-fearers, the former being Gentile converts, the latter, Gentiles attracted to Judaism. The coming of the Greeks would have reinforced the Pharisees’ fear: ‘the whole world has gone after him!’ (12:19).
21–22. The Greeks too would have heard reports of Jesus having raised Lazarus and therefore, like many of the Jews, they wanted to meet him. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘we would like to see Jesus.’ Bethsaida in Galilee197 had a significant number of non-Jews and bordered on pagan territory. Possibly the Greeks approached Philip because he had a Greek name (though Philip himself was a Jew) and came from Bethsaida, thinking that he would therefore be more open towards them. Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. Perhaps it is significant that Philip went first to Andrew with the request, because he was the one other member of the Twelve who bore a Greek name. Together they conveyed the Greeks’ request to Jesus. We can only guess why Philip needed Andrew’s moral support. Perhaps it reflects their doubts about Jesus’ willingness to deal with Gentiles at that time (cf. Matt. 10:5–6; 15:22–24).
23–24. We are not told whether Jesus met with the Greeks, but hearing of their desire to meet him proved to be a significant moment. Jesus replied, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.’ These words contain the fourth of seven references to Jesus’ ‘hour’ (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), an important theme in this Gospel. The first three references all say that Jesus’ hour had not yet come, while the remaining references, beginning with this fourth reference, all indicate that his hour had come. The trigger for this change was the coming of the Greeks. Jesus’ next words, though heavily metaphorical, indicate what the hour of his glorification was: Very truly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The primary reference was to his own death. Just as a grain of wheat dies when it is planted, but then produces many seeds as it sprouts and the plant grows to maturity, so too Jesus would die, but the effect of his death would be a vast harvest of people who through faith in him would find eternal life. The coming of the Greeks made Jesus think of the great harvest (not only among Jews but also among Gentiles) that would occur following his death. The hour towards which everything was moving, then, was the hour of his death, followed by his resurrection and exaltation. This was when the Son of Man would be glorified.
25. Jesus’ giving his life provided a pattern for his disciples: Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ‘The love/hate contrast reflects Semitic idiom, pointing to preference rather than actual hatred.’198 Those who love their lives, giving top priority to the retention of life and all that makes it up in this world, will lose it for eternal life. In parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus mentions certain important aspects of life in this world which nevertheless must not be given priority over following him. These include desire for riches (Luke 15:12–21), love of father and mother, brothers and sisters, wives, sons and daughters, and even life itself (Matt. 10:37–39; Luke 14:25–27; 17:33). None of these may be given the top priority in the lives of Jesus’ disciples.
26. Jesus made explicit what was implicit in the preceding verses – his life as the pattern for all who would be his servants: Whoever serves me must follow me; that is, as he denied himself for their sakes, so they must deny themselves for his sake. Two promises attach to such commitment to Jesus: (1) Where I am, my servant also will be: those who follow him in the path of self-denial in this world will have a place with him in his future glory (cf. 14:2–3; 17:24). (2) My Father will honour the one who serves me: in this life, Jesus’ disciples may experience disdain from the ‘world’, as he did, but on the last day they will receive honour from the only one who counts ultimately – God himself. When Samuel pronounced judgment upon the house of Saul, he said in the name of God, ‘Those who honour me I will honour, but those who despise me will be disdained’ (1 Sam. 2:30). Jesus promised honour from God for all who serve him.
There is no account of Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer in John’s Gospel. Perhaps this passage functions as its counterpart. It reveals Jesus facing up to the hour of his death and resolutely choosing to go forward to glorify the Father. As in Gethsemane, so here Jesus was deeply troubled. He contemplated praying to be saved from the hour of death, but determined to carry out his Father’s will at any cost. There was also a response from heaven to Jesus’ prayer: in Gethsemane, angels were sent to strengthen him; here a voice from heaven declared that his prayer that God would glorify his name had already been answered and would be answered again. In this passage, the evangelist also reveals the way Jesus would die, and the great benefits that would flow from his death.
