We appreciate that you have taken the time to write us. We will get back to you very soon. Please come back and see us often.
|
Follow Us
|
Message To
|
Write Us
|
Authored by : Dr. Andrews Mekkattukunnel On 06-Oct-2026
To enter into the Johannine corpus is to identify oneself with the beloved disciple. As early as 180 A.D. Irenaeus made the link between John, the son of Zebedee, and the beloved disciple. From then on the apostle John was almost universally recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel. In defending the Gospel, Irenaeus in-sisted on the link between the story of Jesus as narrated in the Gos-pel and an original disciple of Jesus. Early patristic evidence states that the Gospel was written by the apostle John at the request of the community of believers. What he narrated was the collective memory and cumulative reflections of the apostles on the life of Jesus. Though there is unending dispute regarding the authorship of this Gospel, we presume that the beloved disciple is its author.
The link with John renders the Gospel a unique charm for two reasons. First, John knew the rhythm of Jesus's heart. Second, John received the greatest heritage - Virgin Mother as his own mother. There are also many authors who see the presence of the first Church in the crucified Jesus with Mary and John on either side of the cross. "No one has dared to give so pure a revelation of the divinity of the Lord as John. We must make bold to say the Gospels are the fulfilment of the whole Bible and John's Gospel is the fulfilment of the Gospels. No one can grasp their meaning unless he has rested on Christ's breast, unless he has received Mary from Jesus so that she has be-come his mother too."
St. John's Gospel is an album of select scenes from Jesus' life. If we religiously study this Gospel we shall also become beloved disciples of Jesus. It is a rich theological reflection on the story of Jesus. John deals with only seven signs (miracles) - changing water into wine, healing the royal official's son, curing the cripple on a Sab-S bath, feeding the five thousand, walking over the water, giving sight to the man born blind and raising Lazarus from the dead. But his narrative integrated with discourse material draws the readers into a more profound meditation on the significance of the miracle wrought, thereby giving them a more personal meaning of the Christ event. John's is a particular version of the Jesus story.
I would like to present some of the salient features of John's Gospel. The most distinguishing trait of the Gospel is its excellent prologue. The entire Gospel is there in a condensed form. "The fa-mous prologue (1:1-18) is often described in terms of the overture to an opera, giving the reader a foretaste of the themes that will be developed at length through the rest of the Gospel. It contains John's theology in a compact form and introduces us to the plot of the Gos-pel narrations." The traditional site proposed for the writing of the Gospel of John - Ephesus - remains one of the best locations for the blend of traditions that lie behind the Gospel.
Another hallmark is that it is a Gospel of transformation. It ultimately envisages a radical change in the life of the believers. "This is a Gospel of transformation: from flesh to spirit; from darkness to light; from death to life eternal. Just as he spoke to Lazarus, Jesus asks each of us to come out of the tomb of our old life and to come to him."" This Gospel pre-supposes a radical spirituality. It calls for the readers' response when it says that it was written "that you may believe that Jesus is Messiah, the son of God, and that through this belief you may have live in his name" (20,31). This verse is the mas-ter key of the Gospel of John. Because of this deep spiritual orienta-tion and responsorial character, this Gospel has stirred minds, hearts and imaginations from Christianity's earliest days. There is a rich and significant presence of the fourth Gospel in Christian life and spirituality, both western and eastern traditions. It has inspired Chris-tian iconography, and has inspired music." Today there is a renewed interest in the fourth Gospel. According to Clement of Alexandria the fourth Gospel is a spiritual Gospel. This Gospel is a deeply religious and philosophical reflection on Jesus. "Contemporary scholar-ship, reversing earlier suggestions that the Gospel of John was evi-dence for the hellenization of Christianity (C.H. Dodd), the Christianization of Gnosticism (R. Bultmann), or the gnosticizing of Christianity (E. Käsemann), is looking more and more to the close links that exist between the fourth Gospel and the syncratic and sec-tarian especially evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls."
Johannine Gospel is not a biographical literature. It is basically theological. The central question it asks is who Jesus is. It answers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He is the only begotten Son of God.
It is Christological because it is the best document that speaks about the divine-human identity of Jesus. "It remains one of the most fascinating of all the Gospels, as the unflagging and voluminous com-mentary upon it indicates. It is a Gospel of perennial fascination."" The fourth Gospel tells an old story in a new way. In the field of theology this Gospel provides christological and trinitarian insights. It is the Gospel that provided a language for the doctrines of Christian traditions. Therefore this Gospel serves as the 'grammar' of the entire Christian theology. "The Christology and theology of this gospel provided the raw material out of which the great Christian doctrines were forged."" The reason why we say there is a trinitarian language in the Gospel of John is that there is a very strong interplay of the divine persons Father, Son and the Spirit in this Gospel. What was described as a series of relationship in the Gospel is later named as the trinity.
Actually the Gospel of John is a theological history. A reader gets deep theological and spiritual insights into the person and mission of Jesus. "More could be said about the theological contri-butions of this Gospel: the saving effect of the crucifixion of Jesus, the unique revelation of God that takes place in Jesus Christ, the Christian sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, the communitarian nature of the Christian life, the tension between a realized and an end-time understanding of life, eternal life and judgement etc. The fourth Gospel has been one of the most loved documents through-out the Christian centuries."
Another characteristic of the Gospel is that it is remarkably soteriological. Jesus Christ as the Saviour of mankind is its central theme. This Gospel narrates how salvation is worked out through the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. "The Johannine community had come to believe that Jesus was the One sent by God, the Son of God, and as such the expected Messiah. This is the authorial point of view portrayed in Jesus' actions, words, deeds and resurrection. How-ever, while one group in the story is passionately committed to this view point, there is another group equally passionately committed to the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah."
One of the outstanding traits of this Gospel is its ecclesiological overtones. John's Gospel provides one of the best New Testament ecclesiologies. The imageries of vine and branches, shepherd and sheep, amply reveal this ecclesial approach. The Church is born of the pierced side of Jesus. The central place given to the Virgin Mother also points to the emergence of a new and original vision of the Church. Rather than a doctrinal ecclesiology the Gospel contains the outlines for a symbolic ecclesiology. "The Gospel of John is by nature an ecclesial document. It originated in the Church, was destined for the Church, and throughout the centuries served as a key Gospel on which the Church bases its self understanding." The Gospel re-veals that true ecclesial leadership is Jesus' continued care and con-cern for his flock.
