JOHN

ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER

1    2    3    4    5
6    7    8    9    10
11    12    13    14    15
16    17    18    19    20    21

Return to Main Table of Contents

Introduction

Although it is the Gospel of Matthew that is widely known to focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of OT messianic expectations, John’s Gospel, too, roots Jesus’ mission firmly in OT conceptualities and specific texts. From the very beginning and throughout the prologue of his book, the Fourth Evangelist operates within a scriptural, salvation-historical framework (Pryor 1992). In his references to the OT John spans the entire range from explicit quotations to verifiable allusions and thematic connections. In keeping with John’s purpose statement, Jesus is identified as the Christ and Son of God and is set in relation to the major figures in Israel’s history, whether Abraham, Jacob, or Moses, as well as the Prophet, by citations of or allusions to Scripture.

The following essay first takes inventory of the explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel (for monograph-length studies see Freed 1965; Reim 1974; Schuchard 1992; and esp. Menken [1996a], who interacts extensively with these and other earlier works). This includes a survey of John’s use of introductory formulas; a comparison between John’s explicit OT citations and the rest of the NT; a survey of the alignment of John’s explicit OT references with the LXX, the MT, or other texts; the attribution of OT quotations in John to specific persons, be it Jesus, the evangelist, or others; a list of OT quotations in John’s Gospel in OT order (including book of the Psalter and author attribution, as appropriate); a list of OT allusions and verbal parallels in John’s Gospel; and a chart of Dead Sea Scrolls parallels to John’s OT usage. Following this introductory material, the study treats all explicit OT quotations as well as allusive and thematic OT material in the order they appear in John’s Gospel.

Explicit Old Testament Quotations in John’s Gospel

There are fourteen explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel, nine in the first part (chaps. 1–12), five in the second part (chaps. 13–21) (Carson 1988: 246–51). The citation format changes from the first part to the second, the latter featuring a series of “fulfillment quotations” (see chart below). Structurally, the most significant OT quotations are found at the end of the first part in 12:38, 40. Many of the numerous allusions and a considerable amount of the OT symbolism relate in one way or another to various Jewish religious festivals. In terms of distribution, seven quotations (or 50 percent) are from Psalms; four from Isaiah; two from Zechariah; one from the Pentateuch.

The overall purpose of the use of the OT in John’s Gospel, as evidenced by the formal quotations, is to show that both Jesus’ public ministry and his cross-death fulfilled scriptural patterns and prophecies (Porter 1994: 401, citing Evans 1993: 174). The clustering of explicit quotations around the motifs of Jewish obduracy (12:38, 40) and Jesus’ passion (19:24, 28, 36–37) suggests that a major burden informing John’s use of explicit OT quotations is to provide his readers with a biblical rationale for the rejection of Jesus as Messiah (cf. 20:30–31). The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 underlies John’s portrayal of Jesus especially in chapter 12. Davidic typology is present in 2:17; 15:25; 19:24, 28; and several other texts.

Introductory Formulas in John’s Gospel

The following is a survey of introductory formulas used for each of the explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel, followed by a brief general overview. For more detailed discussions, see the treatment of the specific quotations below. An asterisk marks passages where no OT text is cited or identifiable.

John	Introductory Formula	Translation
1:23	Ephē	he said
2:17	hoti gegrammenon estin	that it is written
6:31	kathōs estin gegrammenon	as it is written
6:45	estin gegrammenon en tois prophētais	it is written in the prophets
7:38*	kathōs eipen hē graphē	as Scripture said
7:42*	ouch hē graphē eipen	has not Scripture said
10:34	ouk estin gegrammenon en tō nomō hymōn	is it not written in your law
12:13	—	—
12:14	kathōs estin gegrammenon	as it is written
12:38	hina ho logos Ēsaiou tou prophētou plērōthē hon eipen	in order that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled which he spoke
12:39	hoti palin eipen Ēsaias	for again Isaiah said
13:18	all’ hina hē graphē plērōthē	but in order that Scripture might be fulfilled
15:25	all’ hina plērōthē ho logos ho en tō nomō autōn gegrammenos hoti	but in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in the law
17:12*	hina hē graphē plērōthē	in order that Scripture might be fulfilled
19:24	hina hē graphē plērōthē [hē legousa]	in order that Scripture might be fulfilled [which says]
19:28*	hina teleiōthē hē graphē	in order that Scripture might be fulfilled
19:36	hina hē graphē plērōthē	in order that Scripture might be fulfilled
19:37	kai palin hetera graphē legei	and again another Scripture says

The seven OT quotations in 1:1–12:36a are somewhat sporadic (chaps. 3–5, 8–9, and 11 do not feature any formal OT citations) and characterized by a certain degree of variety, though the phrase estin gegrammenon or gegrammenon estin (“it is written”) constitutes a common denominator (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; the only exceptions are citations attributed to the Baptist in 1:23 and to the crowd in 12:13).

A marked shift takes place at 12:38, the evangelist’s concluding verdict on the Jews, which features the first of a string of seven fulfillment quotations (12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37 [the two follow-up quotations in 12:39 and 19:37 are no real exceptions]). The phrase hina hē graphē plērōthē (“in order that Scripture might be fulfilled”) is found in 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 36.

Although the purposes of the formal OT citations in the first half of John’s Gospel are varied, in the second half of his Gospel the evangelist consistently seeks to emphasize the fulfillment of Scripture with regard to Jesus’ passion and the obduracy motif associated with it (Carson 1988: 248, with reference to Evans 1982a). The closer the narrative approaches the cross, the more forcefully John stresses that even Jesus’ rejection by the Jews fulfills Scripture.

Old Testament Quotations in John and the Rest of the New Testament

The following chart, organized by type of introductory formula and in chronological order, provides a comparison between the explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel and the OT usage found in the rest of the NT. Again, a brief overview commentary is provided immediately following this chart. An asterisk indicates either the presence of a different introductory formula or the lack of one.

John	Old Testament	Rest of the New Tesament
“It is written”:
1:23*	Isa. 40:3	Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; cf. Luke 1:76
2:17	Ps. 69:9a	—
6:31	Ps. 78:24b	cf. 1 Cor. 10:3; Rev. 2:17
6:45	Isa. 54:13a	—
10:34	Ps. 82:6a	—
12:13*	Ps. 118:26a	Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9–10
12:15	Zech. 9:9	Matt. 21:5

“In order that Scripture might be fulfilled”:

12:38	Isa. 53:1	Rom. 10:16
12:40	Isa. 6:10	Matt. 13:15; Mark 4:12; Acts 28:27
13:18	Ps. 41:9b	cf. Matt. 26:23; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; John 17:12; Acts 1:16
15:25	Ps. 35:19; 69:4	—
19:24	Ps. 22:18	see Ps. 22:1 quotation in Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; cf. Mark 9:12; Luke 24:26
19:36	Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20	—
19:37	Zech. 12:10	Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7

John’s use of the OT, as well as Jesus’ use of the OT according to John, are generally in keeping with that found in the other canonical Gospels, in the book of Acts, the letter to the Romans, and the book of Revelation. The Baptist’s reference to Isa. 40:3 occurs also in the Synoptics (though only in John is the passage found on the Baptist’s lips). References to Ps. 118:25–26 and Zech. 9:9 are present also in Matthew, and the quotation of Ps. 118 is also in Mark. The citations of Isa. 53:1 and 6:10 are paralleled in Romans and Matthew, Mark and Acts respectively. The reference to Ps. 22:18 is corroborated by the specific quotations of Ps. 22:1 in Matthew and Mark and possible allusions to the psalm in Mark and Luke. Finally, the citation of Zech. 12:10 finds parallels in Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7.

Interestingly, both of Jesus’ appeals to OT Scripture in the first half of this Gospel (6:45; 10:34) are unique to John, as is Jesus’ OT reference in 15:25. This may suggest that John is seeking to supplement the Synoptic Gospels and, in any case, attests to John’s independence in writing his Gospel. As M. Daly-Denton (2004: 121) notes, John’s use of the psalms, too, while generally congruent with the Synoptics, evidences a certain form of independence—a feature highlighted further by John’s penchant for formal citation. Daly-Denton also notes that John’s use of the psalms is spread throughout the entire Gospel rather than being concentrated on the passion narrative, as is the case in the Synoptics.

Alignment of Old Testament Quotations in John’s Gospel with the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint

The text form underlying the various explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel has been the subject of considerable debate (see esp. Menken 1996a). The following chart provides an initial survey. More detailed treatments are provided in the discussions of specific passages below.

John	Old Testament	Relationship with [proto-] Masoretic Text, Septuagint
1:23	Isa. 40:3	LXX? Change from hetoimasate . . . eutheias to euthynate
2:17	Ps. 69:9a	LXX? Change from katephagen to kataphagetai
6:31	Ps. 78:24b	LXX? Phagein at end rather than beginning; ek tou added
6:45	Isa. 54:13a	LXX? As in MT, pantes nom. rather than acc. (as in LXX); as in LXX, theou rather than kyriou; “your sons” omitted
10:34	Ps. 82:6a	Same as LXX = MT
12:13	Ps.118:26a	Same as LXX = MT (adds kai ho basileus tou Israēl)
12:15	Zech. 9:9	Independent adaptation of LXX/MT: “do not fear” added (Isa. 40:9?); sou omitted; “sitting,” not “mounting”; “colt of a donkey” (Gen. 49:11?)
12:38	Isa. 53:1	Same as LXX = MT
12:40	Isa. 6:10	Independent adaption of LXX/MT: “hearing” omitted; concentric structure changed to parallel one; etc.
13:18	Ps. 41:9b	Seems independent of LXX; own translation from Hebrew?
15:25	Ps. 35:19 or 69:4	LXX? Accurately reflects both MT and LXX
19:24	Ps. 22:18	Same as LXX = MT
19:36	Exod. 12:46 or Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20	LXX? Combination of Exod. 12:46/Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20
19:37	Zech. 12:10	Close to Hebrew; LXX misreads the Hebrew; testimonium?

Overall, as the detailed discussions below will demonstrate, John seems to exhibit a pattern of closeness to the OT text in the Hebrew and as reflected in the LXX. John’s default version seems to have been the LXX, but in no way does he use it slavishly, and throughout he exhibits a highly intelligent and discerning mode of OT usage. In four passages his Greek is identical to the LXX wording (10:34; 12:13, 38; 19:24). In several other passages John likely adapts the LXX rendering by making minor changes to suit his context (1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 15:25; 19:36). In four cases John seems to be independent of the LXX (12:15, 40; 13:18; 19:37), whereby 12:15, 40 represent independent adaptations of the relevant texts; 13:18 may feature John’s own translation from the Hebrew; 19:37 may draw on a Christian testimonium (in this final case the LXX is unsuitable because it misconstrues the Hebrew). It therefore appears that John was familiar with both the Hebrew text and the LXX (as well as with Jesus’ own use and earlier Christian quotation practices) and thus was able to cite the Scriptures either in the exact or slightly adapted LXX version or to draw on the Hebrew where this suited his purposes or seemed necessary for some reason or another. Finally, in keeping with Jewish exegetical practice, John at times clusters two OT texts (12:13, 15; 12:38, 40; 19:36, 37) or combines interrelated texts (e.g., Zech. 9:9; Isa. 40:9; Gen. 49:11 LXX in 12:15; Exod. 12:46/Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20 in 19:36; see also 7:38) (see Menken 1996a: 52–53, 159–60).

Attribution of Old Testament Quotations in John’s Gospel and Old Testament Passages Cited

Yet another way to categorize the explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel is by way of attribution to specific Johannine characters. The chart below is followed by a brief summary discussion.

John	Attribution	Old Testament Passage
1:23	John the Baptist	Isa. 40:3
2:17	disciples/evangelist	Ps. 69:9a (David)
6:31	crowd	Ps. 78:24b (Asaph)
6:45	Jesus	Isa. 54:13a
10:34	Jesus	Ps. 82:6a (Asaph)
12:13	crowd	Ps. 118:26a (none)
12:15	evangelist	Zech. 9:9
12:38	evangelist	Isa. 53:1
12:40	evangelist	Isa. 6:10
13:18	Jesus	Ps. 41:9b (David)
15:25	Jesus	Ps. 35:19 or 69:4 (David)
19:24	evangelist	Ps. 22:18 (David)
19:36	evangelist	Exod. 12:46/Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20
19:37	evangelist	Zech. 12:10

Four OT quotations in John’s Gospel are attributed to Jesus (6:45; 10:34; 13:18; 15:25), seven to the evangelist (2:17; 12:15, 38, 40; 19:24, 36, 37), one to the Baptist (1:23), and two to the crowd (6:31; 12:13). Three of Jesus’ four OT references are to the psalms, and one is to the book of Isaiah. References to Isaiah are also attributed to the Baptist and the evangelist. Both quotations of Zechariah are the work of the evangelist. Overall, the evangelist’s use of the OT is varied, featuring two references each to Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah and one to the Pentateuch. Interestingly, references to Davidic psalms are limited to Jesus’ interaction with, or perception of, the disciples (2:17; 13:18; 15:25; 19:24).

Regardless of the person to whom the respective quotes are attributed, ultimately all references have Jesus and his messianic identity in view (Carson 1988: 246). John 1:23 defines the Baptist’s role, over against that of Jesus, as a voice preparing the way for the coming king. John 2:17 and 12:15 align Jesus’ actions with those anticipated in OT messianic passages. John 6:31 and 12:13 likewise relate Jesus to messianic expectations rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Opposition to Jesus fulfills the pattern established in the OT (12:38–40; 13:18; 15:25), as do various details of Jesus’ death (19:24, 36, 37; see also 19:28). Jesus is the Son of God (10:34), and all of God’s true sons will be taught by Yahweh through him (6:45).

Old Testament Quotations in John’s Gospel in Old Testament Order

In addition to the listing of explicit OT quotations in John’s Gospel, it may be helpful to provide a chronological chart of these references in OT order. In the case of Psalms references, the book of the Psalter and any author attribution in the title (where available) are provided as well. An asterisk marks Psalms quotations proposed by Daly-Denton (2004).

Old Testament	John
Exod. 12:46/Num. 9:12	19:36
Ps. 22:18	(David; Book 1) 19:24
Ps. 34:20 (David; Book 1)	19:36*
Ps. 35:19 (David; Book 1)	15:25
Ps. 41:9b (David; Book 1)	13:18
Ps. 69:4 (David; Book 2)	15:25
Ps. 69:9a (David; Book 2)	2:17
Ps. 69:21 (David, Book 2)	19:28*
Ps. 78:15, 20 (Asaph; Book 3)	7:38*
Ps. 78:24b (Asaph; Book 3)	6:31
Ps. 82:6a (Asaph; Book 3)	10:34
Ps. 118:26a (none; Book 5)	12:13
Isa. 6:10	12:40
Isa. 40:3	1:23
Isa. 53:1	12:38
Isa. 54:13a	6:45
Zech. 9:9	12:15
Zech. 12:10	19:37

The direct OT quotations in John are concentrated on a select few portions of the canon. The OT theological center, at least as far as explicit OT quotations are concerned, is clearly the Psalter (Daly-Denton 2000; 2004; cf. Wifall 1974). References to the psalms are spread fairly evenly throughout the entire Gospel, through both the first part (2:17; 6:31; 10:34; 12:13) and the second part (13:18; 15:25; 19:28; cf. 19:28, 36). Both the quantity and the consistent distribution of references to the Psalter in John’s Gospel are truly impressive and attest to the significance of the psalms in John’s theology and Jesus’ self-understanding and to the connection between Jesus’ messianic claims and identity and the person and kingship of David (Menken 1996a: 44).

The other important OT portion for the theology of John is the second part of Isaiah, which, in terms of explicit quotations, is represented in the Fourth Gospel at the beginning (1:23), the middle (6:45), and the end (12:40) of the first part (F. W. Young 1955; Evans 1987; Janowski and Stuhlmacher 2004). The Baptist, Jesus, and the Fourth Evangelist, respectively, draw on passages found in the second part of Isaiah to establish (1) the identity of the Baptist as one who prepares the way for the coming of Jesus, the royal Messiah; (2) the fact that it is through Jesus’ teaching ministry that God’s people are taught in the eschatological age inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah; (3) the notion that the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish nation fulfills the OT characterization of the Jews as resisting God’s message as delivered through his appointed spokesmen.

Last but not least, Zechariah is represented significantly in John’s Gospel as well with two major references at the end of the first and second parts respectively (Bruce 1960–1961; France 1971: 103–10, 148–50, 208–9). Both references are decidedly christological in focus, the first depicting Jerusalem’s visitation by the Messiah, a humble servant-king who enters the city mounted on a donkey, the second shifting the point of application from Yahweh to Jesus as the object of the people’s looking “on the one they have pierced” (see further commentary at 19:37 below).

Old Testament Allusions and Verbal Parallels in John’s Gospel

The penultimate survey chart lists verifiable OT allusions and verbal parallels in John’s Gospel. A more detailed discussion is provided in the following commentary. It is often precarious to identify OT allusions, especially in light of the standard applied in the present study: authorial intention as expressed in the text. For this reason the following chart remains, of necessity, tentative. The list below is conservative; only those passages have been included that can be determined with a reasonable degree of confidence to have been intended by the Fourth Evangelist as allusions or verbal parallels to specific OT texts. Beyond this, the reader is referred to the discussion in the following commentary, which includes references to a variety of other echoes and relevant OT background passages. In order to provide a full view of OT references for the reader, explicit quotations are included in square brackets.

John	Old Testament
1:1	Gen. 1:1
1:14	Exod. 34:6
1:17	Exod. 34:6
1:18	Exod. 33:20
1:21	Deut. 18:15, 18
[1:23	Isa. 40:3]
1:29, 36	Isa. 53:6–7
1:45	Deut. 18:15, 18
1:49	Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Zeph. 3:15
1:51	Gen. 28:12
2:5	Gen. 41:55
[2:17	Ps. 69:9a]
3:5	Ezek. 36:25–27
3:8	Eccles. 11:5
3:13	Prov. 30:4?
3:14	Num. 21:9; Isa. 52:13
3:16	Gen. 22:2, 12, 16
3:28	Mal. 3:1
4:5	Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32
4:10	Num. 20:8–11; cf. 21:16–18
4:14	Isa. 12:3; Jer. 2:13
4:20	Deut. 11:29; 12:5–14; 27:12; Josh. 8:33; Ps. 122:1–5
4:22	Isa. 2:3?
4:36	Amos 9:13?
4:37	Mic. 6:15?
5:27	Dan. 7:13
5:29	Dan. 12:2
5:45	Deut. 31:26–27
5:46	Deut. 18:15, 18
6:14	Deut. 18:15, 18
6:29	Mal. 3:1
[6:31	Ps. 78:24b]
[6:45	Isa. 54:13a]
7:22	Gen. 17:10–13; Lev. 12:3
7:24	Lev. 19:15
7:38	Neh. 9:15, 19–20; cf. Num. 20:11 et al.; Ps. 77:16, 20 LXX; Isa. 58:11; Zech. 14:8
7:40	Deut. 18:15, 18
7:42	2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:3–4; Mic. 5:2
7:51	Deut. 1:16–17; 17:4; 19:18
8:12	Isa. 9:1–2; cf. 49:6
8:15	1 Sam. 16:7
8:17	Deut. 17:6; 19:15
8:28	Isa. 52:13
8:35	Gen. 21:1–21
8:44	Gen. 3:4 (cf. 2:17); Isa. 14:12?
9:2	Exod. 20:5; Ezek. 18:20
9:5 [= 8:12]	Isa. 9:1–2; cf. 49:6
9:24	Josh. 7:19
9:34	Ps. 51:5
10:3–4	Num. 27:15–18
10:8	Jer. 23:1–2; Ezek. 34:2–3
10:16	Isa. 56:8; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24
10:33	Lev. 24:16
[10:34	Ps. 82:6a]
12:8	Deut. 15:11
[12:13	Ps. 118:26a]
[12:15	Zech. 9:9]
12:27	Ps. 6:3; 42:5, 11
12:32	Isa. 52:13
12:34	Ps. 89:4, 36–37?
[12:38	Isa. 53:1]
[12:40	Isa. 6:10]
12:41	Isa. 6:1
[13:18	Ps. 41:9b]
15:1	Isa. 5:1–7; cf. Jer. 2:21
[15:25	Ps. 35:19; 69:4]
16:22	Isa. 66:14
16:32	Zech. 13:7
17:12	Ps. 41:9
19:7	Lev. 24:16
19:18	Isa. 22:16; cf. 52:13
[19:24	Ps. 22:18]
19:28–29	Ps. 69:21 (cf. 22:15)
19:31	Deut. 21:22–23
[19:36	Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20]
[19:37	Zech. 12:10]
19:38	Isa. 53:9
20:22	Gen. 2:7
20:23	Isa. 22:22?

Apart from the fourteen direct OT quotations listed above, John’s Gospel features numerous OT allusions and verbal parallels with the OT (Carson 1988: 251–53). The range of allusions spans virtually the entire OT. Particularly frequent are allusions to the Pentateuch, Psalms, and OT prophetic literature, particularly Isaiah (see also Ezekiel and Zechariah). In some cases, a given Johannine reference presupposes a foundational passage in the OT (e.g., 19:31 with reference to Deut. 21:22–23). At times, reference is made to a particular OT event (e.g., 3:14; 6:32; 7:22–23). In yet other instances, a given statement in John’s Gospel employs OT language (e.g., 16:22 with reference to Isa. 66:14).

More significant still are verifiable OT allusions and verbal parallels that draw on the theology of a particular OT passage (e.g., 10:16 with reference to Isa. 56:8; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24). Together with the direct OT quotations and references to broader OT themes (including the Johannine replacement motif [see Carson 1988: 253–56]), the OT allusions found in John’s Gospel create a web of intertextuality that grounds the theology of the Fourth Gospel profoundly in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly with regard to the person and teaching of Jesus (Carson [1988: 246] cites the following passages “where ‘the Scripture’ or some OT person or persons are said to speak or write of Jesus or of some aspect of his teaching or mission”: 1:45; 2:22; 3:10; 5:39, 45–46; 12:34; 20:9).

The discussion below of OT-related material in John focuses on verifiable OT allusions (or “higher-volume echoes,” per Hays 1989: 24) and thematic interconnections. To the extent that it can be determined with reasonable confidence, Johannine authorial attention will be considered to be the primary criterion for treatment or nontreatment of a given OT text. This procedure is in keeping with the acknowledgment by R. B. Hays (1989: 29) that the “concept of allusion depends . . . on the notion of authorial intention” and observes the distinction between echoes and allusions drawn by J. Hollander (1981: 64), who notes that “echo is a metaphor of, and for, alluding” that “does not depend on conscious intention,” while striking a more conservative note than both of these authors.

Old Testament Quotations in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Finally, it is interesting to compare John’s OT quotations with references to the Hebrew Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only citations in community documents are listed below.

John	Old Testament	Dead Sea Scrolls
1:23	Isa. 40:3	1QS VIII, 14; 4Q176 1–2 I, 6–7; 4Q259 III, 4–5
6:45	Isa. 54:13	CD-B XX, 4?
10:34	Ps. 82:6a	cf. use of Ps. 82:1–2 in 11Q13 II, 10–11
12:15	Zech. 9:9	1QM XII, 13?

Most notable are three references to Isa. 40:3 in 1QS; 4Q176; 4Q259, underscoring the prominence of this OT prophetic passage in the Dead Sea community, especially with regard to its self-understanding (Charlesworth 1997; Brooke 1994; see also Metso 1998; VanderKam 1999). Also worthy of comment are the use of Ps. 82:1–2 in 11Q13 II, 10–11 and the possible references to Isa. 54:13 in CD-B XX, 4 (Menken 1996a: 68) and to Zech. 9:9 in 1QM XII, 13. Beyond this, most of the OT passages cited in John’s Gospel are attested in the biblical documents found at Qumran, which indicates that the Dead Sea community was familiar with these passages and used them in worship and their study of Scripture.

The Prologue (1:1–18)

The prologue’s opening words, “In the beginning was the Word” (1:1), echo the opening phrase of the Hebrew Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), and, in an effect similar to Luke’s use of septuagintal language in the first two chapters of his Gospel, establish a canonical link between the first words of the OT Scriptures and John’s Gospel (Schwarz 1982). Yet instead of “In the beginning God created,” John has “In the beginning [i.e., prior to creation] was the Word.” This locates Jesus’ existence in eternity past with God and sets the stage for John’s lofty Christology, which is unmatched by any of the other canonical Gospels.

The term “the Word” conveys the notion of divine self-expression or speech (cf. Ps. 19:1–4). The Genesis creation account provides ample testimony to the effectiveness of God’s word: he speaks, and things come into being (Gen. 1:3, 9; cf. 1:11, 15, 24, 29–30). Both psalmists and prophets portray God’s word in close-to-personified terms (Ps. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15, 18; Isa. 55:10–11), but only John claims that this word has appeared in space-time history as an actual person, Jesus Christ (1:14, 17).

Most critical in this regard is Isaiah’s depiction of God’s word as going out from his mouth and not returning to him empty, but as accomplishing what he desires and achieving the purpose for which he sent it (Isa. 55:11; cf. 40:8). In this passage Isaiah provides the framework for John’s “sending” Christology, which presents Jesus as the Word sent by God the Father who pursues and accomplishes his mission in obedience to the one who sent him. This sender-sent relationship, in turn, provides the paradigm for Jesus’ relationship with his followers (cf. esp. 17:18; 20:21–23; see Köstenberger 1998b).

In the following verses of the prologue, the evangelist, after explicitly referring to the Word’s instrumentality in creation (1:3), continues to draw on Genesis motifs, particularly the contrast between light and darkness (1:4–5, 7–9; cf. Gen. 1:3–5, 14–18) and the notion of life (1:4; cf. Gen. 1:20–31; 2:7; 3:20). Significantly, “light” symbolism is also found in later OT prophetic, including messianic, passages (e.g., Isa. 9:2; 42:6–7; 49:6; 60:1–5; Mal. 4:2; cf. Luke 1:78–79; see already Num. 24:17; cf. 4Q175 9–13).

The reference to believers’ right to become “children of God” in 1:12 clearly builds on the OT characterization of Israel as God’s children (Deut. 14:1; see also the reference to Israel as God’s son and firstborn in Exod. 4:22; cf. 1 John 3:1–2). On the heels of the oblique reference to the rejection of the Word by “his own” (i.e., the Jews) in 1:11, however, the reference to children of God “born not of natural descent . . . but born of God” in 1:13 distinguishes between an illegitimate, presumptuous claim of divine sonship based on physical descent and true divine sonship based on faith in the name of God’s Messiah (1:12; cf. 8:41–47; 11:51–52).