27–28a. The arrival of the Greeks seeking Jesus had led him to speak of his death in terms of a grain of wheat falling into the ground and dying (12:24), and this in turn led to a sense of foreboding, expressed in the words, Now my soul is troubled. On two other occasions Jesus is described as troubled: when he saw Mary and the Jews weeping and wailing faithlessly following Lazarus’s death (11:33, 38) and when he contemplated his betrayal by Judas (13:21). Matthew portrays similar deep emotions on Jesus’ part in Gethsemane: ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death’ (Matt. 26:38).
In his troubled state, Jesus asked: what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? This is the fifth reference to Jesus’ hour in John’s Gospel, and the second which speaks of the hour having now come. Clearly, the hour is the hour of his death. Being truly human, Jesus wanted to be delivered from this dreadful hour, something he prayed for three times in Gethsemane (see Matt. 26:39, 42, 44). But he wanted something else even more, and that led him to answer his own question: No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name! To glorify his Father’s name meant more to Jesus than life itself. To glorify the Father’s name means simply to glorify the Father, for the name stands for the person. God was glorified in the hour of Jesus’ death because then the grace of God was most clearly seen. The glory of God is his character, full of grace, and he is glorified when his character is revealed (cf. Exod. 34:5–8).
28b–30. Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ It was the Father’s voice, declaring that he had already glorified his name in Jesus’ ministry (through his words and works; see 7:18; 11:4, 40; 17:4) and that he would glorify it again through his death. The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. The voice from heaven must have been a booming sound, for some of the bystanders thought it was thunder. Others thought it was a loud voice, and said that an angel had spoken to him. Neither opinion was correct. Though the crowd may not have understood what the voice said, nevertheless its very occurrence indicated that God had responded to Jesus’ prayer. Jesus’ only comment to the crowd was, This voice was for your benefit, not mine. He needed no confirmation that his prayer would be answered, for this was guaranteed by his relationship to the Father. Just as Jesus’ prayer before raising Lazarus had been for the benefit of the onlookers (11:41–42), so this voice from heaven was for the crowd’s benefit, not his, showing them that God listened to his prayer.
31. Continuing to address the crowd, Jesus said, Now is the time for judgment on this world. The words the time for have no counterparts in the original language, being added by the editors of the niv, but they do bring out the meaning well. In the Gospel of John the world often stands for those members of the Jewish leadership who were antagonistic towards Jesus. When they brought Jesus before Pilate and succeeded in getting a decision to have him crucified, they felt they had secured judgment against him. Ironically, their very rejection of Jesus and their having him crucified sealed God’s judgment upon them.
The ‘hour’ of Jesus’ death meant more than judgment for the world, as he went on to say: now the prince of this world will be driven out. This is the first of three references to the prince of this world in the Gospel of John (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), referred to elsewhere as ‘the devil’ (8:44; 13:2), ‘Satan’ (13:27) and ‘the evil one’ (17:15). He is described as the prince of this world because human beings, since they fell into sin, have been under his power (cf. 1 John 5:19: ‘the whole world is under the control of the evil one’). Through the death of Jesus, the power of the prince of this world has been destroyed, and he has been driven out of office, as it were. The writer to the Hebrews expresses it this way:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death – that is, the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
(Heb. 2:14–15)
The prince of this world has power over human beings because he can accuse them before God and demand judgment upon their sins (see Job 1:9–11; 2:3–5). In Revelation 12:10 he is called ‘the accuser’ (katēgōr). By his death, Jesus dealt with the problem of human sins and removed the grounds of accusation. In this way, the power of the prince of this world was broken, and he was driven out.