In the Gospel of John we see that a certain prominence is given to women. Very selective and key roles are given to women. Mary the mother of Jesus (2:1-11), Samaritan woman (4:1-42), adulterous women (8:1-11), Martha and Mary (11:1-37), anointing by a woman (12-1-11), women at the side of the cross (19:25-27), appearance to Mary Magdelene (20:1-18). These events are very illuminating and reveal the touching aspects of the mystery of salvation.
Besides, there are so many events that captured the attention of artists - Cana event (2,1-11), woman at the well of Jacob (4, 1-54), anointing at Bethany (12,1-8), washing the disciples' feet (13,1-20), vine and branches (15,1-17), the Good Shepherd (10,1-18), Encoun-ter with Mary Magdelene (20,11-18) etc.
The most outstanding uniqueness of John's Gospel may be its liturgical orientations. The marked preference for feasts and the allusion to the sacraments, especially Baptism and Eucharist are to be mentioned particularly in this context. "The Johannine community would have seen in Jesus a fulfilment, even a replacement, of Jewish feasts and institutions. Worship is considered as a primary duty. It is to be carried out in the spirit and truth. It is very clear that the Gospel has a marked interest in the sacraments. Baptism and the accompanying gifts of the Holy Spirit (3,1-13), a detailed symbolic narration regarding the Holy Eucharist (6), forgiving of sins (20:21-23), all these show that John's Gospel is a corner stone in the liturgi-cal life of the Church throughout the ages. In the history of Christian-ity most people read John in the context of liturgy.
Certain sayings in John are memorable: In the liturgy, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1,29), Ange-lus "and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" (1,14); Eucha-ristic acclamation "My Lord and My God" (20,28); Charismatic re-newal "unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (3,3); missionary consciousness: "God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but the world might be saved through" (3,17), ecumenism: "that they may all be one" (17,21).
Christological titles the evangelists make use of have long historical background behind them. Applying these titles taken from Israel's history the evangelists are trying to show that these roles are played by the Lord. The messianic expectations and functions are realized in his career. The long history of salvation is culminating in him. The history of God's dealings with His chosen people has its decisive moment in the Christ event. Christ is easily understood by the evangelists as the fulfilment of the history of salvation.
But the Christological title "Word" may look like a bolt from the blue, a title without historical backing. The Torah or the prophets do not employ this title for the Messiah. Royal Messiah or Prophetical Messiah can be easily understood as going with the tradition. Where is the place for the Word? We have a similar question concerning the Old Testament Theology. Where is to locate the wisdom literature? Most of the Old Testament Theologies are centring on Israel's creedal confessions. They elaborate on the historical and prophetical teachings. From history we gather messianic titles like the Anointed one, the servant of Yahweh, Son of God, Son of man, the prophet etc. All of them have their historical background in the Bible. As we come to the wisdom literature we are at a loss. We do not know its position in a homogeneous Old Testament Theology based on the history of salvation or the covenant or creedal formulas. At the same time the wisdom books are part and parcel of the sacred lore and we consider them as inspired and canonical. What have they to do with God's word to Israel? Certainly wisdom literature has something to do or it will not be part of the sacred canon.
Just as there are prophetic and priestly traditions in Israel there is also a wisdom tradition. Five of the Old Testament books - Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon are wisdom books. They belong to a special group not only because they constantly use the term wisdom hochma in them, but also because of the nature of their teaching. Their approach is different from that of other Old Testament books. They ignore the great truths of Israelite teaching namely, the sacred history unless we take into account Wisdom 10-19 and Sirach 44-50. But these are marginal to the great truths expounded. They do not speak of the Patriarchs and the promises to them, of the Exodus, of Moses and the Sinaitic covenant, the cultic and legal traditions, the desert wanderings and the occupation of Canaan.
Wisdom teaching is more or less derived from observation and experience. Although a royal origin is postulated (Prov 25:1) judging from folks history proverbs come from folks tradition. This is true of proverbs of Indian, Chinese or other origins. Their collection and classification and further elucidation might be the work of sages. Codification might have taken place in schools. Highly poetical and rhetorical compositions might be the work of experts. But the genius behind the sayings need not be necessarily attributed to sages unless we call every spark of genius that gives expression to a wise saying is considered a sage. The slokas of Nitisara is a case in point.
The approach of Old Testament wisdom or of the sages behind wisdom stands apart from the prophets and historical literature. This literature is considering man as man and not as a member of the covenant community. Their teaching is for every man desiring to be successful in life. God in this approach is the God of creation, not the God of history who remembering his promises intervenes in the history to save a hapless people from slavery in a foreign land and makes them his own chosen people by offering them a covenant with adjoining obligations. He is the tutelary God who fulfils his promises and gives them the Promised Land. God is the God who controls history and directs the destinies of nations.
In wisdom literature God is considered differently. He is not the God of the Fathers, of election and the covenant. He is the Almighty God who commanded man to fill the earth and subdue it, the God who gave the order to have dominion over the fish, birds and everything that moves on the earth (Gen 1:28). Man begins forthwith to exercise his role by giving names to cattle, birds and animals of the field (Gen 2:20). Because of this approach it will look as if wisdom is not an integral part of the Old Testament. The temple, temple cult, the laws and such matters that are specific to Israel do not have a place in wisdom.
Wisdom is closed to the rest of the Old Testament, but it is open to the international wisdom. The Egyptian didactic teaching called sboyet prepared for training of those aspiring for public services appear to be very similar in form and content to the Israelite Proverbs. According to scholars the treatise of Amen-em-opet the Egyptian scribe is the source of proverbs 22:17-23:14. Many more contacts with the Egyptian wisdom can be detected in the Jewish wisdom literature. The Mesopotamians had their wisdom teaching too. Some of the sayings in Proverbs and Tobit have close parallels in the Sayings of Ahikar. Ludlul bel Nemegi is often called the Babylonian Job. The book Dialogue about Human Misery can be compared to Qohelet. In fact Israel is considered one of the late comers on the scene. Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Akkadians were well established in field long before Israel. Their teaching is vaster in perspective and richer in form.