Later in the prologue one finds allusions to God’s presence among Israel during the exodus (1:14: eskēnōsen, “he pitched his tent”; cf. Exod. 25:8–9; 33:7; 2 Sam. 7:6; Ps. 15:1; 26:8; 27:4–6; 43:3; 74:7; 84:1; Ezek. 37:27–28) and to God’s giving of the law through Moses (1:17; cf. Exod. 31:18; 34:28). In both cases John’s purpose of adducing these OT antecedent passages is to locate Jesus at the climactic end of the spectrum of God’s self-disclosure to his people. In the past God was present among his people in the tabernacle (e.g., Exod. 33:9; 40:34–35) and the temple (e.g., 1 Kings 8:10–11) (for a discussion of God’s “dwelling” [šākan] among his people in the OT, see Carson 1991: 127–28), but now he has taken up residence among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (1:14). In the past God made himself known through the law, but now he revealed himself definitively in and through Jesus Christ (1:16–17) (for the interpretive issues surrounding the phrase “grace [in return] for grace” in 1:16 and the explication of this phrase in 1:17, see Köstenberger 2004: 46–48 and also here below).

The reference in 1:14 to Jesus taking up residence among God’s people resulting in the revelation of God’s glory (the first occurrence of the term doxa in this Gospel) also harks back to OT references to the manifestation of the presence and glory (kābôd) of God, be it in theophanies, the tabernacle, or the temple (cf., e.g., Exod. 33:22; Num. 14:10; Deut. 5:24; Ps. 26:8; 102:15 [102:16 MT]; Jer. 17:12; Ezek. 10:4; see Köstenberger 1997: 230). Whereas the Second Temple period was marked by the relative paucity of God’s revelation because of Israel’s apostasy, John makes clear that now, in Jesus, God’s glory has taken up residence in the midst of his people once again. To bring glory to God is said to be Jesus’ overriding purpose in John’s Gospel (9:3; 11:4, 40). As he brings glory to God, glory also comes to Jesus. This continues what was true of Jesus already prior to his coming, since glory characterized Jesus’ eternal relationship with God (17:5) as well as his preincarnate state (12:41). While on earth, Jesus’ glory is manifested to his first followers particularly through his “signs” (cf. 2:11; see Carson 1991: 128). As the obedient, dependent Son, Jesus brings glory to God the Father throughout his entire ministry. However, this he does supremely by submitting to the cross, which for John is the place of God’s—and Jesus’—ultimate glorification (cf. 12:23–33; 13:31–32; 14:13; 17:1, 4–5). The themes of light and life, likewise, culminate in the person of Jesus Christ, in whom these divine realities and gifts find fulfillment (1:4–5, 7–9).

Another significant and verifiable OT allusion is present in the Johannine depiction of Jesus as “full of grace and truth” (1:14, 17), which in all probability harks back to the phrase “loving-kindness [ḥesed] and truth [ĕmet]” in Exod. 34:6 (cf. 33:18–19; see Mowvley 1984: 137; Kuyper 1964: 3–13; cf. Ps. 25:10; 26:3; 40:10; Prov. 16:6; see also Ps. 83:12 LXX [84:11 ET]). In its original context this joint expression refers to God’s covenant faithfulness to his people Israel. John’s message is that this covenant faithfulness found ultimate expression in the sending of God’s one-of-a-kind Son (1:14, 18) (on the expression monogenēs, see esp. Pendrick 1995; Winter 1953: 336; cf. Schlatter 1948: 25; see also Moody 1953; contra Dahms 1983).

The predominant sense of the term monogenēs in the OT and the Apocrypha is “only child” (e.g., Judg. 11:34; Tob. 3:15; 8:17). Being an only child, and thus irreplaceable, makes a child of special value to the parents (cf. Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; see Pendrick 1995: 593–94). Hence the LXX often uses agapētos (“beloved”) in the place of monogenēs (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Amos 8:10; Jer. 6:26; Zech. 12:10; cf. Prov. 4:3; in Judg. 11:34 both terms are used). The seminal event in OT history in this regard is Abraham’s offering of Isaac, who in Genesis 22:2, 12, 16 is called Abraham’s “one-of-a-kind” (yāḥîd) son (note the probable allusion to this text in John 3:16), even though the patriarch had earlier fathered Ishmael (cf. Heb. 11:17; Josephus, Ant. 1.22: monogenēs; see EDNT 2:440; Winter 1953: 337–40; Moody 1953, esp. 217). Thus monogenēs means not “only begotten,” but “one-of-a-kind” son (in Isaac’s case, “son of promise”; according to Heb. 11:17, Isaac is a typos of Christ; see Pendrick 1995; Moody 1953; W. O. Walker 1994: 41n37).

In both OT and Second Temple literature the Son of David and Israel are called God’s “firstborn” or even “only” son (cf. Ps. 89:27; 4 Ezra 6:58; Pss. Sol. 18:4; Jub. 18:2, 11, 15). In a decisive step further, John applies the designation monogenēs to God’s “one-of-a-kind” Son par excellence, Jesus (cf. 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). This is similar to the designation of Jesus as God’s “beloved son,” which surfaces in the Synoptics in the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration and in the parable of the Wicked Tenants (esp. Mark 1:11; 9:7; 12:6; cf. Luke 20:13; see Pendrick 1995: 595n42).

In keeping with the Isaac narrative and the parable of the Wicked Tenants, the term monogenēs in the present passage thus contains a significant soteriological dimension, culminating in John’s assertion in 3:16 that “God so loved the world that he sent his one-of-a-kind Son” (cf. 3:18). This designation also provides the basis for Jesus’ claim that no one can come to the Father except through him (14:6). Moreover, it is likely that “one of a kind” in John’s context refers to Jesus’ uniqueness in that “he is both the human Son of Joseph and the divine Son of God” (W. O. Walker 1994: 41n37).

Also important for understanding the larger framework of John’s use of the OT is the implicit contrast between God’s giving of the law through Moses (cf. Exod. 31:18; 34:28) and the appearing of grace and truth through Jesus Christ in 1:17 (cf. 1:16; see also the brief comments on this passage above). As the Fourth Evangelist notes, “True grace—that is, final, eschatological grace—came through Jesus Christ” (Köstenberger 2004: 47; cf. Edwards 1988: 11, following Brown 1966–1970: 16). Rather than drawing a sharp contrast between God’s giving of the law at Sinai and the grace and truth brought by Jesus (note the absence of the word “but” between the two phrases in 1:17), John in essence presents Jesus as the climactic eschatological revelation of God’s covenant love and faithfulness (thus there is no real tension with texts such as Matt. 5:18 or Rom. 10:4; on the former text, see esp. Carson 1984: 140–47). As the ensuing narrative will develop in greater detail, Jesus’ ministry is superior to Moses (5:46–47; cf. 9:28), just as he is superior to Jacob (4:12) and Abraham (8:53).

The Book of Signs (1:19–12:50)

The first half of John’s Gospel is given primarily to a narration of seven of Jesus’ signs addressed specifically to the Jews (Köstenberger 1995). There are two major OT antecedents for Jesus’ signs: (1) the signs and wonders performed by Moses at the exodus; (2) prophetic symbolic acts denoting future judgment (e.g., Isa. 20:3). Many of these signs proceed against the backdrop of the OT. The first sign, Jesus’ turning of water into wine at the wedding of Cana (2:1–11), contrasts the barrenness of first-century Judaism with the end-time messianic joy inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah. In the second possible sign, Jesus performs the prophetic act of clearing the temple (2:13–22), symbolically conveying future judgment on the Jewish nation. At the occasion of the third sign, the long-distance healing of the royal official’s son (4:46–54), Jesus excoriates the people for being dependent on “signs and wonders”—the only instance of this expression in the Gospel.

Chapters 5–10, which are characterized by mounting controversy between Jesus and his Jewish opponents, feature the second set of three of Jesus’ signs: the healing of the man who had been lame for thirty-eight years and the subsequent Sabbath controversy, in which Jesus claims that his work is congruent with, and continuous of, the creative activity of God (chap. 5); the feeding of the multitude plus the ensuing “bread of life” discourse (chap. 6), which presents the experience of wilderness Israel under Moses, particularly God’s provision of “bread from heaven,” as the backdrop for Jesus’ messianic activity; and the healing of the man born blind (chap. 9), which represents an acted parable of the blind receiving sight by the ministry of the Messiah and of those who claim to see being made blind by their rejection of the Messiah.

The final and climactic Johaninne sign, Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead, is part of the transition section in chapters 11–12, which show the ultimate hardening of the Jews against Jesus and the revelation of God in his signs, works, and words and thus set the stage for chapters 13–21, which narrate Jesus’ formation of the new messianic community in and through his inner circle, the Twelve (minus Judas). Healing the lame, feeding the hungry, giving sight to the blind, and raising the dead, according to the OT, are activities characteristic of the ministry of the Messiah, as is made clear by Jesus’ response to the messengers sent by John the Baptist in the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me” (Matt. 11:4–6; cf. Isa. 35:5–6; 42:18; 61:1).

Hence John’s purpose statement, made explicit in 20:30–31, of demonstrating that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus, is fulfilled in the first half of his Gospel. The overarching vindication of God’s righteousness in and through Jesus (theodicy) makes clear that the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah took place in the face of the everincreasing revelation of God’s character and of his divine nature through the Messiah; and Jesus is shown to engage in a ministry of ever-escalating, continually startling expressions of his divinely inspired mission in fulfillment of a variety of OT texts and typological patterns pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah. While therefore the number of specific OT quotations is relatively small, the OT serves as a continual backdrop to the Johannine narrative. It remains to trace the unfolding of John’s story with special attention to OT quotations, allusions, and thematic OT connections in greater detail below.

John the Baptist and the Inception of Jesus’ Ministry (1:19–51)

SURVEY

This section, which narrates John the Baptist’s witness to the Jews and concerning Jesus (1:19–28, 29–34) and the results of the Baptist’s witness at the inception of Jesus’ ministry (1:35–51), features one explicit OT quotation (1:23) and several likely OT allusions (1:21, 29, 36, 45, 49, 51). It is significant that the first explicit OT quotation in this Gospel is attributed to John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, clarifying his status and at the same time pointing to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. The OT allusions in chapter 1, likewise, relate in one way or another to the Baptist’s or Jesus’ identity: in 1:21 the Baptist denies being the Prophet spoken of by Moses; in 1:45 it is Philip’s testimony that the one of whom Moses wrote in the law and of whom the prophets wrote as well is Jesus. The complex OT background to the Baptist’s reference to Jesus as “the lamb of God” in 1:29 is discussed in some detail below. Nathanael’s address of Jesus as “Son of God” and “King of Israel” (1:49) also speaks of Jesus in OT terms. The final verse of the chapter, 1:51, unmistakably alludes to the narrative involving Jacob and Bethel in Gen. 28:12.

DISCUSSION

When queried by the Jerusalem delegation, the Baptist denies being the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet (1:19–21). Within the literary structure of the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist’s threefold denial at the very outset of the Johannine narrative provides the positive equivalent of Peter’s later denial of Jesus prior to Jesus’ passion (18:15–18, 25–27). The Baptist’s first denial—he is not the Christ—reiterates what the reader of John’s Gospel already knows: the Baptist is not the expected deliverer or Messiah (1:15; see also 1:8: “not the light”; 3:28). The Greek term christos, like its Hebrew counterpart, māšiaḥ, means “anointed one.” The term was applied in the OT to a variety of men who were set apart and anointed to serve God and his people in a special capacity (such as priest or king), but OT predictive prophecy gave rise to the expectation that there would be a future figure, the Anointed One, sent by God to deliver and rule his people (see Horbury 1998).

Messianic hopes were widespread in early first-century Palestine (Horsley 1992). Many Jews waited for the greater Son of David predicted to be coming in the OT (see 2 Sam. 7:11b–16; Hos. 3:5; cf. Matt. 1:1, 6, 17; Luke 3:31; Rom. 1:3). However, people were not necessarily united in their expectations, nor were these necessarily in keeping with scriptural predictions. The Fourth Evangelist gathers several messianic expectations current in Jesus’ day in chapter 7 of his Gospel.

With regard to the Baptist’s second denial, the people’s question of whether or not John was Elijah certainly was appropriate: not only did the Baptist display the demeanor of a prophet, but also he resembled Elijah in his rugged lifestyle (Matt. 3:4; cf. 2 Kings 1:8) and powerful message of judgment (Matt. 3:7–12; Luke 3:7–17) (see Morris 1995: 119). Yet John nonetheless denied being Elijah (cf. 5:35), the figure whose arrival many first-century Jews expected in addition to that of the Messiah (Matt. 16:14 pars.; 17:3–4, 10 pars.; Matt. 27:47, 49 par.; Sir. 48:10; m. Šeqal. 2:5; m. Soṭah 9:15; m. B. Mesiʿa 1:8; m. ʿEd. 8:7; probably also 1QS IX, 11). According to Mal. 4:5, Elijah, who had never died (2 Kings 2:11), was to come “before that great and dreadful day of the LORD” (see Morris 1995: 118). Some expected him to settle rabbinic disputes; others thought that he would perform great miracles or introduce the Messiah (e.g., 4 Ezra 6:26–27; Justin, 1 Apol. 35.1; see Beasley-Murray 1999: 24). In any case, he would “restore all things” (Matt. 17:11), turning the hearts of the fathers to their children and vice versa (Mal. 4:6; cf. Sir. 48:10; Luke 1:17).

Although John denied literally being the returning prophet Elijah, according to the Synoptics, Jesus clearly stated that the Baptist “was Elijah” (Matt. 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13), since his ministry constituted the typological fulfillment of the prophecy of Mal. 4:5 (cf. Luke 1:17; see Schnackenburg 1990: 1:289). Even before the Baptist’s birth, an angel prophesied to his father, Zechariah, that John would “go on before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17; see also Mark’s conflation of Mal. 3:1 [“I will send my messenger”] and Isa. 40:3 [also found in John 1:23 and Synoptic parallels] in Mark 1:2–3; Carson [1991: 143] also notes that false prophets often dressed in a manner similar to Elijah [Zech. 13:4]). Did John perhaps not realize that he really was “Elijah”? Or do John and the Synoptics contradict each other? More likely, the Baptist denied being “Elijah” to counter the expectation (current in his day) that the same Elijah who escaped death in a fiery chariot would return in like spectacular manner.

The Baptist’s third denial pertained to the so-called Prophet. The coming of this Prophet, mentioned in 1:21 and repeatedly later in John’s Gospel (6:14; 7:40), was predicted by Moses in Deut. 18:15, 18 (see Acts 3:22; 7:37; cf. 1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41; T. Benj. 9:2). Hence the Jews, the Samaritans (Macdonald 1964: 197–98, 362–71, 443; Carson 1991: 143), and the Qumran community were waiting for the coming of the Prophet. The Qumran covenanters, for their part, waited not only “until the prophet comes,” but also for “the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS IX, 11; see also the collection of messianic passages in 4Q175 5–8 citing Deut. 18:18–19).

The Baptist’s threefold denial is followed by a positive self-identification in 1:23.

1:23

---

A. NT Context: The Identity of John the Baptist. In the prologue the Fourth Evangelist presented John as “a man sent from God” to “bear witness concerning the light” (i.e., Jesus): “He was not the light, but came to bear witness concerning the light” (1:6–8; see also 1:15; and later 5:33). This opening characterization sets the stage for the narration of John’s ministry in 1:19–34. John’s identity is further probed when he is called to account by a delegation sent by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Three times John denies being a particular end-time figure: the Christ (1:20; cf. 1:8, 15); Elijah (1:21a [see Köstenberger 2004: 60–61]); the Prophet (1:21b; cf. 6:14; 7:40; cf. Deut. 18:15, 18).

After thus affirming three times who he is not, John in the present passage, at long last, is telling his interrogators who he is. Even though he is none of the scriptural figures expected to make their appearance in Israel in the last days, John does respond in terms of a figure spoken of in Scripture. He is “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’” featured in Isa. 40:3. In this characterization of John, the Fourth Evangelist coheres fully with the Synoptic portrayal of the Baptist (cf. Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). According to the Fourth Evangelist, John’s witness centered on Jesus’ role in the divine plan of salvation as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, 36). At its very heart, the purpose of John’s baptism and ministry is described as being bound up with revealing Jesus’ true identity to Israel (1:31).

B. The OT Context of Isa. 40:3. Isaiah 40:3 constitutes the opening of the second of four well-defined speeches in Isa. 40:1–9 that comprises 40:3–5. The entire passage serves as a prologue that sets the tone for Isa. 40–48 (Blenkinsopp 2002: 179), and indeed for the rest of the book, by announcing the intentions of Yahweh (Watts 1985–1987: 2:79; Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:49). After all the judgment and condemnation sounded in Isa. 1–39, the opening of chapter 40 marks a major shift in orientation, introducing the theme of comfort that represents the leitmotiv for the remainder of the book.

The precise identity of the calling voice is unspecified, but the context makes clear that reference is made to a creature, a human messenger (Young 1972: 26). In light of the fact that several elements of Isa. 40:1–11 are reminiscent of Isa. 6:1–13, it is likely that the present passage describes not a “new call of a new person,” but rather “an expansion and adaptation of the single Isaiah’s original call” (Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:48). The lack of specification of the identity of the messenger focuses attention on the substance of the message (this is well captured by the Baptist’s insistent words in 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease” [see Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:51]).

The Hebrew allows for the readings “a voice crying” or “the voice of one crying”; the LXX, followed by the NT writers, adopted the latter version. Also, the Hebrew has, “A voice crying, ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD,’” while the LXX, followed by the NT writers, reads, “A voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the LORD’” (Snodgrass 1980). In the original, taking “in the wilderness” with what follows preserves the parallelism; in the NT, reading “in the wilderness” in conjunction with the “voice crying” adapts Isaiah’s message to the person of John the Baptist. It is not clear that the LXX and the NT writers here change the meaning of the original Hebrew, however. If the way for Yahweh is to be prepared in the wilderness, it makes perfect sense for the voice to cry in the wilderness to call for such preparations.

Another important part of the voice’s message is that Yahweh will come to his people through the wilderness. It is possible that this notion is grounded in Sinai traditions (cf. Hab. 3:3; see Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:52). The desert is also a fitting figure for the desolate condition of God’s people (Young 1972: 29n15).

Just as the calling voice is not identified, no addressees of the voice in 40:3 are explicitly stated. Most likely these are the “my people” mentioned in 40:1, namely, Jacob/Israel of the captivity (cf. Isa. 40:12–44:12; see Watts 1985–1987: 2:79). No longer is Israel referred to as “this people” (Isa. 6:9; 8:6); once again the language used is that of the covenant (cf., e.g., Exod. 6:7; 19:5; Lev. 26:12; Deut. 26:17–18; see Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:49). The message to God’s people is that they are to prepare Yahweh’s way in the wilderness and make straight in the desert a highway for their God. This would be in keeping with normal procedure for preparing for a visiting dignitary (J. A. Motyer 1993: 300). The prophet Ezekiel had depicted Yahweh as abandoning Jerusalem (Ezek. 9–11); now Yahweh will return to take up residence in his city once again, which calls for “monstrous preparation, including a highway” (Watts 1985–1987: 2:79; see Isa. 35:8–10; cf. 35:1).

How are God’s people to prepare the way for his return? While, again, not explicitly stated, the probable answer is “by way of repentance” (Young 1972: 28). If Yahweh is to return, his people must prepare the way by repenting of the sins that caused them to be led into exile. This is borne out clearly by the Baptist’s own message: “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt. 3:8). As Isa. 40:1–2 makes clear, God’s ultimate purpose for his people is not judgment but salvation, life rather than death (cf. the Fourth Evangelist’s words in John 3:17–18; and Jesus’ words in John 12:47). All is forgiven.

Yet comfort for God’s people is grounded not in anything they do, but solely in “the activity of the Lord, his coming into the sphere of human activity . . . the revelation of him in human sight” (Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:50). The purpose for these preparations is the revelation of God’s glory (one of the “ruling concepts” of all Isaiah [Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:52]), not merely to Israel and Judah, but to all of humanity (Isa. 40:5; cf. 60:1–3). This harks back to the exodus, where God’s glory was revealed as well (Exod. 16:10; 24:16–18; 33:18; 40:34). That all humanity will witness Yahweh’s triumphant return to his lowly people is part of the prophetic defiance of political realities (cf. Isa. 49:26; 66:16, 23–24; see Blenkinsopp 2002: 183).

Later, Isaiah also speaks of the coming “Servant” (esp. Isa. 52:13–53:12), who will provide an even greater deliverance (Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:51), which is consummated in the new heaven and new earth (Isa. 65–66). Similar to other OT prophetic writings, Isaiah’s vision draws heavily on exodus typology (e.g., Jer. 2:6–7; 7:22, 25; 11:4, 7; Hos. 2:14–15; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4–5; Amos 2:9–10; 3:1–2; 9:7; Mic. 6:4; see also Isa. 10:24, 26; 11:15–16). In fact, “the intensity and fullness of Exodus symbolism in Isa. 40–55 is unique” (Watts 1985–1987: 2:81). The Messiah and his redemption will bring about a new exodus in which God’s glory will be revealed (Young 1972: 30n18).

C. Isaiah 40:3 in Judaism. Interestingly, the Qumran community applied the same passage in Isaiah to itself, specifically to the role of the community council and the interpreter in the study of the law of Moses (Burrows 1974: 246). Both 1QS VIII, 14 and 4Q259 III, 4–5 envision a time when the community is “to be segregated from the dwelling of the men of sin to walk to the desert in order to prepare the path of truth,” citing Isa. 40:3. Yet while these covenanters understood the passage as a call to dwell in the desert and to devote themselves to the study of God’s word, the Baptist recognized it as a call to prepare the people of Israel for the coming Messiah (Morris 1995: 121).

Isaiah 40:1–5 is invoked also at the outset of another Qumran document, 4Q176 (Isa. 40:3 is cited in 4Q176 1–2 I, 6–7), as part of a prayer for God to restore Jerusalem and the temple. This is important because it shows that in the century preceding the appearance of John the Baptist there were at least segments in (sectarian) Judaism that expected God to liberate his holy city and holy place from pagan rule and corruption and that did so on the basis of Isa. 40 and other passages later in the book (4Q176 also cites Isa. 48:1–9; 49:13–17; 52:1–3). The Dead Sea community was right in anticipating God’s future restoration of Jerusalem and the temple, but it was wrong about the means and way in which God would do so. Yet, importantly, as is evident at the temple clearing (John 2:14–23), Jesus shared the Qumran community’s criticism of the corruption surrounding the temple and called the Jewish leaders to account for their abuse of power (e.g., John 10).

D. Textual Matters. The quotation from Isa. 40:3 follows the LXX (Beasley-Murray 1999: 20 note b), except that the evangelist uses euthynate instead of hetoimasate (Barrett 1978: 173). This may be because John (1) translated straight from the Hebrew; (2) was influenced by the later instance of eutheias in the LXX and conflated the LXX rendering from hetoimasate . . . eutheias to euthynate; or, least likely, (3) took his cue from the use of euthynō with hodos in Sir. 2:6; 37:15; 49:9. The second option seems most probable. Beyond this, M. J. J. Menken (1985: 202–4) contends that the change is motivated by the Fourth Evangelist’s desire “to make John the Baptist not so much the precursor of Jesus as a witness contemporaneous with Jesus.”

E. The Use of Isa. 40:3 in John 1:23. As Isa. 40:3, in the context of the entire book of Isaiah, has made clear, God’s people, conceived more broadly than OT Israel, would be called to prepare for Yahweh’s coming by a prophetic voice. According to John the Baptist, and the Fourth Evangelist, the Baptist is that voice. Several elements of the original context of Isa. 40:3 resonate with the passage’s use in John 1:23: (1) the wilderness as the site of prophetic activity (Köstenberger 2004: 62–63); (2) the focus away from the messenger and onto the message; (3) the coming revelation of God’s glory through his visible coming and bringing of salvation, not merely to Israel, but to all humanity; (4) the need for repentance to prepare the way. Isaiah 40:3, in turn, invokes the larger exodus motif, which also entails the themes of salvation and God’s glory. The use of Isa. 40:3 in John 1:23 suggests therefore that the Baptist’s salvation-historical role is that of “the herald of a new exodus, announcing that God is about to redeem his people from captivity, as he had in the days of Moses” (Keener 1993: 266), and to do so through the instrumentality of John the Baptist, who served as the Isaianic “voice in the wilderness.” In accordance with Isaiah’s prophecy, the Baptist calls God’s people to repentance in preparation for the coming Servant (Carson 1991: 144).

F. Theological Use. Working from the hermeneutical axiom that Jesus is the Messiah, the Fourth Evangelist presents John the Baptist in fairly straightforward terms as the fulfillment of the predicted end-time figure of a “voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord.’” The multiple attestation of this reference strongly suggests the historicity of this claim by the Baptist himself. When asked about his role, he must give an answer, not merely in his own terms, but in scriptural terms. As in the other canonical Gospels, the use of Isa. 40:3 with reference to the Baptist is thus foundational to the gospel story, signaling the impending epochal intervention of God in and through his Messiah, Jesus.

Subsequently, the flow of the narrative moves from clarifying the identity of John as a witness to Jesus to the content of John’s witness regarding Jesus. The Baptist’s reference to Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” in 1:29 (cf. 1:36) likely involves multiple levels of meaning. Very possibly, the Baptist here speaks better than he knows, thinking primarily of the lamb led to the slaughter referred to in Isa. 53:7 (LXX: amnos; elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 8:32, citing Isa. 53:7 LXX, and 1 Pet. 1:19: cf. 2:21–25), which contemporary Judaism interpreted not with reference to a dying messiah, but as conveying the notion of substitutionary suffering for sin that fell short of actual death (cf. Matt. 11:2–3; Luke 7:18–20).