32–33. There was another very positive effect of Jesus’ death: And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. The evangelist adds a comment to explain what his being lifted up from the earth meant: He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die – that is, he would be lifted up on a cross (cf. 3:14). Jesus said that when this happened, he would draw all people to myself. The word ‘to draw’ (elkō) is used five times in John’s Gospel (6:44; 12:32; 18:10; 21:6, 11) and only once elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 16:19). It is used literally in 18:10; 21:6, 11 of drawing a sword or drawing in a fishing net. It is used metaphorically in 6:44 and 12:32 of people being ‘drawn’ to Jesus – that is, drawn to put their faith in him. Jesus’ death on the cross would result in all people being drawn to him. This does not mean that all people without exception would put their faith in him, for clearly some did not. It means that people of all ethnic backgrounds would put their faith in him, one example of this being the Greeks who sought him (12:20–22). A similar point is made in 10:16, where Jesus says, ‘I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.’
34. Those who had just welcomed Jesus as their king (12:12–13) were perplexed by him saying that he would ‘lifted up’, so The crowd spoke up, ‘We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain for ever.’ There is no passage in the Old Testament which says exactly that the Messiah will remain for ever. There is one place where the Messiah’s priestly role is said to be eternal (Ps. 110:4), and there are others where his ‘throne’ is said to endure for ever (Ps. 89:3–4, 20–37; Isa. 9:7). There are also passages in the Pseudepigrapha which speak of the eternal reign of God’s chosen one (e.g. 1 Enoch 49:1–2), a holy prince (Sib. Or. 3:49–50). In the light of these beliefs, the crowd asked, how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? In the immediate context, Jesus did not actually say ‘the Son of Man must be lifted up’, but ‘when I am lifted up’ (12:32). In any case, the crowd, rightly assuming that implicit in Jesus’ teaching was a claim to be the Messiah, and that the titles ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of Man’ denoted the same divinely appointed person, asked how Jesus could say, The Son of Man must be lifted up. To them, the idea of a suffering and dying Son of Man/Messiah was nonsense. They asked: Who is this ‘Son of Man’? – that is, ‘What sort of a Son of Man are you talking about? He is certainly not the one for whom we are looking.’ The same sort of incredulity is found in the statement of Trypho the Jew to the Christian apologist Justin:
These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified. (Dial. Tryph. 32.1)
35–36. Instead of answering their question, Jesus told them, ‘You are going to have the light just a little while longer.’ Jesus was the light of the world (8:12), and they would have access to him and his teaching only a little while longer. Soon he would be betrayed, condemned to death and crucified, and as far as the crowd was concerned, the light would be gone. Jesus would rise from the dead, but in his resurrected form he would appear only to his disciples (14:22–24). Therefore, Jesus said to the crowd: Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Darkness would overtake the unbelieving world when Jesus departed, and they would no longer hear his teaching; then it would be a case of Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going. Without access to his light, they would wander around like people in the dark. Therefore, Jesus urged the crowd: Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light. He called upon them to trust him rather than challenge what he said, even if it ran counter to their notions of messiahship. If they accepted the light he brought, they would become children of the light. Then they would never walk in the darkness, but would have the light of life (cf. 8:12). When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them. His action suggests that the crowd did not accept what he said (something confirmed by the evangelist in the next verse). By hiding himself from them, he cut even shorter the time when they had the light among them.
37–38. Referring to Jesus’ activities in Jerusalem, the evangelist says, Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. Jesus had performed numerous miracles in Jerusalem (see 2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:18, 37), but to no avail, for they persisted in unbelief. They refers to the crowd and the Jewish leaders, or to some of them, who, despite the signs they had witnessed, rejected Jesus. The evangelist says: This was to fulfil the word of Isaiah the prophet: ‘Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ He cites exactly the lxx version of Isaiah 53:1 to show that Isaiah’s experience was similar to that of Jesus. Isaiah preached the message given him by God, but few believed, just as Jesus performed many miracles and still people would not believe.
39–40. The evangelist not only found a paradigm of Jesus’ experience in that of Isaiah, but he found a reason for it also in his prophecy:
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
‘He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn – and I would heal them.’