Gradually in Israel Wisdom underwent a change. Wisdom was reinterpreted in the light of Israel's faith. Wisdom is more than practical prudence or cleverness. Proverb 1:1-7 is a case in point. Proverb 1:1-5 deal with shrewdness, knowledge, prudence, learning, skill and the like. In 1:7 in a sudden change of phrase the author speaks of the fear of God. It is generally accepted that Proverbs 1-9 is chronologically the last section that formed part of the book. The rest is considerably anterior to this poetical section. Careful poetical composition marks out this section from the rest of the book. Together with the last section the whole book has undergone some theological reinterpretation. Wisdom is no more mere human practical prudence. Ultimately the human judgement is to be subjected to the divine.
Besides there is the question: can divine revelation take place in the ambient of ordinary human affairs. Revelation in prophetical utterances and cultic oracles and the like can be admitted. But is it possible that revelation happens in the din and bustle of the ordinary life? Can revelation take place in the ordinary happenings of daily life? The sages' answer is in the positive. It was their conviction that revelation can take place and indeed does take place in the ordinary everyday life. Egyptian wisdom was concerned with the order in the universe-maat. Conformity with the divine order held the clue to well being and prosperity. Israel believed in the order in the universe but it was under the divine will and power. The sages believed that their observation was in congruence with the truth of reality. The Almighty is the preserver and guarantor of truth. The knowledge of the truth was made possible by the operation of Wisdom dwelling in their midst. Wisdom is the mediator between God and man. wisdom is the throne assistant of Yahweh and his help-mate in creation. She rejoices in God's presence and delights in human beings. She permeates and pervades everything and knows and understands all things. She teaches self control and prudence justice and courage.
There are three texts that deal especially with the mediation of personified wisdom in creation and revelation. In all the three texts wisdom appears as a person as someone distinct from God but very close to God.
Proverb 8:22-31
The first occurrence of wisdom as personified Wisdom is in Proverbs VIII. In Proverbs VIII after the introduction in verses 1-3 we have a long speech consisting of three parts. The first part of the speech (8:4-11) is a direct address to humanity. Wisdom speaks of her nobility and the benefits that accrue to those who love her. In 8:12-21 she speaks more about herself. In 8:22-31 Wisdom speaks about her primeval origin and her association with God. In the concluding verses (8:32-36) Wisdom commands to listen to her instruction and find life. Those who disobey her are choosing death."
Proverbs 8:22-31 can be divided into two parts. In 8:22-26 Wisdom reveals her origin and in 27-30 she speaks of her association with creation. The origin of wisdom has been a matter of some controversy. The Hebrew word used in which personified wisdom uses to indicate her origin, is translated 'created' in LXX (έκτισεν in LXX) Targum and Syriac. Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion translated it 'possessed' (έκτισεται). St Jerome followed this translation. In most of the occurrences in Hebrew Proverbs נה means to get, to procure, to possess. Was wisdom created or acquired? Proverbs 8:22 says that Yahweh קנה at the beginning of his ways, the first of His works from of old. Four times the author speaks of the "beginning "to stress that wisdom was there before all else. Wisdom was with God. Wisdom cooperated in the creative work of God. At least wisdom was a witness to the creation. קנה may mean get, acquire, possess, or create. Most of the occurrences in Proverb have the meaning to acquire and not to create. E.g. Proverbs 1:5;4:5,7;15:32:16:16;17:16;18:15:19:8;23:23 etc. At the birth of Cain Eve says קניתי ' acquired or begot a man' not created. In Proverb 8:22 the connotation is of acquisition by birth. If created it is something separate from God. In that case wisdom is apart from God and a creature of God. Acquisition by generation is different. In generation wisdom owes its existence to God and it is closer to God. The author says "Yahweh generated me as the beginning of his ways." ראשית דרכ means something other than May be 'undertaking' is acceptable ראש indicates the priority and excellence of wisdom. Wisdom stands out before other things. She has a role to play. Wisdom is before the deeds of Yahweh from of old. Here again the priority of wisdom is underscored.
Wisdom claims "from eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from of old". The Hebrew word נסכתי used here means pour forth, to set up, appoint or rather weave, knit if we follow a slightly different form of pointing. That means she was woven at the first before the earth. The repeated use of "from" (four times), and "not yet" (five times) is highlighting the origin of wisdom before anything else. In any case the pre-eminence of wisdom is intended.
In verses 24-26 the allusion to the creation (Gen 1) is evident. Earth, abyss, waters, heaven, skies, sea, splitting of the primeval waters, dust; heavens, clouds, fountain, sea, earth. The author is not repeating the creation story. He thinks it out in the light of Jahwistic faith. Twice wisdom says, she was brought forth (24, 25). She was there before the creation. When the whole universe and the inhabited world were set in order wisdom was by God's side. The order of creation in 24-25 roughly follows Gen 1:6-10.
In 28-30 when wisdom speaks of her presence at the creation what role did she play? She is said to be אז of Yahweh. "When he created... I was beside him as his אז אמז may mean an architect, workman, master workman, artificer (Cant 7:2). Some authors think the word is a loanword from Akkadian ummanu-craftsman. Wisdom 7:21; 8:6 describe wisdom as the fashioner – τεχνιτις of all things. Proverb 8:27-29 is describing the fashioning of the universe in the beginning. The role of craftsman fits in well in the context of 8:27-29. One can object that Yahweh is presented throughout as the maker. In this situation we have to think of wisdom as standing by the side of Yahweh cooperating in building. 10 A slightly different pointing of the word may give another meaning. In fact some prefer to read which may mean nursling, darling, foster child. Aquila's translation of the word τιθηνουμενη presupposes this pointing.
In relation to Yahweh wisdom is His delight. She plays before him; she plays also on the surface of the earth. Besides she takes delight in the company of humans. She is a child who plays before God. She is a delight. To the question whose, LXX implies the answer His. She is herself delight. Implicitly delight to God. She plays with human beings who live on God's earth. She operates joyfully before God and before men.
Proverbs 8:2-31 tell us that before the whole creation wisdom was begotten. The creation account here is parallel to Psalm 104 and Job 38. Yet the focus is not on creation, but on wisdom's pre-existence. Her position in relation to creation highlights her dignity and importance. Wisdom is Yahweh's assistant or co-operator
in creation. She is His delight. She plays before him. She finds delight among humans. What is she? Is she God's self communication issued in and through the material creation? The creation is resounding God's message and humans get it from experience and observation. "Heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. There is no speech, nor are there words; yet their voice goes out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world" (Ps 19:1-4). In fact creation is the spokes-person of God in Job 38-41. Contemplation of it yields God's message. But wisdom is not in God's mind. Wisdom is generated, begotten. So wisdom exists outside Him. Wisdom has roles with regard to God and with regard to man. Wisdom's call to humans is wisdom's summons in and through creation. It is ultimately divine summons in and through the creation."