It is also possible that the Baptist may have proclaimed Jesus as the apocalyptic warrior-lamb who would bring judgment (cf., e.g., 1 En. 90:9–12; T. Jos. 19:8; T. Benj. 3:8; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:17; see Brown 1966–1970: 59, citing esp. Luke 3:17; Carson 1991: 150; Beasley-Murray 1999: 24–25; Schlatter [1948: 46–47] refers to both; for the Baptist’s message of judgment, see esp. Matt. 3:7–12; Luke 3:7–17; Carson [1991: 149] notes also the doubts expressed by the Baptist in Matt. 11:2–3). Some who hold this view would also say that the Fourth Evangelist thinks that the Baptist is speaking better than he knows—much as Caiaphas does in 11:49–52 (Carson 1991: 150–51). If so, this would mean that while the Baptist thinks that Jesus “takes away” the sin of the world in his capacity as the warrior-lamb, the evangelist knows that, whatever truth there is in this perspective, he also “takes away” the sin of the world by means of the cross (cf. the melding together of the Lamb who was slain and of the triumphant Lion of Judah in Rev. 5:5–6, 12–13).

Another possible association is the lamb provided by God for Abraham when he was ready to offer up his son of promise, Isaac, in obedience to the divine command (Gen. 22:8, 13–14) (for a discussion of additional alternatives, see Morris 1995: 127–29; cf. Barrett 1978: 176; Ridderbos 1997: 73–74). This is especially suggestive because John 3:16 probably alludes to this scene, highlighting one important difference: what Abraham was spared from doing at the last minute, God actually did—he gave his one and only Son (cf. Rom. 8:32).

Less likely options are the gentle lamb of Jer. 11:19 (no overtones of bearing sin); the scapegoat that symbolically bore the sins of the people and was banished to the desert in Lev. 16 (a goat, not a lamb); and the guilt offering sacrificed to deal with sin in Lev. 14; Num. 6 (involving bulls and goats, not lambs).

The Fourth Evangelist, for his part, places the Baptist’s declaration into the wider context of his passion narrative, where Jesus is shown to be the ultimate fulfillment of the yearly Passover lamb (see Exod. 12), whose bones must not be broken (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20 and commentary below; cf. also 19:14; see Burge 2000: 73–74; Barrett 1978: 176; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7).

This “lamb of God” will take away sin, presumably by means of a sacrificial, substitutionary death (Morris 1995: 130). According to the pattern set by the OT sacrificial system, the shed blood of the substitute covered the sins of others and appeased the divine wrath by way of atonement (cf. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). As the book of Hebrews makes clear, however, the entire OT sacrificial system was merely provisional until the coming of Christ.

Moreover, as God’s lamb, Jesus takes upon himself the sin, not merely of Israel, but of the entire world (cf. 1:10). The idea that the Messiah would suffer for the sins of the world (rather than merely for Israel) was foreign to first-century Jewish ears; John, however, makes clear that Jesus came to save the entire world (John 3:17; 1 John 2:2), and that he is the Savior of the world, not merely Israel (4:42; 1 John 4:14). The NT’s depiction of Jesus as “God’s lamb” culminates in Revelation, where Jesus is the “lamb who was slain” who returns in universal triumph (see Rev. 5:6, 8–9, 12; 7:17; 12:11; 13:8; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:22–23; 22:1–3).

John’s teaching on Jesus’ substitutionary atonement builds on the evangelist’s earlier reflection on Jesus’ incarnation. For it is in the flesh that Christ suffered vicariously; his humanity was an indispensable prerequisite for his cross-work on behalf of others. In fact, the atonement theme, far from being absent, is part of the warp and woof of John’s Gospel: Jesus is the Bread of Life, who will give his flesh for the life of the world (6:51; cf. 6:32–33, 53–58); he is the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for his sheep (10:15; cf. 10:17–18); and his sacrifice fulfills Passover symbolism (e.g., 19:14, 31).

Subsequent to John’s witness to Jesus as “God’s lamb” in 1:29, 36, the narrative moves further still to reactions regarding Jesus by his first followers, several of whom previously had been followers of the Baptist. The statement in 1:45, “about whom Moses wrote in the law,” most likely alludes to predictions of a coming prophet in Deut. 18:15, 18 (see at 1:21 above). The fact that Philip refers to Jesus as “the one Moses wrote about in the law, and about whom the prophets also wrote” indicates that Philip had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures, both in the law (Deut. 18:15, 18) and in the prophets (cf., e.g., Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–5, 10–12; 52:13–53:12; see Carson 1991: 159). The expression “the law and the prophets” was a common Jewish designation for the Hebrew Scriptures in their entirety (cf. Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21).

Moving on to 1:49, Nathanael’s confession of Jesus, we note that the designations “Son of God” and “King of Israel” are messianic titles roughly equivalent in nature (Barrett 1978: 186; cf. Ridderbos 1997: 91). By attaching to Jesus the label “Son of God,” Nathanael identifies him as the Messiah predicted in the OT (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; cf. 1 Sam. 26:17, 21, 25; see at 1:41 above; 20:31 below); the term “Son [of God]” was also a current messianic title in Jesus’ day (cf. 1Q28a II, 11–12; 4 Ezra 7:28–29; but see 4Q246 II, 1; see Collins 1993; Köstenberger 1998b: 48–49n17). “King of Israel,” likewise, is a common designation for the Messiah (e.g., Zeph. 3:15; cf. John 12:13, an inclusio; note also the phrase “King of the Jews” in John 18–19). Because of the expression’s political overtones, however, Jesus was reluctant to identify himself in such terms (note the possible correction provided by Jesus in the present context in 1:50–51; see also 6:15; 18:36; see Painter 1977: 360–61; Ridderbos 1997: 91). The terminologies converge in Jewish literature where the Davidic king is described as God’s son (cf. 4QFlor 1:6–7; 1Q28a II, 11–12; 1 En. 105:2; 4 Ezra 7:28–29; 13:52; 14:9; see Carson 1991: 162; “Messiah” and “King of Israel” are juxtaposed in Mark 15:32/Matt. 27:42).

Jesus’ response in 1:51, finally, contains an allusion to the story of Jacob in Gen. 28 (see esp. Gen. 28:12; on Jacob traditions in nonbiblical Jewish sources, see Neyrey 1982; Rowland 1984). In 1:51 Nathanael, who stepped out in faith on the basis of Jesus’ display of supernatural knowledge (1:48–49), and the other disciples (note the Greek plurals hymin [“to you”] and opsesthe [“you will see”]) are told that they will see the greatness of the Son of Man, far surpassing the vision of Jacob the patriarch (this is part of the “greater than Jacob” motif in John’s Gospel; cf. 4:5–6, 11–12). Jesus is the “new Israel” (Carson 1991: 164).

To see “heaven open,” which was every Jewish apocalyptist’s dream, is to receive a vision of otherworldly realities (Acts 10:11; Rev. 4:1; 19:11). The yearning for a glimpse of heaven spawned an entire genre of literature in the Second Temple period wherein enigmatic figures such as Enoch (who, according to Gen. 5:24, was translated to heaven without dying) are depicted as traversing heaven and reporting what they see. In 3:13, however, Jesus affirms the impossibility of anyone other than the Danielic “Son of Man” gaining access to heaven (Dan. 7:13; cf. Matt. 26:64; Acts 7:56).

The picture of “heaven open and God’s angels ascending and descending” in the present context is drawn from Jacob’s vision of the ladder “resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it [or, ‘him’—i.e., Jacob]” (Gen. 28:12; see the rabbinic disputes on this point: Gen. Rab. 68:18; 69:7; see the discussion in Carson 1991: 163). Especially if the proper rendering is “on him,” the parallel is clear: as the angels ascended and descended on Jacob (who was later renamed “Israel”)—a sign of God’s revelation and reaffirmation of faithfulness to his promises made to Abraham (Ridderbos 1997: 93)—so the angels will ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jesus).

A further parallel relates to the respective place of worship and of the revelation of God. When Jacob awoke from his dream, he exclaimed, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven” (Gen. 28:17); and he called that place “Bethel,” which means “house of God.” Correspondingly, Jesus’ message to Nathanael and the other disciples is that he himself will be the place of much greater divine revelation than that given at previous occasions (cf. Heb. 1:1–3). Jesus will mediate greater revelation than Abraham (8:58), Jacob (cf. 4:12–14), Moses (1:17–18; 5:45–47; 9:28–29), and Isaiah (12:37–41).

Jesus is the “new Bethel,” the place where God is revealed, where heaven and earth, God and humanity, meet (Carson 1991: 163–64; Witherington 1995: 72; cf. Burge 2000: 79; Borchert 1996–2002: 1:149; Schnackenburg 1990: 1:320), just as he is the new temple (2:19–22) and the new proper place of worship (4:20–24). In fact, Jesus is the very culmination of all of God’s revelatory expressions (1:14–18; Heb. 1:1–3), providing a fullness of divine self-disclosure of which even Jacob (Israel) could only dream; and these disciples, who as of yet know little of what awaits them, will soon be witnesses of revelation far exceeding that received by any Israelite in previous history (Ridderbos 1997: 93–94).

Moreover, the expression “heaven open and God’s angels ascending and descending” also seems to convey an image of the “uninterrupted communion between Jesus and the Father” (cf. 8:16, 29; 10:30; 16:32), presenting the ensuing “signs” as manifestations of this communion (Bultmann 1971: 105–6). With respect to the present passage, note especially Jesus’ statement in response to large-scale defection later in this Gospel: “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?” (6:61b–62). In this related verse the Son of Man’s ascent clearly implies descent (“where he was before”) in the context of preexistence (cf. 1:1–2; see Ham 1998: 89n67; contra Pryor 1991: 342).

Jesus’ self-designation “Son of Man,” which clearly harks back to the Danielic passage concerning “one like a son of man” (Dan. 7:13–14), blends together the mysterious figure from the book of Daniel with the Suffering Servant, featured in the book of Isaiah, a theme culminating in the so-called Servant Songs of Isa. 42–53. Unlike “King of Israel” and “King of the Jews,” both of which have nationalistic or political overtones, the expression “Son of Man,” while scriptural, was sufficiently malleable to allow Jesus to define its content in christological terms. According to Jesus, that “Son of Man” would be subject to crucifixion as a mode of exaltation (3:14; 8:28); he was to provide divine revelation (6:27, 53); and he would act with eschatological authority (5:27; 9:39).

What, then, is the point of reference at which the disciples will “see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (1:51)? In the Synoptics, Jesus’ statement to the Jewish high priest in Matt. 26:64, “In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (cf. Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), places this event in the future, subsequent to Jesus’ cross-death. In the context of John’s realized/inaugurated eschatology, however, it is already in the here and now—in Jesus’ signs (e.g., 2:11; 9:3; 11:40), in his entire ministry in both word and deed (14:9–11), and supremely in his crucifixion itself (3:14; 8:28; 12:23–24, 32–34)—that the glory of the Son of Man is revealed (Beasley-Murray 1999: 28).

The Cana Cycle (2:1–4:54)

SURVEY

The Cana cycle, which spans Jesus’ “first” (2:11) and “second” (4:54) messianic signs in Cana of Galilee, contains only one explicit OT quotation, found in 2:17. The focus of the first explicit OT quotation, in 1:23, was on the role of John the Baptist in the salvation-historical plan of God. The focus of the second quotation is squarely on Jesus and his all-consuming zeal for God as displayed at the temple clearing and as perceived and related to OT Scripture by his disciples.

The only likely OT allusion in John 2 is found in 2:5, which may establish a link between Jesus and the patriarch Joseph. The range of OT allusions in John 3 spans from the Pentateuch (3:14 alluding to Num. 21:9; 3:16 alluding to Gen. 22:2, 12, 16) to wisdom (3:8 possibly alluding to Eccles. 11:5; 3:13 possibly alluding to Prov. 30:4) and prophetic literature (3:5 possibly alluding to Ezek. 36:25–27 and similar passages; 3:14 alluding to Isa. 52:13; 3:28 possibly alluding to Mal. 3:1).

Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman features several OT allusions as well, such as to Jacob’s giving of a field to Joseph (4:5; cf. Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32); to God’s giving of “living water” to the Israelites in the desert (4:10; cf. Num. 20:8–11; cf. 21:16–18); Jesus’ references to his gift of “living water” as “welling up” in a person (4:14; cf. Isa. 12:3; Jer. 2:13), to Jerusalem being the proper place of worship (4:20; cf. Deut. 11:29; 12:5–14; 27:12; Josh. 8:33; Ps. 122:1–5), and to salvation being from the Jews (4:22; cf. Isa. 2:3?).

Finally, the sayings invoked by Jesus when instructing his followers that “even now the reaper draws his wages . . . so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together” in 4:36, and that “one sows and another reaps” in 4:37, echo the language of Amos 9:13 and Mic. 6:15, respectively.

THE CHANGING OF WATER INTO WINE: THE FIRST SIGN IN CANA (2:1–11)

At the Cana wedding Jesus is shown to be the bringer of messianic joy who fills up the depleted resources of Judaism (cf. esp. the reference to the six stone water jars used by the Jews for ceremonial washing in 2:6; see Köstenberger 2004: 96–97 and further below). In Jewish thought wine is a symbol of joy and celebration: “There is no rejoicing save with wine” (b. Pesaḥ. 109a; on wine in biblical times, see DJG 870–73). The running out of wine at the Cana wedding may be symbolic of the barrenness of Judaism. Prophetic expectation cast the messianic age as a time when wine would flow freely (see Isa. 25:6; Jer. 31:12–14; Hos. 14:7; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13–14; 2 Bar. 29:5; 1 En. 10:19; cf. Matt. 22:1–14 par.; 25:1–13; see also Gen. 49:11).

The language of 2:4, “Why do you involve me?” is reminiscent of OT parallels that convey distance between two parties and frequently carries a reproachful connotation (cf., e.g., Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21; see Maccini 1996: 100–102; Keener 2003: 505–6; see further Köstenberger 2004: 95). The only possible OT allusion in this pericope is found in Jesus’ mother’s words in 2:5 (“Do whatever he tells you”), which represent a close verbal parallel to Pharaoh’s words in Gen. 41:55 instructing the people to do whatever Joseph tells them. Just as Joseph had provided famine relief, so Jesus would be able to find a way out of the present dilemma. Jesus’ mother thus takes what sounded like a stern reprimand as an indication that Jesus is ready to help. Her instructions to the servants in 2:5 express complete confidence.

As we noted, the reference to the Jewish purification ritual in 2:6 in conjunction with the mention of the wedding party’s running out of wine conveys the notion of the barrenness of first-century Judaism. Jesus’ production of a very large quantity of wine, together with the remark in 2:7 that he filled the water jars “to the brim,” points to the abundance of Jesus’ messianic provision (so, e.g., Ridderbos 1997: 107; Morris 1995: 162; Carson 1991: 174; see OT references to the abundance of wine in the new age listed above). In the following chapter Jesus is likewise shown to be the one who mediates the abundant provision of the Spirit (3:34; cf. 7:37–38; 20:21–22; see Keener 2003: 512). The reference to Jesus’ revelation of God’s glory at his first sign in Cana in 2:11 harks back to the testimony borne in the prologue: “We have seen his glory, glory as that of the one-of-a-kind Son from the Father” (1:14 [see commentary there]).

THE CLEARING OF THE TEMPLE: A POSSIBLE SECOND SIGN (2:12–22)

The Jerusalem temple was a symbol of Jewish national and religious identity (see the sidebar in Köstenberger 2002b: 30). The original Solomonic temple was destroyed by the Babylonians and later rebuilt by Zerubbabel. It was renovated by Herod just prior to Jesus’ coming. Both OT and Second Temple literature express the expectation of the establishment of a new temple for the messianic age (Ezek. 40–44; 1 En. 90:28–36; Pss. Sol. 17:30; 4QFlor 1:1–13). It is against this backdrop that Jesus’ rather striking action of clearing the temple must be understood. What may at first appear to be an impetuous outburst of uncontrolled anger is cast by John as an outflow of genuine spiritual zeal. Thus Jesus is shown to typify the pronouncement of Ps. 69:9: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

2:17

---

A. The NT Context: Jesus’ Zeal for His “Father’s House.” Jesus’ early ministry in John’s Gospel commences with Jesus calling his first disciples (1:35–51) and has as its first exclamation point the turning of water into wine, Jesus’ “first sign” (2:11). After a brief stay in Capernaum, Jesus travels to Jerusalem for the Passover (2:12–13). Upon his arrival, he is dismayed to find the temple as a place of commerce rather than worship. He drives out the money changers, overturns their tables, and removes from the temple area the sacrificial animals being sold there. According to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’ clearing of the temple stirred in his disciples the memory of the righteous sufferer of Ps. 69:9 (note the verbal parallel between 2:16, “my Father’s house,” and Ps. 69:9, “zeal for your house”; note also Ps. 118:139 LXX [119:139 MT]: “Zeal for your house [italicized words not in MT] consumed me [exetēxen me ho zēlos tou oikou sou], because my foes forget your words”).

The fact that in the inaugural scenes of the Gospel Jesus is referred to as the “Messiah” (1:41), the “Son of God” (1:49; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; cf. Ps. 89:26–29), and the “King of Israel” (1:49; see at 12:13 below) makes it plausible that observing Jesus’ clearing of the temple would invoke in his disciples the memory of David’s words in Ps. 69:9. This, in turn, is in keeping with Jewish expectations, current in the first century, that the Messiah would purge and reconstitute the temple (Pss. Sol. 17:21–22, 36; cf. Mark 14:57–61; see Daly-Denton 2004: 123). This would follow, and transcend, the pattern of great national deliverance last experienced by the Jews when Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple in December of 165 BC, after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes IV (cf. 10:22–39; see also Jesus’ discussion of true freedom from sin in 8:31–38).

B. The OT Context of Ps. 69:9. Psalm 69 (which is quoted here and in 15:25; see also 19:28) and Ps. 22 (quoted in 19:24) share Davidic typology and the theme of the righteous sufferer (Tate 1990: 196; Mays 1994: 229). Psalm 69, attributed to David, is part of Book 2 of the Psalter, a collection titled “The Prayers of David the Son of Jesse” (Ps. 72:20). The psalm presents the psalmist as one who has borne reproach for God’s sake (69:7): “For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me” (69:9). Verse 9 is part of the psalmist’s plea in 69:7–12, with 69:7–8 and 9–12 as subunits (note the use of kî, “for,” in 69:7, 9). Verse 8, the text immediately preceding the verse quoted here, says, “I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons,” which underscores the psalmist’s alienation even from his own kin. This is in addition to the numerous and vicious enemies who are mentioned in 69:4 (quoted in 15:25; see commentary there).

The precise nature of the psalmist’s zeal for God’s “house” is not made clear in the passage. There may be a royal as well as a prophetic component: as a king, he may have devoted attention to the upkeep and protection of the temple; as a prophetic figure, he may have advocated the importance of proper conduct within the confines of the temple area (Tate 1990: 196). For someone living subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem (69:35–36), zeal for God’s house would connote a desire to see the temple rebuilt (Rogerson and McKay 1977: 96). Beyond this, concern for God’s “house” may extend also to God’s “household” more broadly conceived—that is, the condition of God’s people (cf. Jer. 12:7–9; Tate 1990: 196), extending the scope of the passage to “not only the tabernacle, but the congregation that used to assemble there” (Tholuck 1858: 290). The nature of any zealous action on the psalmist’s part is left unspecified, but in context a contrast seems to be drawn between some in the community who act as the psalmist’s and God’s enemies and the psalmist himself. In fact, the suppliant has engaged in fasting and praying out of concern over the situation (69:10–11).

The psalmist is “consumed” (69:9a), both literally, in that he is at the point of death, and figuratively, in that he is passionate about God’s house and his people (Dahood [1968: 158] suggests that the image conveyed by ʾākal, “consume,” is that of “a devouring flame,” and by nāpal, “fall,” of “burning coals” falling on someone; cf. Ps. 120:3–4). The psalmist’s passionate concern for God’s people is all the more striking as it is these same people who mock and humiliate him (69:10–12). In all his righteous suffering, the psalmist prays to the Lord and in faith looks to him for help and deliverance (69:13–18). In the end it is the psalmist’s firm hope and assurance that “God will save Zion” and that “those who love his name shall dwell in it” (69:35–36).

Historically, the characterization of one consumed by zeal for God’s “house” does fit King David, whose son Solomon built the temple. Destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt subsequent to the exile, the temple served as the center of Israelite worship, as the place where God had taken up residence among his people. The characterization of the righteous sufferer in Ps. 69:9 and the designation of the psalmist as God’s “servant” in v. 17 (cf. 2 Sam. 7:5) are also congruent with the depiction of Yahweh’s faithful servant in Isaiah (cf. esp. Isa. 50:4–9; 52:13; 53:12; see Tate 1990: 197; see also commentary at 12:38 below). Further possible associations are Elijah (1 Kings 19:10; cf. Sir. 48:2) and the flames consuming the victim acceptable to God in the OT sacrificial system (Daly-Denton 2004: 122).

C. Ps. 69:9 in Judaism. No explicit reference to Ps. 69:9 in ancient Judaism has been identified. However, religious zeal was an important part of Jewish piety (Köstenberger 2001: 32). In the OT Phinehas is promised a covenant of a lasting priesthood “because he was zealous for honor of his God” (Num. 25:13), and God himself is shown to be zealous for his holy name (Ezek. 39:25; cf. Exod. 34:14). In the second century BC the Maccabees revived Jewish nationalistic fervor, while the Qumran community as well as the Pharisees were concerned for the religious state of Judaism. First-century Palestine was rife with religious as well as nationalistic zeal (Heard 1992; Hengel 1988). The Pharisees sought to practice righteousness in everyday life, while the Zealots played an important part in the rebellion against Rome in AD 66–70. Particularly notorious were the Sicarii (from Lat. sica, “dagger”), religious terrorists who murdered people in broad daylight in an effort to destabilize the political situation in Roman-occupied Palestine (Schürer 1973–1979: 2:598–606).

D. Textual Matters. The LXX has the aorist katephagen, “has consumed me” (Moloney 1998: 77); in John’s quotation the verb is the future deponent middle kataphagetai, “will consume me,” which may represent an interpretation of the Hebrew as a prophetic perfect (Archer and Chirichigno 1983: 73; Menken 1996a: 40). The change of verb tense most likely serves to shine the spotlight prophetically on Jesus’ cross-death as it is narrated later in the Gospel (Daly-Denton 2004: 122; Menken 1996a: 40–41). Otherwise, the quotation in John is identical in wording to the LXX, which in turn closely corresponds to the MT.

E. The Use of Ps. 69:9 in John 2:17. This is the only reference to Ps. 69:9a in the NT (though see the quotation of Ps. 69:4 in 15:25 and the possible allusion to Ps. 69:21 in 19:28 below). The introductory formula is characteristic of John’s usage in the first part of the Gospel: “that it is written” (hoti gegrammenon estin). The function of the quotation of Ps. 69:9a in John’s account of the temple clearing is to characterize Jesus’ action and to do so in scriptural terms by linking Jesus with the righteous sufferer of this Davidic psalm. Jesus’ zeal, righteous rather than blindly nationalistic (compare the Zealots [see above]), was so great that it would “consume” him. In the context of the subsequent narrative this refers to his death, which would bring life to the world (Ridderbos 1997: 117; Schnackenburg 1990: 1:347). At the very outset of his ministry, then, John portrays Jesus as one who was consumed with passion for God’s glory and driven by a desire to remove from his people any obstacles to proper worship. What is more, as 2:17 makes clear, Jesus’ disciples, upon seeing Jesus clear the temple, realize that the words of Ps. 69:9a applied to Jesus, the Son of David, the Messiah, who would be involved in a fatal conflict (Menken 1996a: 44).

Yet the present reference to Jesus in terms of Ps. 69 is not limited to the characterization of Jesus as one who is consumed by zeal for God’s “house.” Jesus also fits the larger pattern of the righteous sufferer who has an abundance of enemies who plot his downfall (e.g., 5:18; 11:53) and who is alienated even from his own brothers and the members of his own household (7:1–9; see also 4:44; cf. Ps. 69:8). What is more, according to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’ zeal for God is not limited to zeal for the temple, but rather encompasses active concern for the Jewish nation on a comprehensive scale. In his own person Jesus is said to restore, renew, replace, and/or fulfill the symbolism inherent in the Feast of Tabernacles and Passover, and to reconstitute God’s people as a new messianic community as “one flock” comprising believing Jews as well as Gentiles (e.g., 10:16; 11:51–52). In this, Jesus fulfills Davidic and “Suffering Servant” typologies and shows himself to be the Messiah predicted in various OT passages.

In view of John’s emphasis on the commerce proceeding in the temple courts (2:14–16), one further dimension of his portrayal of Jesus at the temple clearing may be that he wants his readers to view Jesus as the one who inaugurated the great “day of the Lord,” on which there would no longer be a merchant (or Canaanite—one morally or spiritually unclean) in the house of the Lord (Zech. 14:21). No longer would there be a need for special ritual arrangements to be made, but rather access to participation in the worship of God and membership among God’s people would be available to all in and through Jesus and the new “temple of his body” (2:21) (see Daly-Denton 2004: 123, citing Moloney 1990; Schuchard 1992: 17–32; Menken 1996a: 37–45; Obermann 1996: 114–28; Derrett 1997; Daly-Denton 2000: 118–31). Jesus’ action also calls to mind the words of Mal. 3:1, 3, that on the coming day of judgment “suddenly the LORD . . . will come to the temple,” so that people may once again offer acceptable sacrifices to the Lord (Carson 1991: 179; Hiers 1971: 86–89). These connections, in turn, tie in with the Johannine temple motif (P. W. L. Walker 1996, esp. 161–200; Coloe 2001; Kerr 2002; Busse 2002: 323–66; Beale 2004, esp. 192–200; Köstenberger 2005a).

F. Theological Use. The Fourth Evangelist’s practice of invoking Ps. 69:9a in connection with Jesus’ temple action represents an instance of typology in which the pattern of the righteous sufferer is found to be present in Jesus. As throughout John’s Gospel, this presupposes the hermeneutical axiom that Jesus is the messianic Son of God. The use of Ps. 69:9a in the present passage also reflects Jesus’ messianic consciousness at the inception of his ministry. It is part of a larger pattern, both in Jesus’ understanding and in the Fourth Evangelist’s presentation, of aligning Jesus and his ministry with the experience of a king and/or prophet who is zealous for God and as a result suffers humiliation by God’s own people—a pattern that encompasses the use of Ps. 69 both here and in 15:25 and extends also to the use of Ps. 22 in 19:24 and the possible allusion to Ps. 69:21 in 19:28–30 (see also Paul’s use of Ps. 69:9b in Rom. 15:3). The mention of Jesus’ brothers immediately prior to the present pericope in 2:12 (cf. 2:1–2) in conjunction with the reference to their unbelief in 7:5 may further accentuate the evangelist’s depiction of Jesus in terms of the psalmist’s lament that he has become a stranger to his brothers (cf. Ps. 69:8; see Daly-Denton 2004: 122).