There are significant differences between the citation of Isaiah 6:10 here in John’s Gospel and the corresponding lxx and Hebrew texts. The evangelist, largely following the Hebrew text, presents the ultimate reason for people’s rejection of God’s messengers as God’s own actions of blinding their spiritual eyes and hardening their hearts. It is important that this truth is balanced by the fact that people so blinded and hardened had also made their own choice to reject the message, and for their own reasons (cf. 11:47–50).
41. Referring to the prophecy, the evangelist says: Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ [lit. ‘his’] glory and spoke about him. The allusion is to Isaiah’s vision of God in the temple and his commission to be God’s messenger to Israel (Isa. 6:1–13). Substituting ‘Jesus’ for ‘his’, the niv translation assumes that the evangelist is saying that what Isaiah saw in the temple was in fact Jesus’ glory – that is, the glory of the pre-existent Christ.199 However, this is not absolutely clear, even though it would be appropriate in the Johannine context.
42–43. Lest his readers think that all Jewish leaders were antagonistic towards Jesus, the evangelist says, Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. Examples of the leaders who believed are Nicodemus, ‘a Pharisee’ and ‘a member of the Jewish ruling council’ (3:1–15; 7:45–52; 19:38–42), and Joseph of Arimathea, who, accompanied by Nicodemus, later took the body of Jesus, wrapped it with spices and placed it in a tomb (19:38–42).
Having made this positive statement about many of the Jewish leaders who believed, the evangelist sadly had to qualify it: But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue. The fear on the part of those who believed in Jesus was connected with the decision already taken by the Jewish leaders to put out of the synagogue any who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah (9:22). The Pharisees are frequently linked with the chief priests in decisions taken against Jesus and his followers (7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 18:3). There are indications, elsewhere as here, that the Pharisees took a leading role in making these decisions (7:47–48; 8:3, 13; 9:13, 15, 16, 40; 12:19, 42).
This is the second of three occasions in the Gospel of John where belief in Jesus as the Messiah is linked with the threat of expulsion from the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Expulsion from the synagogue was a terrible thing in a society where one’s identity was tied up with one’s place in the family and community. The fear of the leaders who believed in Jesus was very real. Nevertheless, Jesus did expect his followers to confess him openly, and refusal to do so showed that they loved human praise more than praise from God. In 5:44 Jesus asked the Jewish leaders, ‘How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?’ Wanting praise from their peers meant that they could not acknowledge Jesus openly, and this meant forfeiting the praise that comes from God. While the opinion of others is important to well-being, if it is a choice between the good opinion of others and the good opinion of God, the way for the disciple is clear.
This is the final section of the Book of Signs (1:19 – 12:50) in which the evangelist recounts Jesus’ work in the world. What follows is the Book of Glory (chs. 13–20), which is dominated by the theme of Jesus’ return to the Father. This final section contains Jesus’ last words to the Jews during his public ministry.
44–45. The evangelist introduces these last words by saying, Then Jesus cried out. The evangelist uses the verb ‘to cry out’ (krazō) on four occasions, all related to public declarations (1:15; 7:28, 37; 12:44). Jesus addressed all who were in earshot, but what he had to say would be of particular relevance to those who believed in him but were afraid to confess it openly (12:42). Jesus declared: Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. Jesus insisted repeatedly that his words and works were those of the one who had sent him (7:16; 10:37–38; 14:10–11, 24). It was a reminder to all that to believe in him was to believe in God. It was therefore a challenge to those who claimed to believe in God but rejected Jesus, for in refusing to believe in him they were refusing to believe in God also. Jesus reinforced this declaration by saying, The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. Jesus revealed God not only by his words and works, but also in his person. To see Jesus was to see God. Later, Philip will ask to see the Father, and Jesus will say to him, ‘Don’t you know me, Philip . . . ? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (14:9).