Ben Sira 24:1-22
Sirach or Ben Sira 24 is almost as lengthy as Proverbs 8. It is a beautiful poem on wisdom full of attractive images and allusions. A first look will give the impression that it is modelled on Proverbs 8. Chapter 24 is the centre of the book and there we reach the high point of wisdom teaching.12 In a two line introduction 24:1-2 the author presents wisdom as opening her mouth to sing her praises. This self-eulogy of wisdom can be divided into three stanzas: 3-7; 8-12; 13-17. Sira 24:19-22 is the conclusion of the poem. 13 In 24:23-29 the author identifies wisdom with the Torah. In 30-34 Sirach speaks of his personal inspiration from wisdom. Wisdom has her origin from God. She goes on to describe her activity in heaven and on earth (3-7). She holds sway over all peoples. God commanded her to dwell in Israel. She compares herself to cedars of Lebanon, cypress of Hermon, palm trees of Engedi, rosebushes in Jericho, olive trees, and plane trees, aromatic plants, vine and terebinth (13-17). In conclusion she invites all those who are after happiness to come to her (19-22). Finally the author identifies wisdom as the book of Torah (23). Here the author goes back to the story of creation in Genesis and compares wisdom-Torah with the rivers in Eden.
Wisdom is opening her mouth in the heavenly court (24:2). The author speaks of wisdom's discourse to her people (1b) and in the heavenly court (24:2). The scene seems to be set in the heavenly assembly and wisdom is opening her mouth before the angelic hosts attending God's court. "1 came forth from the mouth of the Most High." Wisdom's origin is from God. She came forth from the mouth of God. What is uttered is Word. Genesis 1:3 speaks of the effective word of God. Wisdom comes in the form of word. Word and wisdom are the same. The word that comes from the mouth of God is wisdom. In Proverbs 2:6 we read "the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding." The following line I "covered the earth like a mist" may be a reflection on Genesis 1-2. Wisdom coming out of the mouth of God is compared to mist or vapour )όμιχλη). The Hebrew word ערפל in Skehan's reconstruction of the poem, may mean cloud, darkness, gloom. LXX uses ομίχλη meaning mist, fog. The allusion here may be to the רוט אלהים the spirit of God hovering over the face of the primitive waters (Gen 1:2). In that case wisdom in the understanding of the author is the spirit of Yahweh. In Genesis everything happens at the command of God. The word that comes out of the mouth of God is accomplishing things of God sets things in motion. Sirach understands here wisdom as the word spoken by God. Undertones of Gen 2:6 are also likely in the expression mist covering the earth. Gen 26 speaks of earth watering all the surface of the ground that rises from the is translated variously by Bible translators, stream (NAB), flood (JB), stream (NRSV) steam or mist (NIV). Dictionaries aren't uniform either. Exhalation or vapour of the ground (Gesenius), mist (Brown, Driver, Briggs) mist, vapour (Davidson) cloud, vapour, and stream (Zorell). This shows that it is a difficult word. The LXX translates it spring (ἠγηπ) in Gen 2:6 and cloud (νεφέλη) in Job 36:27. Whatever be the sense the action refers the cosmic function of Wisdom exercises a cosmic function too.
Verses 3-7 use images from the creation account and the wilderness account. Highest heavens" (24:4) may call to mind Prov 8:2, 12. The pillar of cloud from which Yahweh assured them of His presence and guided them through the desert (Ex 13:21) is identified as the throne of Wisdom (Sir 24:4). τα ύψηλα mean high places or heaven (Ps 92:4; 112:5; Hb 1:3). When wisdom says that her habitation is in heaven she is telling that she dwells with God. The same is indicated by the pillar image. She dwells with God, be it in heaven or on the pillar of cloud in the desert. Philo the Jewish philosopher says that the pillar of cloud was wisdom. Images of vault of heaven and depths of the abyss resemble Prov 8:27-28. There it is the presence of wisdom at the creation of these things. Job 22:12,13 mentions God's abode in the heavens, cloud enwrapping him and he walking on the dome (vault) of heaven. Wisdom held sway (ήγησαμην) over sea, land and every nation. This universal dominion of wisdom shows that wisdom is sharing in the ruling power of God. The author mingles creation motifs with wilderness motifs. His intention is to show that wisdom was present during the desert wanderings as she was present at creation and in Eden. Wisdom is not only present at creation, but also at divine worship. She was present in the tent of meeting and also in the holy city of Sion (Sir 24:10). It might look she was rendering divine worship there (Sir 24:10). Wisdom is no rival to Yahweh or equal to Him as partner. Wisdom is only ministering to the Most High. She is His creation. She was there before ages and she was there to witness to the creation. Still she is the creation of Yahweh (24:9).
In Proverbs Wisdom is something mysterious. The author does not identify her. Ben Sira attempts his own identification. He identifies wisdom as the book of the covenant or the Law of Moses (Sir 24:23). God gave her a resting place. She was asked to take up her abode in Israel and Sion (24:11). The tent was the place of Yahweh's continued presence in the midst of the people and the sign of His covenant fidelity and ongoing protection. Wisdom's presence in Sion assures of God's presence and protection. Here wisdom mediates God's will, His revelation. Exodus motifs are reformulated in the light of wisdom motifs. The transcendent realm of God's dwelling is commuted with an immanent realm." In 25-27 the author once again binds wisdom with Eden. Like the four rivers of Eden she is irrigating the whole universe. The only difference is that instead of four rivers we have here six rivers.
In short Wisdom is God's breath. She dwelt in the highest heavens and travelled to the farthest and deepest places. She held sway over every people and every nation. She played an intermediary role in the creation of all things. She is sent by God's command to take her abode in the midst of the people in the holy city. So in Israel wisdom is found in a special way. She is found in Torah. Torah makes wisdom incarnate.