Finally, if “zeal for God’s house” also extends to a desire to see the temple rebuilt, this would invoke the motif of the exile and raise the vision of the restoration of God’s people to proper worship (cf. 4:21–24). Significantly, in the present passage reference is made not to the future construction of a literal, physical temple, but to a restoration of worship centered on the “temple” of Jesus’ body (2:21). This, in turn, is part of John’s inaugurated eschatology, according to which “the time is coming, and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23) by believing in the Messiah (4:26).

JESUS’ FURTHER MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM AND SAMARIA (2:23–4:42)

The subsequent pericopes revolve around two interchanges, one between Jesus and Nicodemus, and one between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.

Jesus and Nicodemus, and John the Baptist’s Testimony (2:23–3:36)

The references to the kingdom of God in 3:3, 5 are significant in that they constitute the only instance of this terminology in the entire Gospel (contrast the frequent use of this expression in the Synoptics; in 18:36, a possible inclusio, Jesus twice refers to “my kingdom” vis-à-vis Pilate). The Hebrew Scriptures make clear that “the Lord is king” and that his sovereign reign extends to every creature (e.g., Exod. 15:18; Ps. 93:1; 103:19). The Jews expected a future kingdom ruled by the Son of David (Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–5, 10–11; Ezek. 34:23–24; Zech. 9:9–10), the Lord’s Servant (Isa. 42:1–7; 49:1–7), indeed, the Lord himself (Ezek. 34:11–16; 36:22–32; Zech. 14:9). Although not everyone was to be included in this kingdom, Jews in Jesus’ day generally believed that all Israelites would have a share in the world to come, with the exception of those guilty of apostasy or some other blatant sin (m. Sanh. 10:1). Hence it is all the more remarkable that Jesus’ stipulation that those who would enter God’s kingdom must be “born of water and the spirit” excludes Nicodemus and his fellow Sanhedrin members.

The first significant portion featuring an allusion to OT material in 2:23–4:42 involves the reference to being “born again/from above” in 3:3, explicated in 3:5 as being “born of water and spirit” (Louw 1986: 9–10; contra NIV/TNIV: “water and the Spirit”; rightly Carson 1991: 195). Most likely this passage constitutes an allusion to Ezek. 36:25–27, which presages God’s cleansing of human hearts with water and their inner transformation by his Spirit (cf. also Isa. 44:3–5; Jub. 1:23–25; see Schlatter 1948: 89; Carson 1991: 191–96, esp. 194–95; McCabe 1999; Cotterell 1985: 241; Kynes 1992, esp. 575). The notion of a new beginning and a decisive inner transformation of a person’s life is found in other OT prophetic passages (e.g., Jer. 31:33–34; Ezek. 11:19–20). It is this spiritual reality of which Nicodemus, Israel’s teacher, ought to have been aware but which he (and, one may assume, his fellow Sanhedrin members—the personal pronouns in Jesus’ statements “You must be born again” [3:7] and “You [people] do not accept our testimony” [3:11] are plural in the Greek) personally lacked.

Jesus illustrates his pronouncement in 3:5–7 with an analogy between the wind and the person born of spirit. “Wind”—a common image for the Spirit (Ridderbos 1997: 129)—and “spirit” translate the same Greek and Hebrew words (Gk. pneuma; Heb. rûaḥ). Both OT and Jewish literature contain numerous references to the mystery of the wind’s origin (see esp. Eccles. 8:8; 11:5; see also 1 En. 41:3; 60:12; 2 Bar. 48:3–4). In the present instance the point of Jesus’ analogy is that both wind and spiritual birth are mysterious in origin and movement—wind goes sovereignly where it pleases—yet although the wind’s origin is invisible, its effects can be observed; it is the same with the Spirit (Ridderbos 1997: 129; Carson 1991: 197). Despite its inscrutability, spiritual birth is nonetheless real, as real as the mysterious movements of the wind. Moreover, just as the wind blows “where it pleases,” so the Spirit’s operation is not subject to human control, eluding all efforts at manipulation (Moloney 1998: 93).

Jesus’ statement in 3:13, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (the phrase “who is in heaven,” added in several manuscripts, is an interpretive gloss reflecting later christological developments; see Köstenberger 2004: 132, following Carson 1991: 203; contra Barrett 1978: 213; Black 1984), may allude to Prov. 30:4a (“Who has ascended to heaven and come down?”). The OT identifies heaven as the place where God dwells (cf., e.g., Ps. 14:2; 33:14; 103:19; see Schoonhoven 1979–1988; Reddish 1992). John’s Gospel refers several times to a descent from heaven, be it of the Spirit (1:32–33), angels (1:51), the Son of Man (3:13), or the “Bread of Life” (6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). However, this is one of only three instances where it speaks of an ascent into heaven (angels [1:51]; the Son of Man [3:13]; the risen Lord [20:17]). Jesus here contrasts himself, the “Son of Man” (cf. Dan. 7:13), with other human figures who allegedly entered heaven, such as Enoch (Gen. 5:24; cf. Heb. 11:5), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12; cf. 2 Chron. 21:12–15), Moses (Exod. 24:9–11; 34:29–30), Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–3), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 1; 10). An entire cottage industry of Second Temple literature revolved around such figures and their heavenly exploits (e.g., 1 Enoch; see Tabor 1992; Borgen 1977). Although believers will join Christ in heaven in the future (cf. 14:1–3; 17:24), only Jesus both descended from heaven and ascended back up to heaven (cf. Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; although note the similar ascent-descent pattern by angels in John 1:51, on which, see commentary above).

The allusion to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness in 3:14 is plainly to Num. 21:8–9, where God is shown to send poisonous snakes to judge rebellious Israel. When Moses intercedes for his people, God provides a way of salvation in the form of a raised bronze serpent, so that “when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.” But the primary analogy established in the present passage is not that of the raised bronze serpent and the lifted-up Son of Man; rather, Jesus likens the restoration of the people’s physical lives as a result of looking at the bronze serpent to the people’s reception of eternal life as a result of “looking” in faith at the Son of Man (cf. 3:15–18; see Barrett 1978: 214; cf. Carson 1991: 202). Yet, as in the case of wilderness Israel, it is ultimately not a person’s faith, but rather the God in whom the faith is placed, that is the source of salvation (cf. Wis. 16:6–7).

There is a second, slightly more subtle, connection between the source account in Numbers and Nicodemus. Just as the sin, failure, and murmuring of the Israelites in the wilderness and their standing in judgment of God and his revelation were deserving of divine judgment and death and requiring salvation by way of looking at God’s means of deliverance, so also Nicodemus was in danger of duplicating the same stance toward God’s revelation in Jesus and of repeating the pattern of sin, failure, and murmuring in his own day and situation. Hence it is not only the looking in faith at the God-appointed means of salvation that constitutes a parallel but also the predicament leading to the divine remedy in the first place. Thus Nicodemus and his fellow Sanhedrin members, as well as the other Jews and all readers of John’s Gospel, are not in the position of objective, neutral judges of the merits or shortcomings of Jesus’ claims as they might deem themselves; rather, they themselves are called to render a verdict that will either allow them to pass from death to life (5:24) and from God’s wrath to God’s favor (3:36) or confirm the verdict of death upon their lives (3:19–21).

Yet another important connection between the Johannine source text in the book of Numbers and its appropriation in the context of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 represents the theme of life—new physical life in the case of the original wilderness incident, new spiritual life in the case of believers in the crucified Jesus. Significantly, the affirmation in 3:15 that “everyone who believes may in him [Jesus] have eternal life” (contra the NIV’s “everyone who believes in him”) constitutes the first reference to “eternal life” in this Gospel (see later 3:16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; and the reference to “life in his name” in 20:31, which, in turn, by way of inclusio, corresponds to 1:12). The probable meaning of the expression “eternal life” is “the life of the age to come”—that is, resurrection life, which, according to John, can to some extent already be experienced in the here and now (e.g., 5:24; 10:10). That life, however, is found only “in him” (3:15, explicating and harking back to the prologue, 1:4). Hence the eternal life entered into by the new, spiritual birth is none other than the eternal life of the preexistent Word-become-flesh in Jesus, who has life in himself (5:26) and is himself the resurrection and the life (11:25) (see Carson 1991: 202–3). In the flow of the discourse Jesus moves from a reference to being born from above by water and spirit in terms of Ezekiel (John 3:5) to an OT narrative passage, the account of the bronze snake in the wilderness (Num. 21:4–9), which served as the divinely appointed means of new physical life to the people of Israel. Correspondingly, Jesus presents himself as the means of new spiritual life—eternal life—for those who become children of God by looking at the lifted-up Savior in faith (3:14–15; cf. 1:12).

Just as the new birth, the entrance into eternal life, is grounded in the “lifting up” of God’s Son (3:14–15), so the “lifting up” is in turn grounded in God’s love (3:16) (see Carson 1991: 204). In theological adaption of the hypsōthēsetai language of Isa. 52:13 LXX (see, e.g., Dodd 1953: 247), the expression “lifted up” (hypsōthēnai) has a double meaning here (3:14) and elsewhere in John’s Gospel (cf. 8:28; 12:32, 34; see further below), referring (1) to the lifting up of the bronze snake in the wilderness and to Jesus’ lifting up on the cross, and (2) figuratively to the exaltation that Jesus will receive from God as a result of his obedient submission to God’s will in the pursuit of his mission all the way to the cross (see Ridderbos 1997: 136–37; note esp. the inclusio between 4:34 and 17:4 and Jesus’ final cry on the cross, “It is finished!” in 19:30). In addition, John may have drawn the connection between the term hypsoō and crucifixion on the basis of the Aramaic term z-q-p, “to lift up, to crucify” (Carson 1991: 201, citing Bertram 1972: 610, who in turn cites 1QS VII, 11).

What is more, not only is John’s use of the verb hypsoō in a dual sense not original with the evangelist, but also it draws on Isaianic terminology; it is not only in John, but already in Isaiah, that the theme of “lifting up” is linked with the theme of “being glorified,” and, a further element of crucial significance, this in the context of the figure of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12; esp. 52:13 LXX; see Carson 1991: 201). What John discerns in this source text, and draws out by appropriating Isaianic theology, is that in truth Jesus’ crucifixion and exaltation are not distinct steps that are realized successively (as one might surmise from reading the Synoptics); rather, it is precisely Jesus’ crucifixion itself that constitutes, at the same time, his exaltation in that it marks the culmination of his messianic mission as the heaven-sent Word and the obedient Son of the Father. Hence, according to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’ death is not a moment of ignominy and shame, but rather a glorious event that not only brings glory to God, Jesus’ sender (12:28; 17:1, 4), and accrues glory to the Son owing to his obedience to the Father’s will (12:23; 17:1), but also becomes the way by which Jesus returns to the glory that he had with the Father before the world began (17:5; cf. 17:24; see also 13:1; 16:28).

Although the dual meaning of the term “lifted up” was clearly veiled to Jesus’ original audience, Nicodemus, and although the double entendre is likely to escape even John’s first-time readers, the reference to Jesus being “lifted up” is gradually illumined in the further course of the Johannine narrative (cf. the other Johannine “lifted up sayings” in 8:28; 12:32, 34; see Nicholson 1983: 75–144; Köstenberger 1998b: 126–30). In effect, therefore, John’s use of hypsoō here and throughout his narrative is similar to the Synoptic parables in that the term, at one and the same time, “both intimates and also obscures what is to come” (Bertram 1972: 610). Nevertheless, Nicodemus, on the basis of the analogy of Num. 21, was called “to turn to Jesus for new birth in much the same way as the ancient Israelites were commanded to turn to the bronze snake for new life. Only when Nicodemus saw Jesus on the cross, or perhaps only in still later reflection on the cross, would it become clear that the ‘lifting up’/exaltation of Jesus” served as the life-giving analogue of the raised-up serpent in the wilderness (Carson 1991: 202). Thus there is an aspect of Jesus’ saying that calls for Nicodemus’s immediate action and attention while a fuller appreciation of Jesus’ message awaits a later time at which Jesus’ prophetic words have been realized and his words can be interpreted with the benefit of hindsight.

In addition, in light of the fact that the double meaning of “lifted up” is not original to Jesus or John but is found already in Isaiah, it would, and perhaps should, have been possible for Nicodemus at least to have the categories in place to understand Jesus’ pronouncement regarding his being “lifted up”—that is, physically elevated as well as spiritually exalted—without, of course, necessarily being able to discern that Jesus’ physical “lifting up” would take place on a cross, a truth that was veiled even to Jesus’ closest followers (cf. Mark 8:31–33; 9:30–32; 10:32–45 pars.; see also John 6:60, 66; 12:23–26, 33).

Finally, Jesus’ adduction of the account of Num. 21 and John’s inclusion of this instance of Jesus’ use of Scripture in his Gospel are part of a very broad exodus typology or Moses/exodus typology that pervades much of the Gospel. This typology includes Jesus’ “signs” (see commentary above), which to a significant extent hark back to Moses’ performance of “signs and wonders” at the exodus. It also includes the references to the Prophet envisaged in Deut. 18 in 1:45; 6:14; 7:40; the references to Moses writing about Jesus and testifying about him in 5:45–47; and the entire Johannine Farewell Discourse (chaps. 13–17), which is patterned after Moses’ final words to the Israelites in the book of Deuteronomy. Jesus is also set in relation to Moses, and the giving of the law, in the opening prologue (1:17; cf. 9:28). Yet another important part of the Moses/exodus typology in John’s Gospel is the feeding of the multitude (chap. 6), which includes Jesus’ correction that it is not Moses, but God, who has given the Israelites the bread from heaven (6:32), and which presents Jesus as the “bread from heaven” as the typological fulfillment of the manna provided by God for Israel in the wilderness (6:30–58).

The next possible allusion in the narrative comes as part of the Baptist’s statement in 3:28 that he has been “sent before” the Messiah. This may allude to Mal. 3:1: “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me” (quoted with reference to the Baptist in Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; cf. Luke 1:17, 76). The phrase “sent ahead” (an intensive perfect [Wallace 1996: 574–75]) is used in the OT for messengers sent ahead of a given person (e.g., Gen. 24:7; 32:3; 45:5; 46:28; cf. Ps. 105:17). The Baptist’s words in 3:29, which liken him to the friend of the bridegroom, cast John’s relationship to Jesus in terms of a “best man” standing ready to do the bridegroom’s bidding at his wedding (cf. m. Sanh. 3:5; m. B. Bat. 9:4; note that Jesus calls himself “the bridegroom” in Matt. 9:15 pars.). In light of the OT background where Israel is depicted as “the bride of Yahweh” (cf., e.g., Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:16–20; see Morris 1995: 213–14; Carson 1991: 211), the Baptist is suggesting that Jesus is Israel’s awaited king and Messiah (Carson 1991: 211; Brown 1966–1970: 156; Barrett 1978: 223). The “bride” imagery is further applied to the church in NT theology (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27; Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17).

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman (4:1–42)

The setting of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman is replete with history: they are by Jacob’s well, with Mount Gerizim (the referent of “this mountain” in 4:20–21) in the background in plain view. Mount Gerizim, of course, was the OT setting for the Deuteronomic blessings (Deut. 11:29; 27:12) and near Mount Ebal, the mountain on which Moses commanded an altar to be built (Deut. 27:4–6). The references to Jacob’s well and Mount Gerizim place Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in the framework of “holy geography” (Davies 1994: 288–355, esp. 298–302), which Jesus is shown to transcend: he is greater than Jacob (cf. 1:51 and commentary above), and the divine worship that he makes possible is not limited to physical structures or locations (4:23–24) (see Köstenberger 2004: 155–58).

Another pertinent geographical site mentioned in the OT is involved in the evangelist’s reference to “the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph” in 4:5. The reference reflects the customary inference from Gen. 48:21–22 and Josh. 24:32 that Jacob gave his son Joseph the land at Shechem that he had bought from the sons of Hamor (Gen. 33:18–19) and which later served as Joseph’s burial place (cf. Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32; see Neyrey 1979; Dalman 1935: 212–16).

The evangelist’s aside in 4:9, “For Jews do not associate with Samaritans,” masks a long history of strained relations between Samaritans and Jews. The Samaritans had built a temple on Mount Gerizim about 400 BC, which was destroyed about 128 BC by the Jews, who claimed that proper worship must be rendered in Jerusalem. Religiously, the Samaritan Scriptures consisted only of the Pentateuch; the Jewish canon also included the Writings and the Prophets. Socially, Jews in Jesus’ day generally would have avoided contact with Samaritans, especially Samaritan women, although there would have been a spectrum of behavior depending on locale, class, education, and other factors (Maccini 1996: 131–44).

On the whole, the scope of the phrase “do not associate” in 4:9 is probably broader than merely the sharing of drinking vessels (Ridderbos 1997: 154; Beasley-Murray 1999: 58 note ff; contra, e.g., Daube 1956: 375–82). Some Jews were willing to eat with Samaritans (m. Ber. 7:1; 8:8), but many were not, fearing ritual defilement. Samaritans were thought to convey uncleanness by what they lay, sat, or rode on, as well as by their saliva and urine. Samaritan women, like Gentiles, were considered to be in a continual state of ritual uncleanness (cf. m. Nid. 4:1; see Danby 1933: 803; Daube 1950; 1956: 373–82; Derrett 1988). Apart from these ethnic sensibilities, men generally would not want to discuss theological issues with women. All of this puts Jesus’ dealings with the Samaritan woman into proper context and underscores how Jesus was not afraid to break social barriers in the pursuit of his mission.

The references to Jesus as the giver of living water in 4:10–15 involve double entendre. On a physical level, “living water” refers to the highly sought-after fresh spring water as opposed to stagnant water (Gen. 26:19; Lev. 14:6; Jer. 2:13); on a spiritual level, it was God who was known to be the source and giver of life (Gen. 1:11–12, 20–31; 2:7; Job 33:4; Isa. 42:5). (On water symbolism in John’s Gospel, see Ng 2001.) In Num. 20:8–11, an incident to which Jesus may allude in the present passage, water gushes out of the rock, supplying the Israelites with badly needed refreshment (see also Num. 21:16–18). In Jer. 2:13 God laments that his people have forsaken him, “the spring of living water.” In Isa. 12:3 the prophet envisions the joy with which people “will draw water from the wells of salvation” in the last days. Rabbinic thought associated the provision of water with the coming of the Messiah (Eccles. Rab. 1:9; see also the reference to Exod. 17:6 in 1 Cor. 10:4).

In John’s Gospel Jesus is identified explicitly with the Creator and Life-giver (5:26), and he dispenses the gift of “living water,” later unveiled as the Holy Spirit (7:37–39). This end-time blessing, bestowed subsequent to Jesus’ exaltation, transcends John’s water baptism (1:26, 33), Jewish ceremonial purification (2:6; 3:25), proselyte baptism (cf. 3:5), and the torch-lighting and water-pouring symbolism of the Feast of Tabernacles (chaps. 7–8). It also supersedes nurturing or healing waters such as Jacob’s well (chap. 4) and the pools of Bethesda and Siloam (chaps. 5; 9). In fulfillment of the OT prophetic vision (Zech. 14:8; Ezek. 47:9), Jesus inaugurated the age of God’s abundance. Jesus’ offer of living water signals the reversal of the curse and the barrenness that are characteristic of the old fallen world (Beale 1997: 29). Jesus’ inauguration of the age of a new creation marks the fulfillment of the vision of texts such as Isa. 35.

The phrase “will in him become a supply of water welling up to eternal life” in 4:14 is reminiscent of Isaiah’s vision of people joyfully “drawing . . . water from the wells of salvation” in the last days (Isa. 12:3). In the future age envisioned by the prophet, people “will neither hunger nor thirst” (Isa. 49:10; cf. 44:3), and Yahweh will make “an everlasting covenant” with all those—Jews as well as believing representatives of “the nations who do not know you” (Isa. 55:4–5)—who follow his invitation, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters . . . that your soul may live” (Isa. 55:1–3a; cf. Sir. 24:21; 1 En. 48:1; Tg. Neof. of Gen. 28:10 referring to the well at Haran; see Díaz 1963: 76–77). If people forsake their wicked ways, God in his mercy “will freely pardon” (Isa. 55:6–7). Indeed, Jesus will in short order turn the conversation to the woman’s immoral lifestyle and confront her with her sin (4:16–18).

As D. A. Carson (1991: 220) aptly notes, Samaritans, whose canon was limited to the Pentateuch, may not have appreciated such allusions to the Prophets, although John’s Jewish readers would have done so. What is more, even in the Samaritans’ own liturgy it is said regarding the Taheb (the Samaritan equivalent to the Messiah) that “water shall flow from his buckets” (cf. Num. 24:7; see Bruce 1983: 105). Later in John’s Gospel “living water” terminology is applied to the Spirit, who would be given to believers in Jesus subsequent to his glorification (7:38–39). The term “well up” (allomai) in 4:14 is used in Isa. 35:6 with reference to a lame person leaping up like a deer; the same sense is present in the term’s other two NT references, Acts 3:8; 14:10. This intriguing connection links the new life brought by the Messiah with Jesus’ (and the apostles’) healing ministry, which resulted in the restoration of physical life to those suffering from a variety of ailments.

The “ancestors” who “worshiped on this mountain” (4:20) include Abraham (Gen. 12:7) and Jacob (Gen. 33:20), who built altars in this region. The woman’s reference to “this mountain” (Mount Gerizim) in 4:20 harks back to texts such as Deut. 11:29; 12:5–14; 27:12; Josh. 8:33. The Samaritans held that many other significant events during the patriarchal period were associated with Mount Gerizim (Macdonald 1964: 327–33). According to Samaritan tradition, a temple was built in that location in the fifth century BC. It was razed by John Hyrcanus and the Jews in 120 BC (Josephus, Ant. 13.254–256). Thus the dispute between Jews and Samaritans regarding the proper place of worship had been raging for centuries when the Samaritan woman broached the subject with Jesus.

Jesus’ response in 4:22 that “salvation [sōtēria] is from the Jews” (the only reference to sōtēria in this Gospel) does not imply the salvation of all Jews, nor is its primary point of reference that the coming Messiah (or Taheb) will be Jewish (though this is, of course, the case, and indicated by both the Hebrew Bible and the Samaritan Pentateuch; see esp. Gen. 49:10). Rather, as D. A. Carson (1991: 225) points out, “The idea is that, just as the Jews stand within the stream of God’s saving revelation, so also can it be said that they are the vehicle of that revelation, the historical matrix out of which that revelation emerges. ‘In Judah God is known; his name is great in Israel’ (Ps. 76:1).” Jesus’ statement here may also echo Isa. 2:3 (“For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem”). Jesus here contrasts the Samaritans’ religious ignorance (“You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know” [4:22]) with the Jews’ status as God’s chosen people and as the instrument through which God’s redemption was to be mediated to others. Nevertheless, although Jesus freely acknowledges Jewish salvation-historical preeminence, he does not allow it to become a barrier keeping others from benefiting from divine salvation blessings. What is more, not only is Samaritan worship on Mount Gerizim declared obsolete, but also Jewish worship in the Jerusalem temple is pronounced superseded in Jesus (“neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem” [4:21; cf. 2:17–22 and commentary above]). Coming from Jesus, a Jew, and one who affirmed that “salvation is from the Jews,” this is truly a revolutionary statement.

In elaborating on the true nature of God-pleasing worship, Jesus affirms that “God is spirit” (4:24; cf. the affirmation that God is light and love in 1 John 1:5; 4:8). The term “spirit” here does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but rather designates an attribute of God (see Köstenberger 2004: 156–57). God is a spiritual rather than material being (a qualitative reference “stressing the nature or essence of God” [Wallace 1996: 270]; cf. the similar phrase in 3:6; cf. also 3:8; see Barrett 1978: 238). The spiritual nature of God is taught clearly in the OT (cf. Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:26–27). Because God is spirit, the Israelites were not to make idols “in the form of anything” as did the surrounding nations (Exod. 20:4). Jesus’ point here is that since God is spirit, proper worship of him is also a matter of spirit rather than physical location (Jerusalem versus Mount Gerizim) (contra Keener 2003: 617–19).

In response, the woman affirms her belief that the “Messiah is coming” and that he will explain everything (4:25), issuing in Jesus’ self-identification as just that Messiah (4:26). Although the woman here refers to a coming “messiah,” the Samaritans did not regularly use this term until the sixteenth century (Kippenberg 1971: 303n216), preferring terms such as “Taheb” or “Restorer.” The figure of the Taheb, in turn, apparently originated independently of Deut. 18:15–18 and was only later identified with the “prophet like Moses” (see Bammel 1957; Boring, Berger, and Colpe 1995: 264–65; Kippenberg 1971: 276–327). The woman’s affirmation, “He will explain everything to us,” is consistent with the fact that Samaritans, rather than looking for the royal Messiah from the house of David (as did the Jews), apparently expected a “teaching” messiah (Bowman 1958: 298–308). This is where the conversation ends, being interrupted by the return of Jesus’ disciples from the nearby village.

The two final possible OT allusions in the present unit are found in Jesus saying, “Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together” (4:36), and, “One sows and another reaps” (4:37). The former saying is reminiscent of the eschatological passage in Amos 9:13: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman, and the planter by the one treading grapes.’” This image paints a picture of the abundance and prosperity of the new age. Thus Jesus’ message is that this age has dawned in and through his ministry, in which sowing and reaping coincide. The immediate application in John’s narrative, of course, is the approaching Samaritans (4:39–42).

The latter saying, cited in 4:37, may allude to Mic. 6:15: “You shall sow, but not reap.” If so, important differences would apply, however, for in Micah the saying is part of a word of judgment, while Jesus appears to refer to a general saying that seems devoid of connotations of judgment. Again, the immediate application is to Jesus’ ministry among the Samaritans and his commissioning of his disciples to enter into his work. Others—Jesus and his predecessors, most immediately John the Baptist, the final prophet associated with the OT era (Köstenberger 1998b: 180–84; cf. Carson 1991: 231; Morris 1995: 249)—have done the hard work; Jesus’ followers are the beneficiaries of these preceding labors and will bring in the harvest.