46. Jesus continued, I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. He was holding out to his hearers for the last time an opportunity to escape from the ‘darkness’ by believing in him. Through his very being, actions and teaching he blessed and challenged people with the light of truth. Those who believe in him and accept his teaching don’t stumble about in the darkness of ignorance, but enjoy the light of life (see commentary on 8:12).
47. Included in Jesus’ final words to the Jews was a reminder that he was not passing judgment even upon those who did not obey his teaching: If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. Jesus was repeating here what he had said on previous occasions (3:17; 8:15). While he says here that he did not come to judge the world, there are other places in this Gospel which imply that Jesus will pass judgment on people (5:22, 30). The explanation for the apparent contradiction is that, as long as Jesus was in this world, he did not pass judgment because his purpose in coming into the world was to save, not condemn. On the last day he will exercise judgment (see ‘Additional note: judgment’, pp. 126–127).
48–50. Jesus went on to say: There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. Jesus spoke of the last day several times. Mostly he referred to it as the time when he will raise up those who believe in him (6:39, 40, 44, 54), but on this occasion he spoke of it as a day of judgment. He warned those who rejected his words that those same words would condemn them on the last day. Jesus then explained the reason why his word would be so determinative: For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. The word of Jesus was the word the Father gave him to speak. Therefore, to reject Jesus’ word was to reject God’s word, and no-one can reject God’s word with impunity. Tragically, the word of God which people rejected was a word offering eternal life; thus Jesus concluded, I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say. Jesus spoke as the Father commanded him, offering eternal life to those who would accept his words, which only underlines again how important, for both time and eternity, it is that people accept his word.
Mary anointing Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume and wiping them with her hair was clearly an act of great devotion. It was perhaps mingled with grief, knowing that the Jewish leaders were determined to kill him (11:46–53; 12:7). Jesus defended the extravagant nature of her devotion in the face of Judas Iscariot’s objection, and pointed out to his disciples the limited time in which such devotion could be expressed, whereas opportunities to help the poor would always be available (12:8). Expressions of devotion to the Lord should never be regarded as a waste.
On two occasions in this passage, the evangelist illuminates the significance of events described by appeal to Scripture. On the first occasion, he shows that Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem as the ‘king of Israel’ fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, something his disciples came to appreciate only after his death and resurrection, as the Holy Spirit revealed these things to them (12:15–16; 16:13). On the second occasion, the evangelist points out that the failure of the Jews to believe in Jesus, despite the many signs he performed, did not constitute a failure of God’s purposes. On the contrary, it was simply a fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (12:37–41).
The news that Greeks who had come to Jerusalem for Passover were seeking him prompted Jesus to speak of the hour when the Son of Man would be glorified. But this would not take place with a show of pomp, but rather through his death, something which caused him to be deeply troubled in soul. Sharing our humanity, he may have shrunk from physical death as we might do, but for him much more was involved. When he hung on the cross, the Lord ‘laid on him the iniquity of us all’ (Isa. 53:6), or, as Paul put it, ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21); ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole”’ (Gal. 3:13). It was the awful prospect of becoming humanity’s sin-bearer that troubled his soul then, and would culminate in the desolation experienced on the cross when he cried out, ‘“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)’ (Matt. 27:46).
But as he faced this horrendous prospect, he was also aware of the inestimable good that it would achieve: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds’ (12:24). It appears that the coming of the Greeks was a sign that his death would bring to fruition the blessing promised to Abraham long before: that through him all the nations would be blessed (Gen. 12:2–3; 22:17–18; 26:2–5; 28:12–16). The evangelist drew attention to this when he commented on Caiaphas’s prophecy:
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
(11:51)
And Jesus himself reinforced this when he said, ‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself’ (12:32).
Jesus applied the saying about a seed falling to the ground and dying to his followers as well, when he said,
Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honour the one who serves me.
(12:25–26)
Just as the Lord entered his glory through suffering and death, so too his followers must be prepared to do the same.