Wisdom of Solomon (6,22-9,18)
Although the whole book is on wisdom, Wisdom 6:12-9:18 is the important central section on personified wisdom. This section is a long poem in praise of Wisdom. In this central section Wis 7:1-8:21 is on seeking and finding wisdom. 8:2-21 is union with wisdom. 9:1-18 is a prayer for the gift of wisdom. Wisdom 10-19 is on Wisdom at work in Israel's history. Of the central section of Wisdom (6:12-9:18) 7:2-8:1 is the kern. Some of the very daring statements on wisdom are found in this section. This section employs a terminology that is very close to Hellenistic Greek thinking. The highly rhetorical style and philosophical terminology reveal an Alexandrian Hellenistic background. In 7:22 Wisdom is called τεξνιτις fashioner of all things. Here the author has gone much beyond the proverbs (8:30) and Sirach LXX translates אז with the word άρμουσα meaning, artifice craftsman. This word is translated by many as artisan, joiner. The term is familiar to Greek writers. Diogenes calls the λογος τεξνίτης and δεμιουργος builder and maker. According to Wisdom 13:1 God is the craftsman of everything. But In wisdom 9:1-2 He created everything by means of wisdom (Wisdom 9:12). Here however the work of creation is attributed to Wisdom (7:22a). "Wisdom the fashioner of all things." So too in 8:6 wisdom is "the fashioner of what exists."
Immediately following is a long list of the epithets of wisdom. These verses stand at the centre of the second part of the book (7:1-8:21) which is in praise of wisdom. There is in wisdom a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, unpolluted, irresistible, loving the good, all-powerful, overseeing all, penetrating through all spirits, to name a few of them. Altogether epithets are mentioned by the author (22-23). Three sets of seven numbers make the list perfect enumeration of all the attributes of wisdom. There is a lot of similarity between these and the attributes of gods like Amon, Re, Horus, Osiris and Isis. Multiple attributes of gods were known to Greek writers too. Cleanthes gives the name polyonymos-"many names" to Logos-Zeus. Philo applied this name to wisdom.
It is difficult to know the meaning of each attribute. Some of them may be added just to make the number 21.19 We may state approximately that the first set of qualities refer to mobility ad transparency, the second set to qualities of moral good and the third set is pointing to wisdom's relationship with mankind. These multiple attributes show that wisdom is all knowing, all-powerful and all holy. Euergetos and philanthropia indicate that wisdom is humane and benevolent. These are the attributes of gods in stoic philosophy. Philo called the benevolence of God towards men philanthropy. Those who have wisdom become friends of God (Wis 7:14). Wisdom delights in human race (Prov 8:31). Wisdom leads to immortality (Wis 6:18). Wisdom pervades and permeates all (7:24). διηκει και ξωρει δια παντων. similar phrases are found in hellenistic literature too. What the author attributes to wisdom, the stoic philosophers attributed to pneuma.
το διέκον δια παντων πνευμα the spirit pervades everything. Diogenes says that the spirit pervades the whole τοδια ολον κεξωρεκος πνευμα. The use of the double verbs διη ξω και ξωρεω is also a stoic peculiarity.
Five metaphors are used to describe wisdom's relationship with God. Wisdom is the breath of the power of God; pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty; reflection of the eternal light; spotless mirror of the working of God; image of His goodness. All these, breath, emanation, reflection, mirror, image are bold images hitherto unattempted by Biblical authors to describe wisdom. Philo comes nearer to each terminology in his attempt to describe logos. All of them point to wisdom's source-God. Each refers to an aspect of God and His activity. All of them together exhibit the same source in its manifoldness.
ἀτμις-means breath-exhalation-steam. A similar expression is found in Sirach 24:3. But the word άτμις is not found there. It is found in Sirach 24:15 where it means fragrance. If it is correct our author might be intending the fragrance of the power of God (cfr. Lev 16:13). Emanation - ἀπορροια. Although ἀπορροια is used of emanation of the good in Plato and Empedocles, Wisdom 7:25 is the earliest use of emanation in connection with σοφια. David Winston conjectures that middle Stoa, perhaps Posidonius might have used ἀπορροια for the effluence of God, but he does not produce supporting texts. 'Απορρeo means to flow and ἀπορροια is flowing from the source. Wisdom is the flow from the source, namely from the glory of Almighty.
᾿Απαύγασμα - effulgence, radiance, reflection. The word can mean actively radiance, effulgence or passively reflection. Here it is probably the latter. Wisdom reflects the eternal light. Philo speaks of the logos as the image or the reflection of God too. Spotless mirror wisdom reflects the activity of God. Philo too speaks of wisdom as the mirror of God. "...in a certain sense the wisdom of the world was a mirror of the power of God..." "Image of His goodness" - Earlier the author spoke of wisdom providing friendship with God (7:14) and wisdom loving the good (7:22). Philo calls Logos the image of God. 28 Perhaps behind this is the Platonic metaphor of the celestial ideas. This world is a copy of the reality. Although these metaphors which the author makes use of, show the multiple aspects of wisdom, ultimately they refer to God.
Wisdom does all things-renews all things. Wisdom is capable of doing all things. While remaining in herself she renews all things (27). The Stoics and Platonists have very similar expressions. Plato says: "so he having given all these commands was abiding in his own proper and wonted state. Stoic philosophers argued that God was the immovable mover, yet he renews all things. The concept of renewal is Biblical. But this function is attributed to the Spirit (Ps 104:30). It is the Spirit that gives life (Job 34:14-15; Wisdom 15:16). Here however this function of the Spirit is attributed to Wisdom.
Wisdom passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God. This is the noblest of the functions of wisdom. Wisdom makes men friends of God. Abraham was a friend of God (2 Chr 20:7; Is 41:8; James 2:23). Wisdom passing through good souls makes them friends of God. The Platonists considered wise men the friends of God.
Later on the author says that Wisdom/spirit indwelling in the human soul can teach humans the divine counsel (9:17). In the following chapters the author describes the saving function of wisdom in the history of salvation. This salvation by wisdom can be considered as complementary to the story of creation by wisdom. Wisdom is creative and revelatory.
Summary of the Wisdom Teaching on σοφια
Logos and Wisdom
The teaching on Logos in the Prologue to the Gospel of John resembles wisdom teaching in many respects. In literary form both are hymnic and both excel in high rhetorical expressions. Proverb 8:22ff, where wisdom opens her mouth, Sirach 24:1ff, where wisdom revels in self glorification, Wisdom 7:22ff, where wisdom sings her praises, are all very similar to the poetical composition in St. John's gospel.