THE HEALING OF THE ROYAL OFFICIAL’S SON: THE SECOND SIGN IN CANA (4:43–54)

The pericope narrating Jesus’ healing of the royal official’s son in 4:43–54 is relatively free from OT allusions. The connection established by the evangelist between 4:46 and 2:1–11 may convey the message that the one who turned water into wine, eclipsing Jewish ceremonial washings and anticipating the impending joy of the messianic banquet, is here shown to continue his messianic mission, administering healing to a life close to death (cf. Isa. 35:5–6; 53:4a [cited in Matt. 8:16–17]; 61:1; see Carson 1991: 238). Jesus’ denunciation of the people’s dependence on “signs and wonders” in 4:48 may hark back to the “signs and wonders” performed by Moses at the exodus (see Köstenberger 1998a: 58–59, esp. n43; and commentary above). Tellingly, the phrase occurs elsewhere in the Gospels only in Jesus’ eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:24 par.; cf. 2 Thess. 2:9), where Jesus warns that false messiahs and prophets will perform “signs and wonders” in an attempt to deceive the elect.

The Festival Cycle (5:1–10:42)

SURVEY

The “festival cycle,” which revolves around Jesus’ attendance of various Jewish religious feasts, features three additional messianic “signs” by Jesus: the healing of the lame man (chap. 5); the feeding of the multitudes (chap. 6); the opening of the eyes of the blind man (chap. 9). If this were the Synoptic Gospels, the miracles themselves would be sufficient to demonstrate Jesus’ authority over sickness (cf. Mark 2:1–12) or his fulfillment of the messianic mission envisioned by Isaiah (cf. Matt. 8:17; 12:18–21; Luke 4:18–19). In John’s Gospel, however, the miracles are transmuted into “signs” (e.g., 7:21–24), acts with inherent christological symbolism.

The “festival cycle” includes three specific OT quotations, in 6:31, 45 (both in the context of Jesus’ “bread of life” discourse at the Galilean Passover [6:4]); 10:34 (Jesus at the Feast of Dedication [10:22]; see also the scriptural references in 7:38, 42 at the occasion of Jesus’ attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem). The first reference is attributed to the Jews, while the second and third form part of Jesus’ teaching. All three quotations are introduced by a formula including the phrase estin gegrammenon, “it is written” (cf. 2:17; 12:14).

The OT reference in 6:31, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat,” links Jesus’ ministry to the Jews with Moses’ leadership of Israel during the exodus and establishes the superiority of Jesus’ person and work over this revered figure in Jewish history (on Moses in the Fourth Gospel, see Glasson 1963; Meeks 1967; Boismard 1993: 1–68; Harstine 2002). The discussion surrounding this passage also clarifies how it would be that Jesus’ zeal for God would “consume” him (the message of the last explicit OT quotation in 2:17). In the context of this discussion, Jesus maintains that in his ministry the prophetic vision is fulfilled when in the last days all God’s people would be taught by God (6:45; cf. Isa. 54:13).

The next explicit and identifiable OT quotation, also by Jesus, in 10:34, is given in support of Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. In an argument from the lesser to the greater, Jesus argues that even mere mortals are called “sons of God” in OT Scripture, and so people should not take exception to his claim of being the Son of God. Possible OT allusions in John 5–10 include those found in 5:27, 29, 45, 46; 6:14, 29; 7:22, 24, 38, 40, 42, 51; 8:12, 15, 17, 28, 35, 44; 9:2, 5, 24, 34; 10:3–4, 8, 16, 33 (see discussion below).

THE HEALING OF THE LAME MAN AND THE SABBATH CONTROVERSY (5:1–47)

In the aftermath of Jesus’ healing of the lame man, the Jews object, in a petty display of religious legalism, to the man’s picking up of his mat on the Sabbath (5:10). Although the Jewish leaders may have thought of passages such as Exod. 31:12–17; Jer. 17:21–27; Neh. 13:15, 19, the man did not actually break any biblical Sabbath regulations. According to Jewish tradition, however, the man was violating a code that prohibited the carrying of an object “from one domain into another” (m. Šabb. 7:2)—in the present instance, his mat. Apparently, it was permissible to carry a bed with a person lying on it, but not one that was empty (m. Šabb. 10:5). At this point Jesus is accused not of violating the law himself, but of enticing someone else to sin by issuing a command that would have caused that person to break the law.

In the ensuing “Sabbath controversy” (5:16–47) Jesus aligns his messianic activity with the work of his divine Father, which did not cease at creation. Jesus’ address for God as “my Father” in 5:17 and elsewhere has few OT precedents (though see Jer. 3:4, 19; Ps. 89:26). The Jews were committed monotheists, believing in only one God (cf. Num. 15:37–41; Deut. 6:4; 11:13–21; see Schürer 1973–1979: 2:454–55; Hurtado 1998). Indeed, the Hebrew Scriptures make clear that God is incomparable and without equal (e.g., Isa. 40:18, 25), and that those who “make themselves” like God, such as Pharaoh (Ezek. 29:3), Joash (2 Chron. 24:24), Hiram (Ezek. 28:2), and Nebuchadnezzar (Isa. 14:14; Dan. 4), are subject to severe judgment. The Jewish belief in only one God became an important distinguishing characteristic of Jewish religion in a polytheistic environment (see Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Cohon 1955). Jesus’ claim of a unique relationship with God seemed to compromise this belief by elevating Jesus to the same level as the Creator as a second God (5:18; 8:58–59; 10:30–31). The same charge will later lead to the crucifixion (19:7).

Although Gen. 2:2–3 teaches that God rested (šābat) on the seventh day of creation, Jewish rabbis agreed that God does indeed work constantly, without breaking the Sabbath (Exod. Rab. 30:9; cf. Gen. Rab. 11:10). After all, the whole world is God’s domain (Isa. 6:3), and God fills the entire universe (Jer. 23:24). Just as the Father continues to be active, Jesus claimed to colabor with him (5:17; cf. 4:34). As to healing on the Sabbath, the one who created the Sabbath has authority over it, determining its purpose, use, and limitations. In fact, even the Jews made exceptions to the rule of refraining from work on the Sabbath, most notably in the case of circumcision (see 7:23; cf. m. Šabb. 18:3; 19:2–3). If God is therefore above Sabbath regulations, so is Jesus (cf. Matt. 12:1–14 pars.; see Brown 1966–1970: 217; Barrett 1978: 256; Carson 1991: 247–49).

The remaining interchange features several possible OT allusions and frequently invokes important OT themes. Jesus’ claim in 5:19 that “the Son can do nothing by himself” echoes Moses’ affirmation in Num. 16:28 that “the LORD has sent me to do all these things, and it was not my own idea” (Brown 1966–1970: 214). An even more significant OT theme resonates in the background of Jesus’ statement in 5:21 that the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life. The OT and Second Temple literature concur that raising the dead and giving life are the sole prerogatives of God (cf. Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7; Tob. 13:2; Wis. 16:13). Jesus’ contemporaries therefore did not believe that the Messiah would be given authority to raise the dead (see references in Köstenberger 2004: 187n61). This renders Jesus’ claim of being able to raise the dead and to give them life at will even more striking. Although Elijah sometimes was considered to be an exception because he was used by God to raise the dead, Jesus’ claim is much bolder in that he claimed not merely to be God’s instrument in raising other people, but to give life himself to whom he is pleased to give it.

The statement in 5:22 that the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son is remarkable as well, since according to the Hebrew Scriptures, judgment likewise is the exclusive prerogative of God (e.g., Gen. 18:25; cf. Judg. 11:27; though see Ps. 2:2). In Second Temple literature, too, the Messiah remains very much in the background as far as judgment is concerned, apart from carrying out God’s judgment on his enemies, in keeping with Jewish nationalistic expectations (e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:21–27). Rabbinic writings also ascribe the role of judging the world to God alone.

Jesus’ self-characterization as his sender’s authorized messenger in the present passage is in keeping with God’s dealings with his people in OT times, where Moses and the prophets were considered to be God’s agents and mouthpieces who acted and spoke on God’s behalf. Consequently, the Jewish fundamental affirmation regarding a messenger (šālîaḥ) was that “a man’s agent is like the man himself” (e.g., m. Ber. 5:5). The purpose statement in 5:23, “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father,” in effect establishes Jesus’ right to be worshiped (Carson 1991: 255) and amounts to a claim to deity (Morris 1995: 279). Because of Jesus’ unique relationship to the Father, God’s glory, which God vowed not to give to another (Isa. 42:8; 48:11), is neither lessened nor compromised by honor being given to the Son. Those prior to Jesus’ coming were able to worship only God, but now that Jesus the Word has been made flesh, those who want to honor God must also honor his Son, or by failing to honor the Son they also fail to honor the Father.

Jesus’ words in 5:25, “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have heard it will live,” are reminiscent of Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37; cf. Rom. 4:17; Eph. 2:1–5). This is one of several instances in this Gospel where the book of Ezekiel looms in the background (cf. chap. 10, esp. 10:16; see Deeley 1997; Vawter 1964; Bullock 1982).

Yet another startling pronouncement is found in 5:26, where Jesus asserts that just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son to have life in himself (cf. 5:21). The OT states repeatedly that God grants life to others (e.g., Gen. 2:7; Job 10:12; 33:4; Ps. 36:9). Here, however, Jesus claims that God granted him life in himself, a divine attribute. The phrase rendered “he is the Son of Man” in 5:27 reads more literally “he is Son of Man”—the only instance of this christological title without articles before both “Son” and “Man” in the entire NT. This may indicate an allusion to Dan. 7:13 LXX, where the expression “son of man” likewise lacks articles (cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:14; see Carson [1991: 257–59], who also notes Colwell’s Rule; Ridderbos 1997: 200; Brown 1966–1970: 215; Moloney 1998: 183; and commentary here at 1:51). In his humanity the heaven-sent Son of Man is given authority to judge. As elsewhere in John’s Gospel, revelation and judgment go hand in hand (3:19; 8:16; 12:31).

Jesus’ reference to the resurrection in 5:29 (“those who have done what is good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment”) may hark back to Dan. 12:2 (“some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”). A glimpse of the future resurrection was given moments after Jesus died on the cross (Matt. 27:52–53). The statement in 5:31, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid,” is in keeping with the scriptural teaching regarding the need for multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf. Num. 35:30), which was reaffirmed by Jewish tradition (m. Ketub. 2:9; m. Roš Haš. 3:1; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.219; see also John 8:13–18; 2 Cor. 13:1 [citing Deut. 19:15]; 1 John 5:7; Rev. 11:3).

In 5:35 Jesus calls John the Baptist “a lamp that burned and gave light,” a description that seems to echo Ps. 131:17 LXX (132:17 MT), where it is said that God will “set up a lamp” (lychnos) for his “anointed one” (christos) (see Carson 1991: 261; Morris 1995: 289n100; Barrett 1978: 265; note the presence of the Greek article in conjunction with the word “lamp” in 5:35, which indicates a known person or phenomenon). Inherent in the designation of the Baptist as a “lamp” is the recognition that his witness was small (albeit important) and of a temporary nature (cf. the similar portrayal of Elijah in Sir. 48:1). According to 1:7–9, he was a lamp that exuded light, but he was not the light itself (see Carson 1991: 261). Thus Jesus’ reference to John as a “lamp” keeps the roles of the Baptist and of Jesus in God’s salvation-historical plan in proper balance and perspective.

Jesus’ statement in 5:37 that people “have never heard his [God’s] voice nor seen his form” (cf. 1:18) seems to allude to the experience of wilderness Israel, which received the law at Mount Sinai without hearing God’s voice or seeing his form through Moses as a mediator. Many of Israel’s leaders in OT times did in fact hear God’s voice (Gen. 7:1–4; 12:1–3; Exod. 3:4–4:17; 19:3–6, 9–13; 33:11; 1 Sam. 3:4, 6, 8, 11–14; 1 Kings 19:13, 15–18) or “see” God in one sense or another (e.g., Gen. 18:1–2; 32:24–30; Exod. 33:11; Isa. 6:1–5). In 5:38 Jesus’ words “nor does his [God’s] word dwell in you” hark back to the OT depiction of a God-fearing person within whose heart dwells the word of God (e.g., Josh. 1:8–9; Ps. 119:11; cf. Col. 3:16).

Jesus’ assertion in 5:39 that the Scriptures testify to him is one of five instances in this Gospel where Scripture or a given OT writer is said to refer to Christ although no specific passage is adduced (cf. 1:45; 2:22; 5:45–46; 20:9). D. A. Carson (1991: 263) rightly contends that what is at issue here is that Scripture is presented as providing “a comprehensive hermeneutical key”: “By predictive prophecy, by type, by revelatory event and by anticipatory statute, what we call the Old Testament is understood to point to Christ, his ministry, his teaching, his death and resurrection.”

The closing appeal to Moses in 5:45–47 prepares the way for chapter 6, where Jesus is presented as the new Moses providing God’s people with the new “bread from heaven” (Keener 2003: 662). Jesus’ reference to Moses as a witness against the Jews in 5:45 may allude to Deut. 31:26–27, where the Mosaic law is invoked as a witness against the Israelites. Indeed, Jewish hopes were set on Moses (cf. 9:28–29), and in OT history Moses frequently served as Israel’s intercessor (e.g., Exod. 32:11–14, 30–32; Num. 12:13; 14:19–20; 21:7; Deut. 9:18–20, 25–29). In Jesus’ day many Jews, in keeping with the portrayal of Moses in OT and Second Temple literature (As. Mos. 11:17; 12:6; Jub. 1:19–21), saw Moses’ role as that of continuing mediator and advocate. Yet, ironically, according to Jesus, it was precisely the one on whom the Jews had set their hopes who was going to serve as their accuser (Deut. 31:19, 21, 26; cf. Rom. 3:19).

The reference in 5:46 to Moses writing about Jesus may allude to the first five books of the OT (attributed to Moses) or to the prediction of a “prophet like Moses” in Deut. 18:15 (cf. John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40), or both. Alternatively, the reference is not to the Pentateuch or to the “prophet like Moses,” but to “a certain way of reading the books of Moses” (Carson 1991: 266). The reason that Moses, as the lawgiver, would accuse the Jews was that he, as the lawgiver, knew the law’s true purpose. Rather than being an end in itself, the law served to point to Christ (cf. Matt. 5:17–20; see Carson 1991: 266).

THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE AND THE BREAD OF LIFE DISCOURSE (6:1–71)

Chapter 6 is replete with OT allusive material. Jesus’ question in 6:5 to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” echoes Moses’ similar question to God in the wilderness, “Where can I get meat for all these people?” (Num. 11:13). This is one of several parallels between John 6 and Num. 11. Other parallels include the grumbling of the people (Num. 11:1; John 6:41, 43); the description of the manna (Num. 11:7–9; John 6:31); the reference to the eating of meat/flesh (Num. 11:13; John 6:51); and the striking disproportion between the existing need and the available resources (Num. 11:22; John 6:7–9).

In 6:9 mention is made of a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish. In a similar account in 2 Kings 4:42–44, Elisha fed one hundred men with twenty barley loaves and some ears of grain (see Ridderbos 1997: 211–12; Barrett 1978: 275). The use of the word paidarion (“boy”) both in 6:9, which is its only NT occurrence, and several times in the LXX of the 2 Kings passage (there referring to Elisha’s servant [2 Kings 4:38, 41]) is one major verbal connection between these two narratives. Other links include the mention of barley and the overall mode of narration, including a question of disbelief, the command to distribute the loaves, and the fact that all ate with food left to spare.

The reference in 6:10 to the abundance of grass in that place may constitute an allusion to the messianic age (cf. Ps. 23:2; John 10:9–10; see Schnackenburg 1990: 2:16). The bountiful meal evokes OT messianic prophecy (cf. Isa. 25:6–8; 49:9–11; also Matt. 22:1–14; Luke 22:15–30; see Ridderbos 1997: 213). Jesus’ words to his disciples in 6:12, “Gather the leftover pieces, so that nothing may perish,” echo those of the narrative in Ruth 2:14, “She ate all she wanted and had some left over” (see Daube 1956: 46–51). It was customary at Jewish meals to collect what was left over. Pieces of bread were not to be thrown away (b. Ber. 50b), and any food the size of an olive or larger was to be picked up (b. Ber. 52b). The expression “so that nothing may perish” is also documented in rabbinic literature with reference to food (y. Sanh. 6:6; y. Ḥag. 2:2). “Twelve” baskets perhaps alludes to Jesus’ restoration of Israel (the twelve tribes) by calling twelve disciples to form the core of his new messianic community (Carson 1991: 271).

When people saw the “sign” that Jesus had performed, they asked whether Jesus was “the prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14), a clear allusion to Deut. 18:15, 18 (see 7:40 below and commentary at 1:21 above). This passage featured significantly in the messianic expectations at Qumran (cf. 4Q175 5–8; 1QS IX, 11; see Anderson 1996: 174–77) and presumably in other circles in first-century Judaism. Later, in the third century, Rabbi Isaac held that “as the former redeemer caused manna to descend . . . so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend” (Eccles. Rab. on Eccles. 1:9; see commentary at 6:31). As we noted, Jesus’ multiplication of barley loaves is reminiscent of the miracle performed by Elijah’s follower Elisha (2 Kings 4:42–44). In 1 Kings 19 a parallel is drawn between Elijah and Moses (e.g., 19:8; cf. Exod. 24:18; 34:28). The popular expectation expressed in John 6:14 may represent an amalgamation of the two figures (Brown 1966–1970: 234–35). In Jesus’ day the notion of the “prophet” apparently merged with that of “king” (6:15). Indeed, “The step from a prophet like Moses (6:14), the first Redeemer and worker of miracles, to a messianic deliverer was a short one for enthusiasts in contemporary Israel to make” (Beasley-Murray 1999: 88; cf. Horsley 1984). The figure also featured prominently in early Christian preaching (Acts 3:23; 7:37).

The Johannine account of Jesus’ walking on the water in 6:16–24 may hark back to the OT in the description of Jesus “walking” across the sea, which may echo Job 9:8 LXX, where God is said to walk on the waters (note also the parallel wording in Mark 6:48 [“passing by”]; cf. Job 9:11; see Keener 2003: 673). Jesus’ words to the disciples in 6:20, “It is I; do not be afraid,” likewise suggest an OT background. Apart from the plain meaning of the words “It is I” (egō eimi) as conveying Jesus’ self-identification, there may be overtones of epiphany (“I Am” is God’s name in the OT [see Exod. 3:14]), especially in light of Jesus’ walking on water. The statement may allude to Ps. 77:16, 19, describing God’s manifestation to Israel during the exodus (Beasley-Murray 1999: 89–90). “Do not be afraid” was frequently God’s message to his people in the OT (e.g., Gen. 26:24; Deut. 1:21, 29; 20:1, 3; Josh. 1:9). The reference to the boat reaching the shore at once in 6:21 may allude to Ps. 107:23–32, especially vv. 29–30: “He [the LORD] stilled the storm to a whisper . . . and he guided them to their desired haven” (Carson 1991: 276).

The people’s and Jesus’ references to “works of God” in 6:28–29 draw on a common Semitic expression (cf. Matt. 26:10 par.; John 9:4; Acts 13:41 [quoting Hab. 1:5]; 1 Cor. 16:10). In Jewish literature this phrase, which may reflect Zealot parlance (Schlatter 1948: 171), refers normally to works done by God, not those required by him (cf. John 3:21; 9:3–4; for similar terminology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see CD-A II, 14–15; cf. 1QS IV, 4; 1QHa XIII, 36; CD-A I, 1–2; XIII, 7–8). In the present instance the people’s response seems to reflect a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words in 6:27, where he speaks of “working not for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life.” What Jesus intended as a reference to the people’s proper pursuit, the crowd took as an invitation to literally “work the works of God.” In light of the Jewish emphasis on “works of the law” (see Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; cf. Phil. 3:6, 9; see Carson 1991: 285; Carson, O’Brien, and Seifrid 2004), Jesus’ answer is nothing less than stunning: God’s requirement is summed up as believing in “the one he has sent” (the language may reflect Mal. 3:1)—that is, the Messiah. This contrasts with the people’s apparent confidence that they are able to meet the demands of God (Carson 1991: 285; Morris 1995: 319; Barrett 1978: 287).

Another misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jews is evident in 6:30, hinging on two different senses of the word “sign.” The Jews demand further evidence for Jesus’ claims; the evangelist presents as “signs” works of Jesus that are christologically significant (Ridderbos 1997: 226). In the people’s thinking, if Jesus was the prophet like Moses (6:14), he could be expected to perform further signs (Carson 1991: 285; Beasley-Murray 1991: 91; Barrett 1978: 288; Brown 1966–1970: 265; Moloney 1998: 212). The people’s question in 6:30, “What are you going to perform?” represents a common OT expression of incredulity (cf. Job 9:12; Eccles. 8:4; Isa. 45:9; see Derrett 1993). The irony, of course, is that while the people are asking for a “sign,” they have just witnessed it in the form of Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the multitude. Thus their demand for a “sign” reveals their unbelieving attitude and failure to discern in Jesus’ actions the work of God. This obduracy will, in short order, lead to the departure of even many of Jesus’ disciples (6:60–66) and eventuate in the evangelist’s indictment of Jewish unbelief at the close of Jesus’ public ministry in terms of Isa. 53:1 and especially Isa. 6:10 (12:37–40; see commentary there).

Undaunted, the Jews invoke the OT Scriptures concerning their ancestors’ eating the manna in the wilderness.

6:31

---

A. NT Context: Jesus as the End-Time Manna. Jesus’ feeding of the multitude (6:1–15), which is recorded in all four Gospels and is one of the Johannine “signs” (6:26, 30), provides the occasion for his extended interchange with the crowds (6:25–58), which at some point transitions into Jesus’ instruction in the synagogue at Capernaum (see 6:59). The people’s immediate reaction to the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes was to recognize Jesus as the Prophet spoken of by Moses (6:14; cf. Deut. 18:15, 18) and to attempt to make him king by force (6:15). Jesus withdraws, but eventually he is found by the crowds (6:25), who engage him in further conversation.

Jesus chides people for their failure to look beyond the miracle to its “signs” character as pointing to Jesus’ messianic identity (6:26–27; cf. 20:30–31). When they ask Jesus what works God requires (6:28), he responds that the only work needed is for them to believe in “the one whom God has sent” (6:29). The crowd promptly asks for a sign from Jesus that would warrant such belief, oblivious to the fact that he had just supplied such proof in the multiplication of the loaves (6:30). At this point people invoke the experience of Israel’s wilderness generation at the exodus: “Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (6:31; see Ps. 78:24b; cf. Num. 11:7–9).

B. The OT Context of Ps. 78:24b. The reference “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” seems to be derived from several OT passages (cf. esp. Exod. 16:4, 15; Ps. 78:23–24; 105:40; see Carson 1991: 286; Gunkel 1968: 344; Schlatter [1948: 172–73] also cites Neh. 9:15). Perhaps most relevant as a potential background for John 6:31 is the reference to the giving of manna in Ps. 78:23–24 (Menken 1996a: 47–54), where it is part of a recital of wilderness events during Israel’s exodus (vv. 12–39). Verses 12–16 speak of God’s gracious and wondrous deeds, while vv. 17–20 recount Israel’s rebellion, balanced in ten statements each (Tate 1990: 290, citing Campbell). Verses 21–22 describe God’s wrath kindled by the Israelites’ lack of trust in his saving power.

Nevertheless, as 78:23–31 proceed to narrate, God still “rained” (78:24, 27) down manna, “the grain of heaven,” as well as meat on the Israelites. Interestingly, in this section God’s gracious provision is intermingled with his judgment on the unbelieving Israelites (Tate 1990: 291). Because the wilderness generation improperly “tested God” (78:18, 41, 56), provoking him and rebelling against him, God struck them at the very moment when they were feeding on the food they had craved (78:29–31; cf. Num. 11:33–34). This draws a stark contrast between the goodness and long-suffering nature of God and the ingratitude and sinful unbelief of his chosen people. Psalm 78 continues to recount subsequent events in Israel’s history and concludes with a reference to David, the shepherd and servant of God and of his people.

C. God’s Provision of Manna in Judaism. The divine provision of manna for wilderness Israel is celebrated in later OT passages. Besides Ps. 78:24, other important references include Ps. 105:40 (“gave them bread from heaven in abundance”) and Neh. 9:15 (“You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger”). Beyond this, Second Temple literature looked forward to a time when God would again provide manna for his people (Wis. 16:20; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.169–176; Worse 118; Heir 79, 191; Names 259–260; see Menken 1988).

Sibylline Oracles states that “those who honor the true eternal God inherit life . . . feasting on sweet bread from starry heaven” (Frg. 3:46–49 [second century BC?]). Another work expresses the expectation of an end-time recurrence of God’s provision of manna: “And it will happen at that time that the treasury of manna will come down again from on high, and they will eat of it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of time” (2 Bar. 29:8 [ca. AD 100]; cf. Rev. 2:17).

The same expectation is found in later rabbinic tradition. Thus Rabbi Berechiah (ca. AD 340) said in the name of Rabbi Isaac (ca. AD 300), “As the first Redeemer was, so shall the latter Redeemer be. . . . As the former Redeemer [i.e., Moses] caused manna to descend [citing Exod. 16:4], so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend” (Eccles. Rab. 1:9). Similarly, “R. Eleazar Hisma [ca. AD 120] says: You will not find it [the manna] in this world but you will find it in the world to come” (Mek. Exod. 16:25) (see Köstenberger 2002b: 68–69).

D. Textual Matters. The reference to Ps. 78:24b in John 6:31 is aligned quite closely with the LXX, except that the word phagein (“to eat”) is found at the end rather than the beginning of the line, and the phrase ek tou (“from the”) is added in John, the latter most likely owing to the influence of Exod. 16:4 (see the discussions in Daly-Denton 2004: 134; Menken 1996a: 52–54). The reason for the addition of ek tou probably is christological: for John, Jesus is not merely the “bread of heaven,” but rather the “bread from heaven,” accentuating more keenly Jesus’ provenance from God (cf. John 8:42, 47: ek tou theou; also, e.g., 3:13, 31; see Menken 1996a: 53).

E. The Use of Texts on God’s Provision of Manna in John 6:31. The crowd’s citation of Ps. 78:24b, or a similar OT reference to that effect, that God “gave them bread from heaven to eat” is part of the Johannine “misunderstanding” theme. Jesus had just performed an amazing miracle, the feeding of the multitude (6:1–15), but the crowd is asking for the kind of evidence of Jesus’ messianic calling that he had just provided. Hence the crowd had failed to discern the true significance of this Johannine “sign,” as is duly noted by Jesus (6:26). In this way these Jews were unwittingly perpetrating the wilderness generation’s pattern of unbelief in the face of miraculous “signs” performed by God’s servants.