There is great similarity in the instruction of Wisdom and the Word incarnate. Wisdom addresses her listeners: "my children, listen to me" (Prov 8:32; 4:1; Sir 16:24); "listen my children" (Sir 23:7) "listen to me your father O children (Sir 3:1) "my child..." (Prov 6:1,30;7:1; Sir 2:1; 3:12,17; 4:1; 6:18; 14:18) "listen, my child" (Sir 6:23), "have you sinned O my child" (Sir 21:1). Sometimes wisdom erupts in solitary discourse (Prov 8:3-36; Sir 24). This endearing address is found in John too; "little children, I am with you only a little longer" (Jn 13:33; 1Jn 2:12). Long discourses in the first person are another characteristic of wisdom teaching (Prov 8; Sir 24). Wisdom compares herself to life giving water or other elements of nature. She invites listeners to eat of her food or drink of her wine (Prov 9:5; Sir 24:19). Jesus of John's Gospel gives long discourses (Cfr. Jn 3; 6; 14-17). Monologues aren't infrequent either. Invitations to eating and drinking are found repeatedly in this gospel (Jn 4; 6; 15). The incarnate Word is life giving water 4:14; living bread 6:35. When we come to the themes touched or exposed in the Prologue the similarities are striking. There are number of parallels between the Wisdom teaching and the Prologue and the St John's gospel and epistles altogether.
At the beginning, before the earth was made, she was generated, acquired, possessed or created (Prov 8:23). The Word was in the beginning with God (Jn 1:1). Christ was in God's presence before the world existed (17:5). Wisdom comes from God and remains with (meta) him. Wisdom sits by his throne. John says that the Word was with God (pros), ever at the Fathers side (1:18). Wisdom was the breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, reflection of the eternal light, spotless mirror of the working of God, image of his goodness (Wis 7:25-26). Jesus is true light that enlightens everyone coming into the world (1:9); he is the light of the world (9:5: 12:46; 3:19); he shares in the glory of God (17:22, 24:17:5). Wisdom is monogenes in the sense, unique (7:2). Jesus is monogenes (1:18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9) Wisdom is active in creation. When he established the heavens I was there...I was beside him like a master worker. Wisdom was with God when He made the world (Wis 9:9). Wisdom was the fashioner of all things (Wis 7:22). She was the active cause of all things (8:5). She was His associate in His works (8:4, 6). In a similar vein John says: all things came into being through him. Without him not one thing came into being (Jn 1:3).
Wisdom came down from God's presence to dwell among men. Solomon prays to God for the gift of wisdom, that wisdom be sent down from the heavens to labour at his side (Wis 9:10). No one can know God's counsel unless God gives wisdom and sends the spirit from on high (Wis 9:17). Wisdom was assigned her place in Sion and she took up her abode in the tent in the beloved city (Sir 24:10, 11). In the John's gospel we have a descent and dwelling among humans too. "The word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (Jn 1:14). "I have not come on my own. The one who sent me is true (7:29). "...I am from him and he sent me..." (7:29).
Wisdom is engaged in teaching. Wisdom teaches self-control and prudence (Wis 8:7). She gives good counsel (8:9). She knows and understands all things and will guide wisely (Wis 9:11). Wisdom. teaches what pleases God and they are saved by wisdom (Wis 9:18). "Send forth..send her that I may learn what is pleasing to you (Wis 9:10). Wisdom's instruction makes men wise (8:33). Happy are those who listen to wisdom (8:34). Wisdom gives immortality (8:13). In kinship with wisdom there is immortality (8:17). Jesus came to give knowledge. "The only son has made him known" (1:18). One of the central themes of the Gospel is Jesus the light. Light enlightens, reveals. Jesus came to reveal the mysteries of God and thereby give men light that lead to life. I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (8:12). Here light and life are used hendiadys, light is life. Those who continue in his word would know the truth and truth will liberate (8:31). Those who see the son and believes in him will have immortality (Jn 6:39).To know truth is to hear and be united with him (14:10). Wisdom says he who finds wisdom finds life (Prov 8:35; Baruch 4:1) Of Jesus the author says: to those who receive him he gives the right to become children of God (1:12).
The presence of wisdom results in division (Prov 8:17; Sir 6:27ff; Wis 6:12). Likewise the presence of Jesus produces division. There was "division in crowd because of him" (Jn 7:43; 7:25ff).
People rejected wisdom. The foolish will not obtain her and sinners will not see her (Sir 15:7). "You have rejected the fountain of wisdom" (Baruch 3:12). "I have called you and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded. you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof" (Prov 1:24ff.). Presence of wisdom results in division (Prov 8:17; Sir 6:27f; Wis 6:12). Likewise People rejected the Word. "He was in the world, yet the world did not know him" (Jn 1:10). He came to his own, and his own did not accept him (Jn 1:11).
Now Wisdom is never a person or hypostasis. That will be incompatible with the uncompromising monotheism of the Old Testament. Wisdom is a highly figurative personification. The articulations in Proverbs 8:22; Sirach 24; and especially in the section in praise of Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon 6-9 are highly poetical. Poetical imagination extols wisdom to the heavens. The language is highly figurative. Personification is not limited to wisdom. Folly is also personified (Prov 9; 13ff). So too the spirit of God (Wis 1:7) and the word of God (Wis 8:15) are personified. But concerning wisdom the personification is approximating a divine person. Wisdom is appearing not as an attribute of God. Wisdom appears as something separate from God. Wisdom lives with God; sits by His throne; wisdom associates herself in His creative work; was with him when He made the world. Wisdom is God's assistant at creation. She is the fashioner of all things; wisdom orders all things well. Wisdom renews all; Wisdom passes ses into holy souls and make them friends of God and prophets. She teaches self control and prudence. She ministered before Him. All these show a personality distinct from God. Wisdom is master craftsman; wisdom was His delight. She rejoiced before Him always. She is also taking delight in the human race. So wisdom is something or someone apart from God. Wisdom is the breath of God's power, emanation of His glory; reflection of His eternal light; mirror of His working; image of His goodness. So Wisdom is divine. Yet Wisdom is not a divine person. The author stops short of saying θεος ήν ή σοφια. Nor does he say sofia sarc egeneto. This theological and historical statement had to come from the author of the Prologue to the fourth gospel. The background was ready for such a solemn announcement. From σοφια there was but one step to θεος ἦν ὁ λογος. But for that step something miraculous had to take place; the apostles had to experience the presence of the Incarnate Word. Wisdom is occasionally synonymous with the spirit (Wis 9:17; 1:4-5). Here wisdom is interchangeable with spirit. Likewise Wisdom and Word are also interchangeable (Sir 24:3-5; Sir 42:15; 43:5). Word sometimes substitutes wisdom (Wis 9:1-2). Word is also personified. Though not so frequently as wisdom, still personification of the word is observable in Wisdom literature. "...God who made all things by your word" (Wis 9:1). "It was your word o Lord that heals all people" (Wis 16:12). In Wisdom 18:15 the word appears as the angel of destruction. "By word he subdued the avenger" (Wis 18:22). We can notice a tendency to replace one with the other. Wisdom is gradually moving toward the Word.