One further element of misunderstanding centers on the reference to “he” in the quotation in 6:31. The crowd attributes the provision of manna in the original instance to Moses. Their confidence and trust in Moses is ironic because the Israelites in Moses’ day in fact did not follow Moses’ leadership. What is more, as Jesus proceeds to point out, the “he” providing the manna in the wilderness was not Moses, but God (6:32), the very God who had now sent Jesus as “the bread of God . . . who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (6:33) (see the discussion in Menken 1996a: 55–65). In the ensuing interchange the connection between Jesus’ present-day Jewish interrogators and the unbelieving wilderness generation is developed yet further (see, e.g., 6:41, 44, 61).

F. Theological Use. Three factors link the present chapter with the exodus account: (1) the Passover motif; (2) Jesus as the prophet like Moses; (3) the expectation that God would again provide manna in the messianic age (Ridderbos 1997: 226; Morris 1995: 321; Beasley-Murray 1999: 91). The implicit contrast is between Moses and Jesus (Ridderbos 1997: 226–27). Continuity is present between the wilderness generation and the Jews in Jesus’ day.

As in 3:14, an event from Israel’s wilderness wanderings during the exodus is shown to anticipate typologically God’s provision of salvation in and through Jesus (Barrett 1978: 290). Also as in 3:14, the typology entails an element of escalation: whereas the manna in the wilderness had Israel as its recipient, God’s gift of Jesus is universal in scope and extends beyond believing Israelites also to believing Gentiles (cf., e.g., 10:16; 11:51–52; 12:32; see Carson 1991: 287).

An “I am” saying, a “sign,” and two OT quotations (see further below) combine to highlight Israel’s obduracy at this juncture of Jesus’ ministry at the end of the first half of the first half of John’s Gospel (see esp. 6:60–71). The feeding of the multitude is presented as one of Jesus’ messianic “signs” that typologically fulfills, in an escalated manner, God’s “signs and wonders” performed through Moses and meets with rejection just as Moses did (see commentary at 12:38–40 below).

Jesus’ words in 6:32, “Not Moses . . . but my Father,” exhort the Jews to see, behind Moses, God as the true provider of the heavenly bread, whereby “bread from heaven/of God” in 6:32–33 points to Jesus’ heavenly origin (cf. 3:13, 31; see Ridderbos 1997: 228). With regard to the phrase “gives life to the world” in 6:33, it is interesting to note that in rabbinic teaching the giving of the law at Sinai was described in similar terms: “The earth trembled when he gave life to the world” (Exod. Rab. 29:9). In the present passage the same function is said to be fulfilled by Jesus (cf. 5:39).

While the crowd interprets Jesus’ words impersonally (6:34), the personal sense gradually builds throughout the discourse (Brown 1966–1970: 263). Throughout the dialogue the Jews see Jesus in light of their preconceived notions and are entirely motivated by physical concerns (Ridderbos 1997: 229). By claiming “Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never, ever thirst” (6:35), Jesus plainly claims to fulfill OT messianic expectations in keeping with prophetic passages that speak of the operation of God’s word in the provision of eschatological salvation (cf. esp. Isa. 55:1; see Carson 1991: 289; cf. also Isa. 49:10, cited in Rev. 7:16).

The expressions “eternal life” in 6:40 and “raise up” in 6:39–40 continue the theme of life sounded in 6:33, 35, underscoring the permanence of life made available in and through Jesus in contrast to the temporary nature of God’s provision of manna to wilderness Israel (Ridderbos 1997: 231).

The Jews’ murmuring against Jesus in 6:41, as we noted, parallels the Israelites’ murmuring against Moses in the wilderness (cf., e.g., Exod. 17:3; Num. 11:1; 14:27, 29). There are obvious parallels between Jesus’ Jewish opponents and wilderness Israel (cf. Exod. 16:2, 8–9; Num. 11:4–23). Just as the Israelites grumbled about the first giver of bread, Moses, likewise they grumbled about the second, Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 10:10), and just as in the wilderness, the Jews’ grumbling here is ultimately directed against God himself (Moloney 1998: 217). By linking the response of the Jews in Jesus’ day to the Israelites’ response to Moses in the wilderness, the Fourth Evangelist establishes a typology that associates Jesus’ opponents with a trajectory of unbelief that sets up both the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah in the passion narrative and the evangelist’s concluding indictment of the Jews at the end of chapter 12 (see commentary at 12:38, 40 below).

Jesus’ statements in 6:37, 44, “Everyone the Father has given me will come to me” and “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” are part of the Johannine twin motifs of predestination and election. John 6:37 encapsulates the Gospel’s “universalism” (better, “universal scope”), “individualism,” and “predestinarianism” (Barrett 1978: 294). On the basis of the Father’s prevenient work, Jesus will receive the ones who come to him. What he will not do is fail to recognize these individuals as his own and eject them from his fellowship (Ridderbos 1997: 231n123); what he will do is keep and preserve them (Carson 1991: 290). These motifs culminate in the Good Shepherd Discourse (cf. esp. 10:28–29; see Schnackenburg 1990: 2:47) and continue through Jesus’ final prayer (cf. esp. 17:6, 9, 11–12; cf. also 18:9) and his concluding commissioning of Peter and the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (chap. 21) (the idea of accepting someone called by God into the community and not rejecting him is also found in the Qumran literature: e.g., 1QS VI, 16, 19, 22; IX, 15–16; XI, 13–14). Although the focus in 6:37 is on the Father’s “giving” of the people to Jesus and on Jesus’ receptive attitude, it remains true that persons must “come” to him (cf. 6:44). This underscores the need for a positive human response to the divine initiative (Borchert 1996–2002: 1:265). Still, there is no indication here or elsewhere in this Gospel that God’s predestinatory purposes ever fail (contra Witherington 1995: 158).

In 6:44 Jesus proceeds to underscore the human inability to gain salvation apart from divine assistance. People can come to Jesus only if the Father who sent him draws them. Ultimately, therefore, salvation depends not on human believing, but on the “drawing” action of the Father (presumably by the Holy Spirit) by which God moves a person to faith in Christ (see 12:32; cf. Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; see Ridderbos 1997: 232). In the rabbinic sources, Rabbi Hillel (first century AD) uses the expression “to bring near to the Torah” with reference to conversion (m. ʾAbot 1:12) (see Moloney 1998: 220). There is a certain affinity between John’s teaching on predestination and the Qumran doctrine of the “two spirits” (1QS III, 14–IV, 6). The rabbinic view is summed up by the saying attributed to Rabbi Akiba (ca. AD 135): “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given” (m. ʾAbot 3:16; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.13, 16, 18; J.W. 2.162–165; see the excursus in Schnackenburg 1990: 2:265–70).

In the present instance Jesus’ point is not merely general, but rather specific and salvation-historical. Because the Jews are refusing to come to God in his prescribed manner—that is, through faith in the Messiah—they cannot receive eternal life. Jewish obduracy constitutes the focus of the “paternity dispute” in chapter 8, the healing of the blind man in chapter 9, the Good Shepherd Discourse in chapter 10, and the events surrounding the raising of Lazarus in chapters 11–12. The Pharisee-led plot against Jesus that surfaces intermittently in the narrative (esp. during the “festival cycle” in chaps. 5–10) is motivated by the Jews’ unwillingness to come to God on his terms.

6:45

---

A. The NT Context: Believers in Jesus as End-Time Disciples of Yahweh. Later in the same interchange that featured the previous OT quotation by the crowd in 6:31, Jesus makes reference to the OT as part of his teaching. In response to the Jews’ demand for Jesus to produce something akin to Moses’ giving of the manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, Jesus went beyond these expectations, not only by demonstrating his ability to accomplish a similar feat (the feeding of the multitude) but also by arguing that this event merely constituted a “sign” pointing beyond what Jesus did to who he was. Jesus claimed not only to be able to give the bread from heaven but also, in his very own person, to be that bread (6:33, 35, 38).

At this the Jews “grumbled” (gongyzō), in keeping with the Israelites’ response to Moses in the wilderness (6:41, 43, 61; cf. Exod. 17:3; Num. 11:1; 14:27, 29), pointing to Jesus’ obvious humanity as evidence against his divine origin (6:42).

Jesus, in response, acknowledged that only those whom the Father who sent him would draw to him would be able to “come” to him (a Johannine synonym for “believing” in Jesus). In this way, Jesus asserted, people would witness at the present time the fulfillment of the prophetic vision that all would be taught by God (6:45; cf. Isa. 54:13a; see also Jer. 31:34; Joel 3:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 John 2:20; Barn. 21:6). According to Jesus, the scope of “all” included those who proved receptive to his teaching (6:45). While the Jews prided themselves on being students of Scripture (e.g., 5:39; 9:29), Jesus here alleges that they refuse to “come to him” (i.e., believe in him as the Messiah) because they are unwilling to learn from God.

B. The OT context of Isa. 54:13. The present passage has links with Isa. 40:1–3 (Isa. 40:3 is cited in John 1:23; see commentary there), where the prophet is urged to speak words of comfort to the woman Jerusalem. In the present chapter Yahweh, again through the prophet, is speaking just such words of comfort to Jerusalem, laying out a grand vision of her restoration, including the notion that all her children will be taught by Yahweh (Isa. 54:13; cf. Jer. 31:31–34). This is set in the context of the reference to Jerusalem as a “barren woman, who has borne no child” and the prospect that “the children of the wife that was abandoned will outnumber those of the wife with a husband” in the opening verse of the chapter (Isa. 54:1).

The words of assurance in 54:4 convey “the pathos of the situation in which a woman deprived of the protection of a husband, or unable to bear children, would have found herself” (Blenkinsopp 2002: 362). The greatest spiritual wealth that Isaiah is able to imagine for God’s people is that all their children “will be taught by [lit., ‘become disciples of’] the LORD.” In this way the inner glory of Zion’s sons will correspond to its external beauty (cf. Isa. 54:11–12; see Young 1972: 370). Notably, in Isa. 50:4 the same word twice refers to the Servant being “taught” by God. Hence, “the ideal represented by the Servant is now represented in the individual members of the new Jerusalem” (Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:428n67, citing Skinner). Significantly, this promise follows on the heels of the reference to the Servant of Yahweh and his substitutionary suffering in Isa. 53 (e.g., Isa. 53:5).

The present passage also significantly harks back to Isa. 50:4, where, in the context of contrasting portraits of Israel’s sin and the Servant’s obedience, the same word, “taught” (lmd), is used twice with reference to the Servant of Yahweh: “The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught.” This is the same Servant who gives his back to those who strike it, turns the other cheek, and is the object of extensive abuse (50:6), yet who professes his innocence (50:9) and is confident of his vindication by God (50:8).

The section concludes with the question “Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of his servant?” followed by the exhortation “Let him who walks in darkness and has no light trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God” (50:10). In the chapters leading up to Isa. 54:13, therefore, the Servant of Yahweh is identified as one who himself has both an “ear to hear as those who are taught” and “the tongue of those who are taught” by God and who can therefore command the obedience of those who would trust in the name of the Lord. It is that Servant, then, who, as God’s paradigmatic disciple, is the instrument chosen by Yahweh to accomplish the prophetic end-time vision of calling those who “walk in darkness and have no light” to trust in the name of the Lord so that “all will be taught by God.”

In this characteristic of openness to divine revelation, and subsequent mission of teaching God’s words to others, the Servant stands in stark contrast to the people of Israel, who are hardened to the prophetic message in their dullness of hearing, spiritual blindness, and intransigence to the things of God (see esp. Isa. 6:9–10, quoted in John 12:40; see also Isa. 53:1, quoted in John 12:38). These people honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him, substituting humanly devised commandments for the fear of God (Isa. 29:13; cited by Jesus in Matt. 15:8–9; Mark 7:6–7). As the prophet laments, Israel, “the servant of the LORD,” “sees many things, but does not observe them; his ears are open, but he does not hear” (Isa. 42:19–20).

Yet God longs for “the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears” (Isa. 43:8) to be gathered and to be part of a “new thing” God is about to do (Isa. 43:9, 19). A day will come when a king will reign in righteousness, and “the eyes of those who see will not be closed, and the ears of those who hear will give attention” (Isa. 32:3). The ransomed will return and see the glory of the Lord, and then “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped” (Isa. 35:5; cf. vv. 1–2). Hence, both positively (the Servant’s obedience and the future gathering of a believing remnant from all nations) and negatively (Israel’s present sin, disobedience, and obduracy toward God’s revelation and the prophetic message), Isa. 54:13 forms an integral part of the theology of Isaiah.

C. Isaiah 54:13 in Judaism. The expression “disciples of God” or “the ones taught by God” is found also in the Qumran writings (CD-B XX, 4; 1QHa X, 39; XV, 10 [possibly alluding to Isa. 50:4]; cf. XV, 14). A messianic reference involving the phrase “taught by God” occurs in Pss. Sol. 17:32: “And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God . . . and their king shall be the Lord Messiah” (prior to AD 70; cf. Isa. 32:1, 3). It was commonly believed in Judaism that to learn the Torah was to be taught by God himself (Schnackenburg 1990: 2:51). In a talmudic reference (b. Ber. 64a) Isa. 54:13 is invoked in support of the notion that those who study the Torah are taught by God (see Borgen 1965: 150). The Jews believed that God’s presence would rest on those who sit and work hard on the Torah (m. ʾAbot 3:6). Those who say that the Torah does not come from God, on the other hand, will have no portion in the world to come (m. Sanh. 10:1).

D. Textual Matters. In favor of a Hebrew Vorlage is the fact that John features pantes (“all”) as well as didaktoi (“taught”) in the nominative (as in the MT) rather than the accusative case (so the LXX). In favor of a dependence on the LXX is that John, like the LXX, has theou rather than kyriou (MT: “Yahweh”). Moreover, didaktos is used in the LXX only in Isa. 54:13; 1 Macc. 4:7; Pss. Sol. 17:32. The reference to “your sons,” found in both the MT and the LXX, is omitted from the quotation in John’s Gospel, presumably in order to accommodate the notion that not only Israelites but also Gentiles will be included in the orbit of God’s salvation provided by Jesus (e.g., 10:16; 11:51–52; cf. Isa. 54:15; see Menken 1996a: 76). While the use of pantes and didaktoi in the nominative rather than accusative case could indicate John’s use of the MT, it is equally possible that the evangelist is dependent on the LXX and that the change of case is an inconsequential change necessitated by the Johannine sentence structure (Menken 1996a: 73–75). If so, John dropped the LXX’s thēsō in Isa. 54:12, inserted the verb esontai, and changed the accusative to the nominative.

E. The Use of Isa. 54:13 in John 6:45. In light of the Jews’ largely negative response to his message, Jesus points out that while his ministry in fact fulfills the prophetic vision that one day—which has now arrived—all people will be taught by God, this applies only to those who are drawn by the Father, the sender of Jesus (6:44), and who subsequently come to believe in him as the Messiah. This explains Jewish unbelief in Jesus (which is the subject of further OT substantiation in 12:38–41) and at the same time affirms God’s hand upon Jesus and his mission.

Beyond this, P. Borgen (1965: 150) contends that the exposition of Isa. 54:13 in John 6:45b–46 also harks back to the theophany at Sinai by invoking two of its central features: positively, hearing (6:45), and negatively, seeing (6:46). While “hearing” is an important aspect of Sinai (e.g., Deut. 4:12; 5:24; 18:16; Sir. 17:13; 45:5; Mek. Exod. 19:2), “seeing” is not; for no human being can see [God] and live (Exod. 33:20). John 6:46, in turn, harks back to John 1:18, which is part of John 1:14–18, which interprets the theophany at Sinai narrated in Exod. 33–34 (Köstenberger 1999: 52; see also John 5:37 in the context of 5:37–47; cf. Borgen 1965: 151–54).

F. Theological Use. In the present passage Jesus sees a prophetic portion of Scripture fulfilled in and through his ministry, appropriating Scripture in a midrash/pesher-type format. There seems to be a difficulty with Jesus’ use of Isa. 54:13 in a context that implies that not all Jews will be saved when this passage seems to speak of a time when all Israel will be taught by Yahweh (Ridderbos 1997: 233). The resolution of this apparent problem is provided by the realization that not every Jew will be taught by God, but only “all” those who are truly receptive to divine revelation (6:44; cf. 10:16; 11:51–52; 12:32). In accounting for massive Jewish unbelief and opposition to Jesus’ ministry and message, the present passage is similar in function to the Synoptic parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:1–23; Mark 4:1–20; Luke 8:4–15).

In 6:49–50 the previously introduced contrast between the OT manna and Jesus the bread from heaven is taken to a new level. Although the manna was heaven-sent, as well as nurturing and sustaining of life, the argument goes, it was unable to impart life that is eternal. After all, all those in the wilderness who ate the manna eventually died. By contrast, anyone who “eats this bread” (i.e., appropriates the salvation offered by Jesus through faith) will live forever and not die (spiritually speaking). Jesus’ assertion in 6:51 that the bread is his flesh, which he will “give for the life of the world” (cf. 1:29, 36; paralleled later in 10:11, 15; see also 11:51–52; 15:13; 17:19; 18:14), evokes the memory of the Isaianic Suffering Servant, who “poured out his life unto death” and “bore the sins of many” (Isa. 53:12; cf. 52:13–53:12; note the citation of Isa. 54:13 in John 6:45). Just as the scope of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant is universal (Isa. 49:6), likewise Jesus will give his life not merely for Israel, but for the world (cf. 12:20–36, esp. 12:32).

The Jews’ fighting among themselves (6:52) resembles their striving with Moses and God during the exodus (cf. Exod. 17:2; Num. 20:3; see Beasley-Murray 1999: 94; Borchert 1996–2002: 1:271; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:60). Although later rabbinic teaching in fact speaks (figuratively) of “eating the Messiah” (cf. b. Sanh. 99a; see Talbert 1992: 138), Jesus’ repeated references to people “eating” his flesh and “drinking” his blood in 6:50–51, 53–58 militate against the people’s scruples against the drinking of blood and the eating of meat containing blood, both of which were proscribed by the Hebrew Scriptures, in particular the Mosaic law (cf. Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16; see Koester 2003: 102–4). “Flesh and blood” is a Hebrew idiom referring to the whole person (cf. Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14). Jesus’ insistence in 6:55, harking back to 6:27, 32, that his flesh and blood are real—that is, spiritual—food and drink carries the connotation of eschatological, typological fulfillment in relation to OT precursors. (Regarding the reference to Jesus’ ascension in 6:62, see commentary at 1:51; 3:14; 8:28.)

Jesus’ affirmation in 6:63 that “the Spirit is the one who gives life” (cf. Isa. 40:6–8) resembles his earlier pronouncement to Nicodemus in 3:6 (see also 5:21). Jesus’ point here seems to be that human reason unaided by the Spirit is unable to discern what is spiritual (Ridderbos 1997: 246; Morris 1995: 340). According to the Hebrew Scriptures, life was created through God’s word (Gen. 1:2; cf. 2:7). Later, Moses instructed his fellow Israelites, “People do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3). Ezekiel memorably depicts the Spirit as life-giving (e.g., 37:1–14, esp. v. 5), and Jeremiah exemplifies receptivity to God’s word (Jer. 15:16; cf. Ezek. 2:8–3:3) (see Carson 1991: 302; Barrett 1978: 305). Both Testaments view God’s word as fully efficacious (Isa. 55:11; Jer. 23:29; Heb. 4:12). Here it is stated that it is Jesus’ words (rhēmata) that are spirit and life (cf. 5:24, 40, 46–47; 6:68), which is in keeping with God’s nature as spirit (4:24) (see Schlatter [1948: 182], who also cites 1:1) and contrasts with the Jewish belief that life is found in the words of the law (5:39; cf. Mek. Exod. 15:26, citing Prov. 4:22; m. ʾAbot 6:7).

Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Holy One of God” in 6:69 (the reading is clearly original [see Köstenberger 2004: 223]) anticipates later references to Jesus being set apart for God in 10:36; 17:19. Although there is no evidence that the expression functioned as a messianic title in Judaism (but cf. Ps. 16:10, applied to Jesus in Acts 2:27; 13:35), clearly it does so here. In the Synoptic equivalent Peter confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29: “the Christ”; Luke 9:20: “the Christ of God”). This rare expression, “the Holy One of God,” occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Mark 1:24 (cf. Luke 4:34), there uttered by a demon (though see Luke 1:35; Acts 3:14 [cf. Ps. 16:10]; 4:27; 1 John 2:20; Rev. 3:7; the term is also seldom used in the OT, occasionally occurring with regard to men consecrated to God: see the LXX of Judg. 13:7; 16:17; Ps. 105:16 [cf. 106:16 MT]).

Jesus’ question in 6:70, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?” harks back to the OT designation of Israel as God’s “chosen people” (Deut. 10:15; 1 Sam. 12:22). In the NT this designation is transferred to the community of believers in Jesus (e.g., Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; 2:9). Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples likely was intended to correspond to the number of tribes of Israel (Ridderbos 1997: 250).

JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES (7:1–8:59)

Chapters 7–8 do not include any “sign” by Jesus, featuring instead two cycles of Jesus’ teaching at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1–52; 8:12–59; regarding the noninclusion of 7:53–8:11, see the excursus in Köstenberger 2004: 245–49). This is now the third (and as it turns out, final) trip of Jesus to Jerusalem (cf. 2:13; 5:1), which finds Jesus spending two months in the Jewish capital from the Feast of Tabernacles to the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At this stage of Jesus’ ministry he is increasingly viewed within the matrix of messianic expectations. Was the Coming One to emerge from secret, mysterious beginnings (7:4, 10, 27), or was he a known figure of Davidic descent (7:41–42)? Did Jesus’ miracles identify him as the Messiah (7:21, 31)?

In chapters 7–8 the evangelist addresses these issues by showing Jesus’ fulfillment of symbolism surrounding the Feast of Tabernacles and by dealing with representative questions regarding Jesus’ identity (Köstenberger 1998b: 94–96). The narrative depicting Jesus’ first teaching cycle in chapter 7 builds toward the climax of 7:37b–38, where Jesus issues the invitation to all who are thirsty to come to him and drink, so that believers would, once the Spirit had been given, become sources of “streams of living water” (see further below). Thus, in keeping with the theme of Tabernacles, “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Isa. 12:3), the prophetic vision of Isa. 58:11 would be fulfilled.

Tabernacles was celebrated from 15 to 21 Tishri, which fell in September or October, after the grape harvest and two months prior to Dedication (cf. Lev. 23:33–43; Num. 29:12–39; Neh. 8:13–18; Hos. 12:9; Zech. 14:16–19; m. Sukkah 5:2–4; see Avi-Yonah 1964: 144). The feast followed shortly after the Day of Atonement and marked the conclusion of the annual cycle of religious festivals that began with Passover and Unleavened Bread six months earlier. Originally a harvest festival, Tabernacles (or Booths) recalled God’s provision for his people during the wilderness wanderings (Lev. 23:42–43; cf. Matt. 17:4 pars.). Festivities lasted seven days, culminating in an eighth day of special celebration and festive assembly. Owing to the daily solemn outpouring of water during the festival (Num. 28:7; cf. Isa. 12:3), Tabernacles came to be associated with eschatological hopes (Zech. 14:16–19). Immensely popular, it was simply called “the Feast” by the Jews (e.g., 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 12:32; 2 Chron. 5:3; 7:8; Neh. 8:14, 18; Ps. 81:3; Ezek. 45:25). Josephus (Ant. 8.100) called it “the greatest and holiest feast of the Jews.”

Jesus’ brothers’ advice in 7:3–4 that Jesus go and display his miracle-working abilities to the large Jerusalem crowd at the festival is shown to be unsound and to stem from their unbelief (7:5). In essence, Jesus’ brothers duplicate Satan’s temptation of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry by interpreting Jesus’ messianic calling in self-seeking terms (cf. Matt. 4:5–7 par.; see Brown 1966–1970: 306–8; Borchert 1996–2002: 1:280–81). This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus’ messianic identity. Jesus’ cautious response that his time had not yet come (7:6–9) is well in keeping with Jewish wisdom that there was a proper time for everything (Eccles. 3:1; cf. Eccles. Rab. 3:1 and the rabbinic and Qumran material cited in Köstenberger 2002b: 73). In the face of mounting persecution, Jesus chooses a more gradual, judicious approach, traveling to the feast in private at a later time (the probable sense of the most likely variant in 7:8; see Köstenberger 2004: 230–31, 244). As at 2:4, Jesus will not be pressured to act before his time (cf. Mark 9:30; 10:1; John 6:1–4).

The comment by some at the feast in Jerusalem that Jesus deceived the people (7:12) probably traces its background to the stipulation in Deut. 13:1–11 that a false prophet must die “because he . . . has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow.” A similar charge is recorded by Matthew (27:63; cf. Luke 23:2; see Brown 1966–1970: 307). Jesus is labeled as a deceiver in later Jewish literature (b. Sanh. 43a; cf. b. Soṭah 47a). According to Jewish law, the punishment for leading people astray was stoning, further distinguishing between those who mislead an individual and those who lead an entire town astray (m. Sanh. 7:4, 10). Josephus names several first-century deceivers (see the list in Köstenberger 2002b: 74; for a general survey, see Heard 1992).

The Jews’ reference in 7:14 to Jesus’ lack of formal rabbinic training sought to disqualify him from assuming the posture of a religious teacher. The rabbis of Jesus’ day typically taught by referring to the rulings of other, well-known rabbis. By contrast, Jesus prefaced his pronouncements by asserting his unique authority: “You have heard that it was said . . . , but I tell you”; “I tell you the truth”; “Truly, truly, I say to you” (Riesner 1981: 97–245). At the same time, Jesus did acknowledge that his teaching was not his own (7:16). Yet, rather than referring to the rulings of other rabbis, he claimed direct knowledge from the Father (8:28) (see Carson 1991: 312; Morris 1995: 359–60). Underlying the maxims stated by Jesus in 7:18–20 seems to be the contrast established in Deut. 18:9–22 between a false prophet, who deserves to be executed, and Jesus, the Son of God, who must be followed.

The question “Has not Moses given you the law?” (7:19) refers to the great event in Israel’s history subsequent to the exodus: God constituted Israel as a nation by giving them the law. Later in the Fourth Gospel the Pharisees call themselves “disciples of Moses” (9:28), and yet Jesus’ contemporaries are trying to kill him (7:19); this hardly is in keeping with the Mosaic law that proscribed murder (Exod. 20:13). The reference in 7:22 to circumcision being given by Moses, yet ultimately by the patriarchs, harks back to Gen. 17:9–14 (Abraham) and to Exod. 12:44, 48–49; Lev. 12:3 (Moses). In the ensuing argument from the lesser to the greater (cf. 5:47), common among the rabbis, Jesus points to the commonly acknowledged dilemma that arose when the Sabbath commandment conflicted with the stipulation, also in the law, that a boy must be circumcised on the eighth day (7:21–23).

If circumcision was judged important enough to override the Sabbath, Jesus maintained, what about healing a person? This would seem to be at least as significant an act as circumcision and worthy of being considered to override the Sabbath commandment. In fact, later rabbinic teaching sides with Jesus, holding that, granted the lesser premise that circumcision (which “perfects” but one member of the human body) supersedes the Sabbath commandment, the saving of the entire body transcends it all the more (see the material cited in Köstenberger 2002b: 76; Keener 2003: 717).

Jesus’ stinging rebuke in 7:24, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment,” may allude to Lev. 19:15 (see also Deut. 16:18–19; Isa. 11:3–4; Zech. 7:9; cf. John 5:30). His Jewish contemporaries fundamentally misread the scriptural matrix of passages pertaining to the Messiah and hence judged Jesus on the basis of external, superficial criteria rather than being grounded in a sound spiritual and theological appreciation of the messianic teachings of Scripture. Jesus exhorts them to exercise proper judgment in evaluating his claims and in perceiving his actions.

The next three smaller scenes (7:25–31, 32–36, 37–44) center on the critical question, “Is Jesus the Christ?” The first messianic expectation is given expression in 7:27: “When the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from” (for OT information regarding the origins of the Messiah, see esp. Mic. 5:2; Dan. 7:13; for apocalyptic references, see 1 En. 48:6; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra] 13:51–52 [these may be post-Christian]). According to rabbinic teaching, some believed that the Messiah would be born of flesh and blood yet be wholly unknown until he set out to procure Israel’s redemption (Carson 1991: 317–18). Yet, as Jesus proceeds to note, the real question is whether his authority is merely of human derivation or whether he has been divinely commissioned (7:28–29). The second messianic expectation is voiced in 7:31: “The Christ, when he comes, will not perform more signs than he has done, will he?” There is little direct evidence in the OT that miracles were expected of the Messiah, though this may be implied from the fact that Jews expected a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18), who performed miraculous signs at the exodus (Exod. 7–11). In any case, it would have been natural for people, upon witnessing Jesus’ miracles, to wonder whether he might be the Messiah (see Mark 13:22; cf. Deut. 13:1–3; see Meeks 1967: 162–64).

John 7:37–39 finds Jesus at the last and greatest day of the festival (cf. 7:14: “halfway through the feast”). Every day during Tabernacles priests would march in solemn procession from the Pool of Siloam to the temple and pour out water at the base of the altar. The seventh day of the festival, the last day proper (Lev. 23:34, 41–42), was marked by a special water-pouring rite and lights ceremony (m. Sukkah 4:1, 9–10). This was to be followed by a sacred assembly on the eighth day, which was set apart for sacrifices, the joyful dismantling of the booths, and repeated singing of the Hallel (Pss. 113–118; cf. Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Neh. 8:18). Hence, by the first century many Jews had come to think of the Feast of Tabernacles as an eightday event (Josephus, Ant. 13.245; b. Sukkah 48b; m. Sukkah 5:6; 2 Macc. 10:6).

Whether Jesus’ words in 7:37–38 and 8:12 were uttered on the climactic seventh day, with its water-pouring and torch-lighting ceremonies (Brown 1966–1970: 320; Bultmann 1971: 302n5; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:152; Ridderbos 1997: 272; Burge 2000: 227), or on the eighth day of joyful assembly and celebration (Carson 1991: 321; Morris 1995: 383, esp. note 79; Barrett 1978: 326; Moloney 1998: 256; Schlatter 1948: 199), they would have had a tremendous impact on the pilgrims (on the water-drawing ceremony, see Keener 2003: 722–24). Just when the events of Tabernacles—and their attendant symbolism—were beginning to sink into the people’s memories, Jesus’ words promised a continuous supply of water and light, perhaps also alluding to the supply of water from the rock in the wilderness.

Jesus’ invitation in 7:37, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink” (NIV), harks back to OT prophetic passages such as Isa. 55:1 (see also Pss. 42–43; Matt. 5:6; John 4:10–14; 6:35; Rev. 22:1–2, 17; Sir. 24:19–21; 51:23–24). Tabernacles was associated with adequate rainfall (cf. Zech. 14:16–17, a text that was read on the first day of the feast, according to the liturgy in b. Meg. 31a). Another OT passage associated with this feast is Isa. 12:3: “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.” This water rite, although not prescribed in the OT, was firmly in place well before the first century AD (perhaps indicated by 1 Sam. 7:6; rabbinic sources that may or may not reach back to the first century are Pesiq. Rab. 52:3–6; t. Sukkah 3:3–12 [see Grigsby 1986]). The festival seems to speak of the joyful restoration of Israel and the ingathering of the nations. Here Jesus presents himself as God’s agent to make these end-time events a reality.

The following reference to Scripture by Jesus creates difficulty in that it does not seem to conform precisely to any one OT passage: “Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him” (7:38 NIV). Possible scriptural allusions include those promising spiritual blessings (Isa. 58:11; cf. Prov. 4:23; 5:15; Zech. 14:8; see Menken [1996a: 187–203; 1996b], who favors Ps. 77:16, 20 LXX [78:16, 20 MT], with the epithet “living” coming from Zech. 14:8; cf. Daly-Denton 2004: 134), including blessings related to the outpouring of water (Isa. 12:3; 44:3; 49:10; Ezek. 36:25–27; 47:1; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:11–15; Zech. 13:1; an allusion to Ezek. 47:1–11 is favored by Hodges 1979: 243–48; Knapp 1997: 116–17), in line with the feast itself (Neh. 9:15, 19–20; cf. Exod. 17:6; Ps. 105:41; Prov. 18:4; Isa. 43:19–20; 48:21; 55:1; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; see also 1QHa XVI, 4–40). Clearly, however, it is not any one of those passages by itself that is in view, but rather the entire matrix of scriptural expectations associated with the eschatological abundance presaged by the Feast of Tabernacles, as is reflected in the references to the feast in Neh. 9 and in this chapter’s references to the provision of water from the rock during Israel’s wilderness wanderings (see the detailed treatment in Carson 1991: 326–28).

There is some question as to whether the phrase “whoever believes in me” in 7:38 is to be read with what follows, which is the traditional interpretation (so all modern critical editions of the Greek NT, virtually all the Greek fathers, and the vast majority of English translations [but not the NRSV]), or with the preceding 7:37, which is the christological interpretation (on this issue, see Carson 1991: 323). Most likely, the syntax is to be construed with the phrase “from within him” at the end of 7:38, referring to the one who believes in Jesus the Messiah (the traditional view), with the first clause of 7:38 (“whoever believes in me”) functioning as a pendant subject (Ridderbos 1997: 273; Carson 1991: 323–25; Barrett 1978: 326–27; Lindars 1972: 300–301; cf. Wallace 1996: 52, 654; Carson also notes that John frequently begins a sentence with a substantival participle). The phrase touto de eipen (“and he said this”) customarily refers to the words of Jesus in John (Carson 1991: 324–25, citing Fee 1978). If this is the case here, then 7:38 contains the words of Jesus, not the evangelist, and thus “from within him” would be parallel to “whoever believes in him” (other instances of the pendant nominative in John are 1:12; 6:39; 15:2; 17:2 [Hodges 1979: 241, citing Cortés 1967: 79]), and the source of the rivers of living water, albeit not in an ultimate sense (see the qualifications in Carson 1991: 323–24), is the person who believes in Jesus.

Less likely, the focus of the passage is christological, and Jesus is here presented as the source of “rivers of living water” (a view held by a sizable contingent of commentators [e.g., Brown 1966–1970: 320; Beasley-Murray 1999: 115; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:154; Menken 1996b: 165–66; Burge 1987: 88–93; 2000: 228)—although on any reading this is true in an ultimate sense. In any case, Jewish parallels abound (see Köstenberger 2002b: 78–79; Grigsby 1986). According to certain traditions (b. Sanh. 37a; Ezek. 5:5; 38:12; Jub. 8:19), Jerusalem was situated in the “navel” of the earth, so that John may be using “belly” as a synonym for “Jerusalem” (Abrahams 1917: 1:11, referring to Zech. 14:8; cf. Köstenberger 2002b: 79; Marcus 1998; Schnackenburg [1990: 2:156] connects ek tēs koilias autou [“from within him”] with the water flowing from Jesus’ side at 19:34).

In a characteristic aside (cf. 2:11, 21–22; 12:16, 33; 21:19, 23), the evangelist in 7:39 notes that by this statement Jesus was referring to the Spirit, whom those who believed in Jesus were later to receive (cf. 20:22; see commentary there). He further adds that up to that time the Spirit had not yet been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. As in other instances (e.g., cf. 2:17 with 2:22), this admirably preserves the precrucifixion vantage point of the present narrative. Occasionally in the OT water is used as a symbol for the Holy Spirit (cf. Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 36:25–27; Joel 2:28). Manna/water and the gift of the Spirit are linked in Neh. 9:20 (cf. 9:13, 15; see Carson 1991: 326–28; Shidemantle 2001). In John, this motif dovetails with 5:46 and the portrayal of Jesus as the true bread of heaven in chapter 6 (cf. 6:35; for rabbinic and Qumran parallels, see Köstenberger 2002b: 79). Yet the giving of the Spirit, evoked by Jewish Tabernacles traditions, was contingent on Jesus being “glorified” (Ridderbos 1997: 275)—a Johannine euphemism for the cluster of events centering on the crucifixion. The present statement thus anticipates the Farewell Discourse and the commissioning scene in 20:22.

John 7:40 features another reference to “the Prophet” of Deut. 18:15–18 (so Carson 1991: 329; contra Ridderbos 1997: 276–77; see commentary at 6:14 above). The previous reference in 6:14 was evoked by Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes against the backdrop of Moses’ provision of manna; in the present instance Moses may have come to mind again because of Jesus’ reference to the “streams of living water,” harking back to Moses’ provision of water from the rock (cf. Num. 20:11; 24:7; 1 Cor. 10:4). As John 1:19–21 illustrates, in first-century thinking the Prophet and the Messiah often were viewed as two separate personages (however, for the view that the roles of Prophet and Messiah were interwined in the minds of many, see Meeks 1967; Martyn 1979: 113–14). The Qumran community looked forward to the coming of the Prophet and the Anointed Ones of Aaron and Israel (1QS IX, 11), whereby the Prophet was held to be different from the priestly and royal messiahs. Concerning the eschatological successor to Moses, Eccles. Rab. 1:9 states, “As the former redeemer made a well to rise [Num. 21:17–18], so will the latter Redeemer bring up water [Joel 4:18]” (see commentary at 4:10; 6:31).

Some said that Jesus was the Prophet (7:40), while others said that he was the Christ (7:41) (see commentary at 1:41). Yet others objected, “Does the Christ come from Galilee? Does not Scripture say that the Christ will come from the seed of David and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” (7:42). This is now the third public conjecture highlighted in this section (cf. 7:27, 31 above). There was ample scriptural support for the people’s contention that the Messiah would come from David’s family and from Bethlehem (see 2 Sam. 7:12–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37; Isa. 9:7; 11:1; 55:3; and esp. Mic. 5:2), a village (kōmē, elsewhere in John applied only to Bethany [11:1, 30]) located south of Jerusalem in the heart of Judea. Bethlehem is implied as David’s city in texts such as 1 Sam. 16:1, 4; 20:6. Matthew 2:5–6 confirms that at least by the beginning of the first century AD, Jewish scholars generally expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (cf. Luke 2:1–20). No comparable evidence existed for a Galilean origin (cf. 7:52).

Again, one cannot help but note the irony (Carson 1991: 330; Morris 1995: 380; contra Ridderbos 1997: 278). For while people erroneously thought that Jesus hailed from Galilee, John’s readers clearly are expected to know that Jesus had in fact been born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling messianic prophecy (cf. Matt. 2:5–6; Luke 2:4, 15). Jesus’ interrogators are unmasked as ignorant (cf. 7:52, where Jesus’ Pharisaic opposition is shown to be in error). The apparent difficulty of Jesus’ supposed Galilean origin was one with which Christian apologists (including John) had to deal already in the first century. The division (schisma) that arose in the crowd indicates, historically, that there was a diversity of opinion regarding Jesus’ legitimacy during his earthly ministry.

Following Jesus’ appearance at the Feast of Tabernacles, the evangelist narrates a Sanhedrin meeting at which the Pharisees heap abuse on the temple guards for failing to arrest Jesus and contemptuously speak of the crowds as “this crowd that does not know the law—they are accursed” (7:45–49). The Pharisees’ condemnation alludes to the Deuteronomic curses that are pronounced on those who fail to observe the Mosaic law (see Deut. 27:26; 28:15; cf. Ps. 119:20–21; see Brown 1966–1970: 325; Ridderbos 1997: 279–80; Carson 1991: 331–32). More accurately, it was not that people were entirely unfamiliar with what the law said, but they did not observe the Pharisaic traditions as scrupulously as the Pharisees did (Morris 1995: 383).

By way of caution, care must be taken not to identify the crowd in the present instance with the “people of the land” (Heb. ʿam hāʾāreṣ) in later rabbinic literature. As J. P. Meier (2001: 28–29) notes, first, the reference here is not necessarily to common people in general, but specifically to the crowd of pilgrims who are in Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles; second, the dispute here concerns not rules of purity and tithing in the Mosaic law (the context in which later rabbinic literature refers to ordinary Jews as “people of the land” with a pejorative connotation) but the proper identification of Jesus; third, the crowd acts here (as throughout much of John 7) as the evangelist’s sounding board for the christological revelation of Jesus (see further Meier 2001: 38–39n36).

Nicodemus’s question in 7:51, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” harks back to texts such as Deut. 1:16–17; 17:4; 19:18, which charge judges to investigate accusations against a person fairly and thoroughly. The supreme irony in the present instance is that the appointed guardians of the law themselves fail to keep the law in the way they deal with Jesus (Morris 1995: 384; Köstenberger 2005b). What is more, in light of the fact that Nicodemus’s fellow Sanhedrin members have just expressed contempt toward the masses who are ignorant of the law, the evangelist surely sees irony in Nicodemus’s calling them to task on a point of simple Jewish—indeed, universal—legal procedure (see Josephus, Ant. 14.167; J.W. 1.209; cf. m. Sanh. 5:4; Exod. Rab. 21:3).

In 7:52 the Fourth Evangelist proceeds to recount another dubious claim made by Nicodemus’s colleagues: “You are not from Galilee as well, are you? Look, and you will see that no prophet arises from Galilee” (note that the text may say either “a prophet” or, more likely, “the prophet” [see Köstenberger 2004: 244]). Yet, contrary to these confident assertions, prophets had indeed come out of Galilee in the past, including Jonah (2 Kings 14:25) and possibly Elijah (1 Kings 17:1) and Nahum (Nah. 1:1) (see the rabbinic literature cited in Köstenberger 2002b: 81; for another doubtful assertion, see 8:33).

After the material in 7:53–8:11, which, in the judgment of the vast majority of commentators, was inserted at a later time (see Köstenberger 2004: 245–49), 8:12–59 records the second teaching cycle of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. In 8:12 Jesus launches a major discourse, commencing with the startling claim “I am the light of the world.” The term “light” (phōs) spans the entire first half of John’s Gospel, from the prologue (1:4, 5, 7, 8–9) to the concluding section (12:35–36, 46), in each of which it occurs six times. The word is absent from the second half of John’s Gospel, which suggests that it is part of the evangelist’s presentation of Jesus’ entrance into the world and ministry to the Jews in chapters 1–12.

The motif of light and darkness (sounded in 8:12) ties in several thematic strands in the Gospel: (1) the Word’s participation in creation (1:3); (2) the moral contrast between spiritual life and spiritual death (12:35–36); (3) Jesus’ fulfillment of Tabernacles symbolism (chap. 7; 8:12); and (4) Jesus’ healing of the man born blind (9:4–5), which becomes a parable of the Pharisees’ spiritual blindness in contrast to the man’s newly found vision. The evangelist returns to the “light” motif at the raising of Lazarus (11:9–10) and Jesus’ final indictment of Jewish unbelief (12:37–50).

The conjunction oun (“so”) connects 8:12 with 7:52, indicating that the evangelist is going to show that the Messiah can indeed come from Galilee, based on the prophecy of Isa. 9:1–2 (cf. Matt. 4:16; see S. Motyer 1997: 155–56). Earlier in the Gospel the Word is called “the light of all people” (1:4), and Jesus’ confrontation with his opponents is cast as a battle between light and darkness (1:5; 3:19–21; cf. 9:4–5; 12:35–36, 46). Together with the manna (chap. 6) and the rivers of living water (chap. 7), the reference to Jesus as “light” in chapter 8 may be part of a “wilderness theme,” alluding to God’s presence with the Israelites as a pillar of fire (Morris 1995: 388; Brown 1966–1970: 344; Burge 2000: 255; Moloney 1998: 268; Borchert 1996–2002: 1:295).

In the OT, God himself (Ps. 27:1; 36:9) and his word or law (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23) are called a “light.” Imagery of light is also applied to the end-time Servant of the Lord (Isa. 49:6; cf. 42:6) and to the Lord’s own presence in the midst of his people in the last days (see Isa. 60:19–22; Zech. 14:5b–7, judged especially significant by Carson [1991: 338]; cf. Rev. 21:23–24). Contemporary Judaism applied the phrase “light of the world” not only to God but also to Israel, Jerusalem, the patriarchs, the Messiah, famous rabbis (e.g., Yohanan ben Zakkai), the Torah, the temple, and even Adam (Keener 1993: 285; see also Beasley-Murray 1999: 128; Brown 1966–1970: 344; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:190; Moloney 1998: 266). Here “light” terminology is applied to Tabernacles symbolism (cf. m. Sukkah 5:2–4; see Köstenberger 2002b: 82).

The entire earthly sphere (controlled by the “ruler of this world,” Satan) is in darkness, but Jesus has come as “the light of the world.” Thus those who follow him will never “walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (8:12). The “following” motif is also found in the exodus narrative, with the Israelites following the pillar of fire (Beasley-Murray 1999: 128–29; for Qumran and Second Temple parallels, see Köstenberger 2002b: 82). “Light of life” language is found in the OT as well as in other Jewish literature (cf. Ps. 36:9; 56:13; Pss. Sol. 3:12 [cf. 4 Bar. 9:3]; 1QS III, 7; 1 En. 58:3 [cf. 58:4–6; 92:4]). In the present context “light of life” could have several specific nuances, such as “gives life,” “is life,” “springs from life,” or “illuminates life” (Morris 1995: 389n10; Laney 1992: 159).

The Pharisees’ challenge to the validity of Jesus’ testimony and Jesus’ response in 8:13–14 picks up where 5:31–47 left off (for similarities and differences and a detailed commentary on the present passage, see Köstenberger 2004: 254–55). Again, stipulations in the Mosaic law are clearly in view (cf. Deut. 17:6; 19:15; m. Ketub. 2:9). Jesus’ statement in 8:15, “You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one” (cf. 7:24), may echo 1 Sam. 16:7 (see also Isa. 53:2–3; cf. 2 Cor. 5:16). People rejected Jesus as the Messiah at least in part because he did not come with regal fanfare or bring political liberation to Israel as they expected (cf. 6:15; 18:36). Yet, as Jesus intimates, appearances can be deceiving.

The reference in 8:17 to the requirement of two witnesses in the law is to Deut. 17:6; 19:15 (cf. John 8:13). There may be a hint of deity in Jesus’ “I am” statements in 8:24, 28 (see Köstenberger 1999: 261), recalling passages such as Isa. 43:10 (Morris 1995: 393n25; Ball 1996: 186). The OT background of Jesus’ statement “If you don’t believe that I am [the one I claim to be]” in 8:24 (cf. 8:28, 58) appears to be Exod. 3:13–14 via Isa. 40–55 (so Carson 1991: 343–44; Beasley-Murray 1999: 130–31; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:200; see esp. Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12; cf. Deut. 32:39). Anyone other than God who appropriated this designation was guilty of blasphemy and subject to God’s wrath (Isa. 47:8–9; Zeph. 2:15).

The expression “lifted up” (hypsōsēte, in the active voice [cf. 3:14b]) in 8:28 most likely harks back to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, who “will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (Isa. 52:13). John is the only NT writer to use the term “lifted up” in a dual sense with reference both to Jesus’ crucifixion (his literal “lifting up”) and to his exaltation (metaphorical use [for NT instances of the latter usage, see, e.g., Matt. 23:12 = Luke 14:11 = 18:14; Luke 1:52; Acts 2:33; 5:31]). There is great irony in the fact that the Jews, by having Jesus crucified, are actually “lifting” Jesus up (Bultmann 1971: 350, followed by Witherington 1995: 176). Jesus’ reference to his dependence on the Father in 8:28 once again invokes the Jewish notion of the šālîaḥ (see commentary at 5:22 above).

The Jews’ proud claim in 8:33 that they are Abraham’s descendants has its basis in several OT passages that extol the blessings of descent from Abraham (e.g., Ps. 105:6; Isa. 41:8). Abraham was considered to be the founder of Jewish worship; he recognized the Creator and served him faithfully (see the references to Philo cited in Köstenberger 2004: 262n56). The contrast between the son and the slave in 8:35 may allude to Abraham’s respective sons through Sarah and Hagar in Gen. 21:1–21 (see also Exod. 21:2; Hanson [1994: 366] contends that Isaac is a type of Christ). With regard to Jesus’ statement in 8:37–38, it should be noted that even in the OT physical descent from Abraham was insufficient to establish lineage (e.g., Jer. 9:25–26); this is often noted by Paul (e.g., Rom. 2:28–29; 9:7; Gal. 4:21–31); by contrast, Jesus’ paternity is secure.

Jesus’ exhortation to his Jewish contemporaries in 8:39, “If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham,” may hark back to passages such as Gen. 18:1–8, where Abraham welcomed divine messengers with eager hospitality (Witherington 1995: 177; Brown 1966–1970: 357). Other acts of obedience on the part of Abraham include those recounted in Gen. 12:1–9; 15:1–6; 22:1–19 (though less noble instances are recorded as well). The rabbis frequently upheld Abraham as a moral example to be emulated by the Jews (m. ʾAbot 5:19; b. Beṣah 32b, where reference is made to the “works of Abraham”) and distinguished between people who acted like Abraham and those who acted like Balaam (m. ʾAbot 5:19; cf. Jub. 23:10). Abraham was believed to have fulfilled the whole Torah even before it was given.

In the dynamic of the argument, the Jews’ thinking seems to be that even if Jesus is unwilling to grant their true descent from Abraham, surely he cannot dispute their claim to be children of God (cf. 8:41; see Carson 1991: 352). To be sure, OT teaching clearly affirms that Yahweh is the only true God, and the people of Israel are his children (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1–2; 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 31:9; Mal. 2:10). In the context of John’s Gospel, however, the Jews’ claim to be born from God is ironic; the perceptive reader understands that those who lack the Spirit have not been born from God (cf. 1:12–13; 3:3–8; see Keener 2003: 759). Later on, Jesus will affirm that his opponents are not his “sheep” (10:26) and that he, not Israel, is the “true vine” (15:1).

Jesus’ reference to the devil as “the father of lies” in 8:44 may hark back to the fall narrative in Gen. 3:4, where the devil blatantly contradicted God’s word (cf. Gen. 2:17; so Morris 1995: 411; Ridderbos 1997: 315; Carson 1991: 353; Barrett 1978: 349; Beasley-Murray 1999: 135). It was commonly recognized in Second Temple literature that death was the result of Satan’s initiative (Wis. 2:23–24; Sir. 25:24; cf. Rom. 5:12). On a secondary level, the passage may allude to Cain, the murderer of Abel (cf. 1 John 3:15, the only other reference featuring the term “murderer”; see Brown 1966–1970: 358). If so, then Jesus’ comment may imply that the devil is the father of “the Jews” because they would kill Jesus, their fellow Jew, just as Cain had killed his brother Abel (Díaz 1963; Dahl 1963). Antiochus Epiphanes IV is called a “murderer and blasphemer” in 2 Macc. 9:28.

The phrase “not holding to the truth” in 8:44 (cf. 8:31–32) may allude to the fall of Satan (Isa. 14:12?), which preceded the fall narrative in Gen. 3. Genesis 3, in turn, makes clear that Satan flatly contradicted the truthfulness of God’s word (Gen. 3:3–4; cf. 2:17). Parallels to the notion of not holding to the truth are present in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS VIII, 5–6; 1QHa XII, 14).

In the present passage Jesus and the devil are pitted against each other as complete opposites, with Jesus as the life-giver and truthful witness and the devil as the quintessential murderer and liar (Witherington 1995: 178). This characterization, too, is paralleled by the contrast in the Dead Sea Scrolls between the “Teacher of Righteousness” and the “Man of Lies” (1QpHab II, 1–2; V, 11; CD-B XX, 15), with the Teacher saying of the people who want to divert him from his path, “They are sowers of deceit and seers of fraud, they have plotted evil against me . . . and are not firmly based in your truth” (1QHa XII, 9–10, 14).

Jesus’ challenge in 8:46, “Who among you can convict me of sin?” (stated positively in 8:29) coheres with the affirmation in Isa. 53:9 that there was no deceit in the mouth of the Suffering Servant. Alluding to this passage, Testament of Judah speaks of the “Star from Jacob,” in whom “will be found no sin” (24:1 [Christian interpolation?]). Jesus’ calm, nonretaliatory response in 8:49 to the Jewish charge of demon possession, “I honor my Father, and you dishonor me,” likewise evokes reminiscences of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (cf. 1 Pet. 2:23, alluding to Isa. 53:7). Jesus’ charge in 8:55 that his opponents do not (truly) know God stands in continuity with the message of some of the OT prophets (e.g., Hos. 4:1; 6:6); later prophetic passages predict a time when people will indeed know God (cf., e.g., Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:31–34; Hab. 2:14; see Carson 1991: 356). Nonetheless, even the prophets could not profess to be free from sin or to know God as Jesus did.