Conclusion
If we may think of a 'preparatio evangelica' on a wider level, let us say, on the cosmic level can't we not feel it in the wisdom teaching? Wisdom is worldwide and Israel's wisdom is part of that wisdom. Literally Israel borrows from the international wisdom and she too has her own small contribution to the international wisdom. At least her wisdom is part of the international wisdom. Wisdom is the order beauty and goodness which the intelligent God implants in the creation. It is Gods knowledge in the creation. By wisdom the creation continues its orderly existence. The detecting of this order and living in congruence with it is the way to well being and prosperity. Sages considered it to consist in good life and long life. Sages were convinced that their observations about reality were in conformity with the ultimate truth whose source and guarantor was the Almighty. They arrived at this conclusion by observation, experience and reflection. They knew this because they had the feeling of wisdom dwelling in their midst (Wis 7:28; 8:7) and communicating with them. "I will not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me" (Wis 8:21). This wisdom is teacher and guarantor of happiness. This wisdom is a prefiguration of the true wisdom that does dwell among men to enlighten them and guarantee them good life and long life, here the life that is true and eternal.
God implanted wisdom in the cosmos. It is to be attained in the order of regularity and beauty in the created universe. Through it He is communicating with mankind. Creation is in constant conversation with the human world. In the order, beauty, goodness and intelligence in the creation wisdom is showing itself. In its voice we can hear God. God is accessible to man through this wisdom implanted in the cosmos. This is the wisdom the Almighty communicated through the creation. This is opening the way for the future fuller communication or bestowing itself. The gradual evolution of the concept and vocabulary was preparing the stage for the definite unveiling of the true wisdom. As the concept was evolving and the formulations acquired more clarity through the meditation of sages it was time for the presentation of the true wisdom. Wisdom was with Him. This divine wisdom is depicted in highly figurative language in the wisdom literature. It is by His side; it is His delight; His throne assistant; His artificer; His mediator. In plenty of rich expressions the inspired authors depict the role and nature of wisdom. But all this is in poetical and figurative language. We can understand them as pre-figuring the future revelation, before the definitive revelation God had spoken in many and varied ways (Heb 1:1). In the last days the figures give way to reality. Whatever was spoken about wisdom is realized in the Word. In this way wisdom can be considered as a preparation for the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. Wisdom is communicated in Word that comes to take up his abode in the midst of humans. The hitherto unavailable hidden wisdom hidden in the bosom of the Father is coming into the midst of the humans as God's Word. That Word is emanation of the glory of the Almighty. The contribution of Philosophies, especially the middle stoic and middle platonic philosophies for the enrichment of the concept is invaluable. The influence of the Hellenistic thought greatly helped the diaspora Church in understanding the divine Wisdom unveiled in the Word. The presentation of Jesus as the Word helped the hellenistic audience to understand the divine revelation in Jesus more easily.
There is another thread visible in the wisdom literature. The Eden motifs are conspicuously absent in the Sacred Scripture until the wisdom literature. In the prophetical and historical literature the universal vision gives way to the particularistic vision of Israel the chosen race. The universal vision is resumed once again in the wisdom literature. Here we meet once again with motifs from the Eden story. Man is created in God's own image (Wis 2:24). "Devils envy brought death into the world". This theme of extraneous influence behind the fall is taken up nowhere in the Bible but John 8:4; 1Jn 3:8. Is it by sheer coincidence? Is there a thread running from Gen 1-3 through wisdom to John? The answer seems to be in the affirmative. Likewise the universalistic vision in Genesis 1-3 also reappears in St John.
When the request came to contribute an article to the Sacerdotal Golden Jubilee Souvenir of Fr. Mathew Vellanickal the first thought that came to my mind was about 'light'. It seems to me that a reflection on the biblical theme of light is a suitable tribute to the spiritually towering personality of a priest that one finds in Fr. Vellanickal. He is a beacon of light that has illuminated thousands of people: priests, religious and lay faithful.
Light- Creation of God
Light is the first creation of God. "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth had no form and was void; darkness covered the deep, while the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light" (Gen 1, 1-3). One wonders why the sacred author of the Priestly Account of Creation in the Book of Genesis has narrated the creation of light before the creation of sun and moon. The creation of sun and moon is mentioned on the fourth day as separate objects of creation. The scholars in Bible exegesis and interpretation attribute the reason for this contradictory order of creation to the current understanding of the people that 'life is an indispensable condition of life in the ordered universe." "Light is a symbol of life, goodness and virtue. Darkness, at the other end of the spectrum, is a symbol of death, evil and vice. It is light that brings out life from a seed sowed in the soil. The germinated seedling grows also with the help of light. In this sense light is a condition for life in its origin and growth. This is to some extent true for all flora and fauna. In the Bible light is also a symbol of divine (and also spiritual) life. "Through Him (Word) was life, and this life was the light of the human race" (Jn 1, 4).
After creating light God "saw that the light was good and He separated light from the darkness" (Gen 1, 4). Light is good in itself and helps us to see the goodness of other realities. We read in the Book of Exodus that at the command of the Lord "Moses stretched out his hand towards heaven and instantly dense darkness covered the land of Egypt for three days. They could not see each other and they could not move about for three days, but where the sons of Israel lived, there was light" (Ex 10, 22-23).
God is Light
The Israelites had the experience of God Himself as light. "The Lord is my light and my salvation" (Ps 27, 1). God is light and the source of light for us. In the first letter of St. John we read, "God is Light and there is no darkness in Him... If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another" (1 Jn 1, 5-7). Jesus as God is the divine light that shone in His humanity, in His words and deeds, thereby manifesting God's light to the world. In the Nicean - Constantinople creed the Church professes that 'He is God from God and Light from Light'.