Jesus’ statement in 8:56, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad,” refers to Abraham’s joyful anticipation of the coming of the Messiah. Jewish tradition took Abraham’s rejoicing to refer to his laughter at the prospect (or actual birth) of his son Isaac. This interpretation was based partly on Gen. 17:17 (seen as joy, not scorn, as in Philo, Names 154–169; see Moloney 1998: 286; Brown 1966–1970: 360) and partly on Gen. 21:6 (cf. Jub. 15:17; 16:19–29; see further references in Köstenberger 2004: 272n100). Hence what may be at work here is a typology that extends from Abraham’s son of promise, Isaac, to Jesus the Messiah (cf. Gal. 3; Rom. 4). The Jews’ objection does not arise from the notion of Abraham foreseeing the messianic age; rather, the point of contention is Jesus’ claim that the messianic age is “his day,” in direct spiritual lineage from Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:16). Yet, according to Jesus, Abraham did indeed understand, however imperfectly, that the covenant promise that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed (e.g., Gen. 12:1–3) involved God’s future provision of a redeemer.

The claim in 8:58, “Before Abraham came into being, I am” (cf. Ps. 90:2), contrasts an allusion to Abraham’s birth with a reference to Jesus’ eternal existence, focused on his incarnation (Ridderbos 1997: 322–23). Jesus’ language here echoes God’s self-identification to Moses in Exod. 3:14 (cf. Isa. 43:10, 13; see Ball 1996: 195–96; Schnackenburg 1990: 2:224; Burge 2000: 263). Thus Jesus claims not merely preexistence—in that case, he could have said, “before Abraham was born, I was”—but deity (note the reaction to Jesus’ claim in 8:59; see S. Motyer 1997: 159). The present instance of “I am” startlingly culminates earlier occurrences of this expression in this chapter (cf. 8:24, 28; see Freed 1983b).

Upon hearing Jesus say this, they took up stones to throw at him (cf. 10:31–33; 11:8). Stoning was the prescribed punishment for blasphemy (cf. Lev. 24:16; cf. Deut. 13:6–11; m. Sanh. 7:4; see Carson 1991: 358). However, such punishment was to be the result of righteous judgment, not mob violence (cf. Deut. 17:2–7; see Daube 1956: 306). People in OT times considered stoning righteous men such as Moses (Exod. 17:4), Joshua and Caleb (Num. 14:10), and David (1 Sam. 30:6). Stephen, the church’s first martyr, was stoned on account of alleged blasphemy (Acts 7:57–60). Paul too was stoned, although he escaped with his life (Acts 14:19; 2 Cor. 11:25), as were other Christian saints (Heb. 11:37).

As at previous occasions, Jesus eludes arrest (8:59; cf. 7:30, 44; 8:20). In the present instance Jesus hides himself and slips away from the temple grounds, similar to God’s Shekinah glory departing from the temple. As the evangelist has previously made clear, Jesus himself has now “pitched his tent” among God’s people (1:14), and his body (to be destroyed and raised again in three days) is the new temple (2:19–21). In the OT, God dwelt (šākan) in the midst of his people Israel (e.g., Exod. 25:8; 29:46; Zech. 2:14–15 [2:10–11 ET]), and his glory filled both the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34–35) and later the temple (1 Kings 8:10–11). The withdrawal of Jesus’ presence from the Jews in the present passage strikes an ominous note of judgment similar to the removal of God’s favor from King Saul (1 Sam. 15:23) or David’s fear that God would take his Holy Spirit away from him (Ps. 51:11).

THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN (9:1–41)

The healing of the man born blind, narrated in chapter 9, is the sixth sign by Jesus narrated in the Gospel, chosen by the evangelist to demonstrate Jesus’ messiahship. There are numerous parallels and contrasts between the present sign and Jesus’ healing of the lame man in chapter 5 at the beginning of the larger unit of which the pericope is a part, 5:1–10:42 (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 109; Culpepper 1983: 139 [cited in Witherington 1995: 194–95]; Köstenberger 2004: 277). The sites for both healings are pools (5:2; 9:7); both healings take place on a Sabbath (5:9; 9:14); in both cases the healing is made difficult by the attending circumstances (5:5: lameness for thirty-eight years; 9:1: blindness from birth); and in both instances Jesus’ chosen method of healing is unconventional (5:8–9; 9:6–7). However, the healed men’s responses could not be more different (Carson 1991: 366; Brown 1966–1970: 377; contra Beck 1997: 86–90; Thomas 1995: 18).

Restoring sight to the blind is considered to be a messianic activity in the OT (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). Both Matthew and Luke set Jesus’ healing of the blind in the context of the ministry of Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (Luke 4:18–19; Matt. 11:5/Luke 7:21–22; Matt. 15:30–31; 21:14; cf. Isa. 35:4–6; 61:1–2; see also Isa. 29:18; 42:7). John too patterns Jesus’ ministry to a significant extent after Isaiah’s portrait of the Servant of the Lord (see esp. 12:38–41; see also the commentary at 8:46, 49 above). In the context of this Gospel, the healing is cast in terms of “light/darkness” imagery. Just as Jesus is the light of the world by fulfilling Tabernacles symbolism (see 8:12), so also he shows himself to be the light of the world by giving sight to the blind man. The world, and the Jews with it, lies in darkness; whoever wants to walk in the light must come to Jesus.

This contrast between light and darkness is illustrated by the two main characters (Lee 1994: 162). While the blind man progresses from calling Jesus a prophet (9:17) to defending him against the Pharisees’ charges (9:25), inviting them to become Jesus’ disciples (9:27), correcting their doctrine (9:34), and confessing Jesus as Lord and worshiping him (9:38), the Pharisees, in a display of Johannine irony, are oblivious to their spiritual blindness (Talbert 1992: 158). Thus the Pharisees’ guilt remains, while the man walks home not only with his physical sight restored but also spiritually changed—a believer and worshiper of Jesus (the paradoxical reversal between the blind seeing and the seeing being blind is in keeping with the dynamic unleashed by Jesus’ ministry elsewhere, seen especially in the Synoptic parables; see also Matt. 9:12–13 pars.). Jesus, the one supposedly under investigation, has the last word in a scathing pronouncement that exposes the Pharisees’ spiritual blindness. More than a mere miracle, this sign represents a highly symbolic display of Jesus’ ability to cure spiritual blindness. As the present story makes clear, the only sin against which there is no remedy is spiritual pride that claims to see while in fact being blind.

The disciples’ question in 9:2, “Who sinned, he or his parents, so that he was born blind?” (cf. 9:34), seems to reveal the customary direct cause-and-effect relationship established between suffering and sin in ancient Judaism (see the book of Job [e.g., 4:7]; b. Šabb. 55a, citing Ezek. 18:20). Underlying the disciples’ question is the (well-intentioned) concern not to charge God with perpetrating evil on innocent people (cf. Exod. 20:5; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). Although several passages in the OT and Second Temple literature strongly challenge the notion that children suffer for their parents’ sin (e.g., Jer. 31:29–30; Ezek. 18; cf. Tob. 3:3), rabbinic speculation often took its starting point in OT texts such as Gen. 25:22 (the struggle of Jacob and Esau in their mother’s womb; cf. Gen. Rab. 63:6) or Deut. 21:18–20 (Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 21:20; cf. Song Rab. 1.6 §3; Ruth Rab. 6:4). Both Jesus and Paul, however, while acknowledging that suffering may be the result of sin (e.g., John 5:14; Rom. 1:18–32; 1 Cor. 11:30), denied that such was invariably the case (cf. Luke 13:2–3a; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 4:13; see Carson 1991: 361). In the present instance Jesus maintains, in 9:3, that the purpose of the man’s blindness was the manifestation of the work of God (cf. 11:4, 40, referring to seeing the “glory of God”; see Duke 1985: 118–19). Viewed from a spiritual vantage point, even evil can ultimately contribute to the greater glory of God (the most important example is the crucifixion [cf. 12:28, 37–41; 17:1, 5]).

Jesus’ pronouncement in 9:4, “We must accomplish the works of the one who sent me as long as it is day,” has several rabbinic parallels (cf. m. ʾAbot 2:15; b. Šabb. 151b). Jesus’ announcement that his earthly role would be limited in time (9:4–5; cf. 7:33–36; 12:35–36; 13:33) was contrary to the popular notion that the Messiah and the messianic age would last forever (cf. 12:34). The statement in 9:5, “I am the light of the world,” links the present incident with the Feast of Tabernacles (see commentary at 8:12). The anointing of the blind man’s eyes with mud in 9:6 may involve an allusion to Isa. 6:10; 29:9 (Derrett 1994: 251–54). Jesus’ sending the man to wash in the Pool of Siloam in 9:7 (for ancient Jewish references, see Köstenberger 2004: 283–84) is reminiscent of Elijah’s sending Naaman to wash in the Jordan (2 Kings 5:10–13). In mentioning Siloam (= Heb. Shiloah) in 9:7, the evangelist provides an aside, “which translated means ‘Sent,’” which may invoke Gen. 49:10, “The scepter will not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes,” a text that was interpreted messianically by both Jewish and Christian interpreters (see references in Köstenberger 2004: 284n30; and commentary at 12:15 below). As the Jews in Isa. 8:6 rejected Shiloah, so here they reject Jesus, the paradigmatic “Sent One” (cf. 20:21; for further background, see Carson 1991: 364–65; Köstenberger 2004: 283–84). After 9:7, Jesus is not heard from again until 9:35.

The (belated) mention of the Sabbath as the day on which the healing had taken place in 9:14 brings into play Jewish Sabbath regulations. According to the Pharisees, Jesus may have “broken” the Sabbath in the following ways: (1) since this was not a life-or-death situation, Jesus should have waited until the next day to heal the man; (2) Jesus kneaded the clay with his saliva to make mud, and kneading (dough, and by analogy, clay) was among the thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on the Sabbath (m. Šabb. 7:2; cf. 8:1; 24:3); (3) later Jewish tradition stipulated that it was not permitted to anoint eyes on the Sabbath, although opinion seems to have been divided (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 28b) (Carson 1991: 367).

The division apparent in 9:16—“So some of the Pharisees were saying, ‘This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.’ But others were saying, ‘How can a sinful man perform such signs?’”—roughly follows the differing ways of reasoning followed by the schools of Shammai and Hillel (Carson 1991: 367). The former based its argument on foundational theological principles (“Anyone who breaks the law is a sinner”), while the latter argued from the established facts of the case (“Jesus has performed a good work”) (Schlatter 1948: 227). Already in OT times the Israelites were warned against the appearance of a prophet or dreamer who would perform “a miraculous sign or wonder” to lead people astray (Deut. 13:1–5).

The Pharisees’ exhortation to the formerly blind man in 9:24, “Give glory to God,” constitutes a solemn warning to tell the truth (Conway [1999: 131] suggests “Tell us the truth” as a suitable idiomatic translation) and to make a confession, with the implication that the person so exhorted has done something wrong. The Pharisees’ words echo Joshua’s exhortation to Achan to confess his wrong in Josh. 7:19 (see also 2 Chron. 30:8 LXX; Jer. 13:16; 1 Esd. 9:8; m. Sanh. 6:2). The Pharisees’ claim in 9:28 to be disciples of Moses is belied by their failure to listen to the one of whom Moses wrote (cf. 5:45–47; see further Köstenberger 2004: 291n59). The Pharisees’ claim in 9:29, “We know that God spoke to Moses,” harks back to the establishment of Israel as a nation through the giving of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, where “the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Exod. 33:11; cf. Num. 12:2–8; see Ridderbos 1997: 345; Carson 1991: 373).

The formerly blind man’s major premise in 9:31–33, that God does not listen to sinners but rather to those who fear him and do his will, has ample OT substantiation. The Hebrew Scriptures establish a clear link between a person’s righteousness and God’s responsiveness to that person’s prayers (Job 27:9; Ps. 34:15; 66:18; 109:7; 145:19; Prov. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Isa. 1:15; cf. John 14:13–14; 16:23–27; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 John 3:21–22). Later rabbis shuddered at the thought of God listening to sinners (cf. b. Sanh. 90a; b. Ber. 58a; see Barrett 1978: 363) and affirmed God’s responsiveness to the prayers of those who fear God (cf. b. Ber. 6b; Exod. Rab. 21:3; see also Isa. 65:24).

The formerly blind man is also correct in his minor premise in 9:32, that the opening of the eyes of a person born blind was unprecedented. In the OT the opening of the eyes of the blind was limited to unusual circumstances (e.g., 2 Kings 6:8–23), and instances of blind persons being healed in Jewish tradition were extremely rare (Tob. 11:10–14; cf. 2:10). Yet there is no evidence for the healing of a person born blind (Carson 1991: 374; Morris 1995: 422). The man’s conclusion in 9:33, “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (cf. 3:2), likewise is firmly in keeping with Judaism at large, which regarded miracles as answers to prayer (see Brown 1966–1970: 375).

The fact that the opening of the eyes of the blind was to be one of the characteristics of the messianic age casts the Pharisees’ opposition in the present passage as a failure to recall the prophetic promises to that effect (see Carson 1991: 375; Morris 1995: 422). Indeed, both giving sight to the blind (Ps. 146:8; Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7, 18) and the blinding of those who see (Isa. 6:10; 42:19; Jer. 5:21; cf. Matt. 13:13–15 pars.; John 12:40) are common OT themes. This twin theme provides the framework for Jesus’ concluding pronouncement on the Pharisees in 9:39–41 (see further the commentary at 12:40 below). The Pharisees’ charge in 9:34, that the formerly blind man was born in sin, may allude to Ps. 51:5 (Köstenberger 2004: 293). The reference to Jesus as the “Son of Man” in 9:35, in light of its proximity to the reference to judgment in 9:39, in the context of John’s Gospel harks back particularly to 5:27 (see commentary there).

THE GOOD SHEPHERD DISCOURSE AND JESUS AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION (10:1–42)

The Good Shepherd Discourse of 10:1–21 follows chapter 9 (which concludes with Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees’ spiritual blindness in 9:39–41) without transition (note that the double amēn never begins a discourse in John; see also the inclusio in 10:21), which suggests that the audience remains the same (Ridderbos 1997: 352–53). The Pharisees’ expulsion of the formerly blind man from the synagogue because of his faith in Jesus as the Messiah (9:34; cf. 9:22) places them within the trajectory of Jewish leaders who resisted the will and revelation of God in times past (cf. Zech. 11:17; 12:10 [cited in John 19:37]; 13:7 [alluded to in John 16:32]). Thus the dark backdrop of Jesus’ Good Shepherd Discourse is the glaring irresponsibility of the Jewish religious leaders (see esp. France 1971: 104; Köstenberger 1998b: 133–38).

The present discourse bears a certain resemblance to Synoptic-style parables (see Schweizer 1996; both Greek words parabolē and paroimia render the Hebrew term māšāl; see Carson 1991: 383; Borchert 1996–2002: 1:329; Köstenberger 2004: 302n17; and commentary below) but is best classified as a “symbolic discourse” (Barrett 1978: 367, 370; Moloney [1998: 303, 309], citing K. Berger, calls it an “image field”), in which a given metaphor—here, shepherding (on the imagery of sheep and shepherd, see Keener 2003: 799–802)—provides the backdrop for extended reflection (see Köstenberger 2002a: 72–75; note the occurrence of the term paroimia, “illustration,” in 10:6 [with reference to 10:1–5] and 16:25, 29 [referring to 16:21–24]). The discourse contains a whole web of OT allusions and echoes, with those to Ezek. 34 and 37 being particularly pronounced (Köstenberger 2002a; Deeley 1997; cf. esp. 10:8, 9, 11, 16, 33; see commentary below).

The metaphor of the “flock,” an everyday feature of Jewish life, pervades the OT (see commentary below; on shepherding imagery in the OT and John, see Nielsen 1999: 76–80). God himself was known as Israel’s Shepherd (e.g., Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Ps. 23:1; 28:9; 77:20; 78:52; 80:1; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 31:9; Ezek. 34:11–31; see Thomson 1955), and his people are the “sheep of his pasture” (e.g., Ps. 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3; Ezek. 34:31). Part of this imagery was also the notion of chief shepherd and assistant shepherds and of hired hands. David, who was a shepherd before he became king, became a prototype of God’s shepherd. Jesus saw himself as embodying the characteristics and expectations attached to this salvation-historical biblical figure as the Good Shepherd par excellence.

The references in 10:3–4 to the shepherd leading out his sheep until he has brought out all his own, and to him going on ahead of his sheep, may involve an allusion to Num. 27:15–18 (see esp. Num. 27:17; see also Ps. 80:1; Ezek. 34:13), a possible typological passage alluding to Christ (Carson 1991: 383; cf. Barrett 1978: 369; contra Schnackenburg 1990: 2:293; Moloney 1998: 308). In that passage Moses prays for a future figure who will lead God’s people and bring them in, “so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd” (Num. 27:17; applied to Jesus in Matt. 9:36). The following verse mentions Joshua (Gk. Iēsous, “Jesus”) as that successor (Num. 27:18; cf. Heb. 4:8–10). In addition, Israel’s exodus from Egypt is occasionally portrayed in terms of a flock being led by its shepherd (i.e., God, by the hand of Moses and Aaron [Ps. 77:20; Isa. 63:11, 14; cf. Ps. 78:52]). OT prophetic literature holds out similar visions of end-time deliverance for God’s people (e.g., Mic. 2:12–13).

Jesus’ reference to himself as “the gate for the sheep” in 10:7, 9 may hark back to messianic readings of passages such as Ps. 118:20: “This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter” (note that this psalm is used in 12:13). Jesus’ pronouncement in 10:8 (cf. 10:1, 10), “All who have come before me were thieves and robbers,” takes its point of departure from the OT prophet Ezekiel referring to the “shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves” but “do not take care of the flock” (Ezek. 34:2–4; see the entire chapter; see also Jer. 23:1–2).

Jesus’ language in 10:9, “will go in and out,” a Semitism, echoes covenant terminology, especially Deuteronomic blessings for obedience (see Deut. 28:6; cf. Ps. 121:8). It is also reminiscent of Moses’ description of Joshua (LXX: Iēsous), who led Israel into the promised land (Num. 27:16–18). “Find pasture” (nomē [only here in John]) is a common OT expression (e.g., 1 Chron. 4:40). The psalmist basked in the assurance of God’s provision (Ps. 23:2), and God’s people are frequently called “the sheep of his pasture” (e.g., Ps. 74:1; 79:13; 100:3; cf. Lam. 1:6). The imagery is found also in OT references to Israel’s final restoration (Isa. 49:9–10) and deliverance from the nations (Ezek. 34:12–15; note also the messianic reference in Pss. Sol. 17:40). The reference to the abundant life brought by Jesus harks back to OT prophetic passages, particularly in the prophet Ezekiel, who envisions pasture and abundant life for God’s people (Ezek. 34:12–15, 25–31). As the Good Shepherd, Jesus gives his sheep not merely enough, but more than plenty (cf. Ps. 23; Ezek. 34; see Ridderbos 1997: 359; and commentary below).

In 10:11 Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd.” In the OT, God as the true shepherd is repeatedly contrasted with unfaithful shepherds who are subject to divine judgment (Jer. 23:1–4; cf. 3:15; Ezek. 34; Zech. 11:4–17). David (or the Davidic messiah) is spoken of frequently as a (good) shepherd (2 Sam. 5:2; Ps. 78:70–72; Ezek. 37:24; Mic. 5:4; cf. Pss. Sol. 17:40–41; Midr. Rab. 2:2 on Exod. 3:1). Moses likewise is portrayed as the “shepherd of his flock” (Isa. 63:11; cf. Ps. 77:20; Midr. Rab. 2:2 on Exod. 3:1). Philo speaks of a “good” (agathos) shepherd (Agriculture 44, 49) and applies “shepherd” terminology not only to kings and sages but also to both God and his firstborn Son or Word (Agriculture 50–54; Posterity 67–68).

Jesus elaborates that the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (10:11). Young David, first shepherd, then king, literally risked his life for his sheep (1 Sam. 17:34–37; cf. Sir. 47:3). The phrase “to lay down one’s life” is rare in Greek and may reflect the Hebrew idiom “to hand over one’s life” (possible parallels include Judg. 12:3; 1 Sam. 19:5; 28:21; Job 13:14; Ps. 119:109). Several OT passages hint at the Messiah’s self-sacrifice (see esp. Isa. 53:12). In a cluster of messianic references, Zechariah refers to a figure who is “pierced” and for whom people mourn, a shepherd who is put to death and whose death brings about a turning point (Zech. 12:10; 13:7–9; cf. Mark 14:27; John 19:37; Rev. 1:7).

The “hired hand” (10:12), in contrast to the shepherd, will abandon the flock in times of danger, putting self-interest first. This renders the flock an easy prey for those (like wolves) who would attack it. Both OT and later Jewish literature are replete with references to leaders who fail to perform their God-given responsibilities and as a result render their charge vulnerable to attack (e.g., Jer. 10:21; 12:10; 23:1–4; Ezek. 34; Zeph. 3:3; Zech. 10:2–3; 11:4–17; 1 En. 89:12–76; 90:22–31; T. Gad 1:2–4). Shockingly, the shepherds themselves had turned into wolves (Ezek. 22:27). The “hired hands” of Israel (whose function is temporary) are contrasted with those who hold a permanent shepherding office: God and his Messiah, whose role is patterned after God’s “good shepherd” par excellence, David (1 Sam. 17:34–36). The figure of the hired hand who abandons his sheep in times of adversity was wellworn in Jesus’ day (e.g., 4 Ezra 5:18).

In 10:16 Jesus says, “And I have other sheep that are not from this sheep pen; I must bring them also” (cf. 11:52; 17:20; see Köstenberger 2002a). In light of OT expectations of the incorporation of the Gentiles among God’s people, the “other sheep that are not from this sheep pen” probably are Gentiles (see esp. Isa. 56:8; for Jewish material indicating that the Messiah would gather the Gentiles, see Hofius 1967). The present passage clearly indicates that Jesus envisioned a full-fledged Gentile mission subsequent to his cross-death (Köstenberger 1998b; Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001: 73–127, 203–26). Although this mission is to be carried out through his followers, the pronoun “I” makes clear that Jesus will be involved from his exalted position with the Father (cf. Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:1).

Jesus’ statement “There will be one flock, one shepherd” represents an allusion to Ezek. 34:23; 37:24. The notion of one flock being led by one shepherd as a metaphor for God’s providential care for his united people is firmly rooted in OT prophetic literature (Jer. 3:15; 23:4–6; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:15–28; Mic. 2:12; 5:3–5) and continued in later Jewish writings (see Pss. Sol. 17:40; 2 Bar. 77:13–17; CD-A XIII, 7–9). Yet whereas the OT envisions primarily the gathering of the dispersed sheep of Israel, the present passage refers to the gathering of Jews and Gentiles into one messianic community (cf. Eph. 2:11–22; 4:3–6; see Lindars 1972: 363). Though hinted at in certain later OT prophetic passages (e.g., Isa. 56:6–8; Ezek. 37:15–28; Mic. 2:12), the full revelation of this truth awaited the NT era.

The reference to “this command I received” in 10:18 invokes covenantal language, relating Jesus’ relationship with his disciples to God’s relationship with OT Israel (Köstenberger 1998b: 162n83, citing Pryor 1992). The references to division among the Jews “again” in 10:19 (cf. 9:16) and to the opening of the eyes of the blind in 10:21 (cf. chap. 9) constitute inclusios linking the Good Shepherd Discourse in 10:1–21 with the healing of the blind man in the preceding chapter (see commentary on 9:1–41 above). The charge against Jesus of demon possession, which harks back to similar charges earlier in the Gospel (cf. 7:20; 8:48, 52), and insanity is contradicted by the OT teaching that it is the Lord who gives sight to the blind (Ps. 146:8; cf. Exod. 4:11).

The Feast of Dedication, which is the occasion of Jesus’ follow-up discourse and encounter with the Jews in 10:22–39, was not established in OT times but celebrates the rededication of the Jewish temple in December 164 BC after its desecration by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:59; Josephus, Ant. 12.320–321). The Jews’ demand in 10:24, “If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,” seems disingenuous: if they had not understood him to claim to be the Messiah, why did they repeatedly try to kill him (5:18; 7:25; 8:59; cf. 10:33 below; see Carson 1991: 392)? Indeed, Jesus replies that he did make this claim (10:25). The references to those who are and are not Jesus’ “sheep” in 10:26–29 build on the Good Shepherd Discourse in 10:1–21 (on which, see commentary above).

Jesus’ claim in 10:30, “I and the Father are one [entity]” (cf. 5:17–18; 10:33–38), echoes the basic confession of Judaism, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4; the term “one” is neuter rather than masculine; Morris [1995: 464] suggests the rendering “one thing”). For Jesus to be one with the Father yet distinct from him amounts to a claim to deity (cf. 1:1–2). To be sure, the emphasis here is on the unity of their works (Ridderbos 1997: 371), yet an ontological (not just functional) unity between Jesus and the Father seems presupposed (see Carson 1991: 394–95). While this statement does not affirm complete identity, clearly there is more in view than a mere oneness of will between Jesus and the Father.

Consequently, Jesus’ assertion of oneness with the Father challenged narrow Jewish notions of monotheism, even though there are already hints in the OT of a plurality within the Godhead, some of which Jesus was careful to expose (e.g., Matt. 22:41–46 pars.). Jesus’ present pronouncement constitutes the first major climax in John’s Gospel (the penultimate high point being 8:58; see Carson 1991: 395). The second, no less important, climax in 19:30 has Jesus cry from the cross, “It is finished” (see Hengel 1999: 319). Jesus’ unity with the Father later constitutes the basis on which Jesus prays that his followers will likewise be unified (17:22; note again the neuter hen, “one”).

The Jews’ charge against Jesus in 10:33 appears to be grounded in Lev. 24:16, which says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him” (see also Num. 15:30–31; Deut. 21:22). The present passage represents an inclusio with 5:18, which, together with 7:25, 8:59, and the present passage, punctuates the current section (chaps. 5–10) as part of an escalating pattern of controversy between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus’ rebuttal in 10:34–38 involves an explicit quotation of Ps. 82:6.