Jesus, the Light of Life
It is the light of God that is manifested in Jesus. As John the Baptist testifies, "The true light was coming into the world, the light that enlightens every one" (Jn 1, 17). Jesus is light for all the people of all times to achieve their salvation (Is 49, 6). He Himself said, "I am the light of the world; anyone who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (Jn 8, 12). St. Ephrem gives three symbols to the three persons of the Holy Trinity of which the symbol of the Son is light:
Take as symbols of the Father the sun
Of the Son the light,
Of the Holy Spirit the warmth.
One of the predicatives in the 'I am' statements of Jesus is life. To Thomas who asked Jesus to show the way Jesus replied, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (Jn 14, 6). Jesus is the divine person who has manifested in His humanity the whole truth of God and life in Him. "God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn 5, 11). It is the prerogative of God to give life (Dt 32, 39; 1 Sam 2, 6; 2 Kgs 5, 7; Tb 13, 2; Is 26, 19; Dn 12, 2). The Son also enjoys this prerogative and He gives divine life to those who believe in God. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life" (Jn 3, 16). The life giving power of God is exercised also by Jesus. "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life so also does the Son give life to whomever He wishes" (Jn 5, 21). If we accept Jesus and believe in Him firmly we have the life of God in us. We have this life as a possession of the very same life of Christ. To possess the life of God is to possess Jesus Himself. To possess Jesus does not mean the acceptance of a doctrine but of a person who lives now and provides life. "God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life" (1 Jn 5, 11-12). At the raising of Lazarus Jesus told Martha about His role as life-giver; "I am the resurrection and the life; who ever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die" (Jn 11, 25-26). The eternal life that Jesus gives is a reality both for this life and for life eternal. In this world this life shines as the light of those who believe in Him. The 'light of life' in John 8, 12 refers to the spiritual life or the life in relationship with God that guides anyone who believes in Him. In the Old Testament God guided His people through the desert by means of a luminous cloud (Ex 13, 21).
Light of Life: Love
Jesus manifested in Himself God as light of life. Life denotes being and action. It is in 'being and action' that the light of life shines forth. This is true of God and man. The scholastic dictum agere seqitur esse is an ever valid principle. God as light of life is shining forth in His 'being and action' and God's 'being and action' is Love. Both in being and action God is love. It is truer to say that it is 'by loving' God remains as love. Man through Jesus Christ is enabled to participate in this love of God. "When someone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love, lives in God and God in him" (1 Jn 4, 15-16). Jesus is the light of the world as the incarnation of God's love and action. His commandment to his disciples is to love one another as He loves them. "A new commandment I give you, love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (Jn 13, 34-35). Jesus' life in this world was a continuous act of love. "He went about doing good works and healing all who were under the power of the devil, for God was with him" (Acts 10, 38).
Let Your Light Shine
Jesus said to his disciples: "You are the light of the world; ...your light must shine before others that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father" (Mt 5, 14.16). In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus uses three similes of salt, light and a city built on a hill to explain the mission of those who believe in him. "They are to be the salt, light and a city built on a hill (Mt 5, 13-16). This means that they are to be a group of people who will be highly visible because of the unusually dedicated character of their lives, who will illuminate the world as light does, and who will sanctify, purify, and preserve the world in its relationship to God like salt (Lev 2:13; Num 18:19; 2 Kgs 2: 19-23). Like salt the followers of Jesus continually instill in the world the desire for societal justice and personal perfection, and do not allow people to be satisfied with individual or societal mediocrity. Their saltiness is a mark of the stability of their commitment, for in the Bible a 'covenant of salt' is an 'unbreakable covenant' (2 Chr 13: 5). Like a city built on a hill (Isa 2: 2) the Church as a whole must be seen as a community which lives out visibly the relationships proclaimed in the beatitudes. As light Christians must shed the radiance of the Good News of God's saving presence, into the darkness of an alienated humanity." Those who believe in Jesus receive the light of God through him i.e. through the Word of God. In the OT the mission of Isaiah the prophet was not only to restore the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the remnant of Israel but also to be a light for all the nations. "I will make you a light for the nations so that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth" (Is 49, 6). In the NT Jesus has made his followers the light of the world.
Light by its nature emanates itself. So also the light in the disciple of Christ emanates from the power of the Word and the love of God in him i.e. by the grace of the Holy sprit, by his gifts and
fruits, and illumines those around him, his fellow faithful and people of other religions and cultures. To the Corinthians St. Paul would say "God who said, Let the light shine out of darkness, has also made the light shine in our hearts to radiate and to make known the glory of God, as it shines in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4,6). To the Ephesians Paul would say "You were once darkness but now you are light in the world. Behave as children of light" (Eph 5, 8). In a world where powers of evil are wreaking havoc, especially in our country at the moment with violence and destruction engendered by social injustices, religious fundamentalism and political rivalries, we have to be real witnesses of love and harmony. The Church has to come up with real witness of justice, probity, tolerance, patience, forgiveness, mercy, peace and harmony. Let us recall to our mind, the need for the practice of the requisites of the beatitudes so that we may be inheritors of the Kingdom and earnest labours for its coming in glory.
St. Basil of Caesarea is described in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Church as a 'luminary of the Church', as a person who illuminated the Church and society of his time. It is said of him that he became an "apostle and minister of Christ, steward of God's mysteries, herald of the Kingdom, a model and rule of piety, an eye of the Body of the Church, a Pastor of Christ's sheep, a loving doctor, father and nurse, a cooperator of God, a farmer of God, a builder of God's temple." Concluding a homily on this great saint, Pope Benedict XVI said that Basil showed us how to be true Christians. It is by becoming true Christians that we become true heralds of the Kingdom, continuing the mission of Christ.
It is in Christ, in the strength of his word and love, that we have to enlighten the world, through direct and indirect preaching, through catechesis and education services, through Art, Architecture, Literature, through Media, through Health and pro-life services, through Development Works, through Ministries to the poor, the marginalised, and the prisoners. Light makes us see things as they are. When the light of God is in us, when the light of God manifested in Jesus is in us, we see everything in the light of God, according to the values of the Gospel and illumine others with the same light. This is our mission, our work of evangelization i.e. to give Christ, the light of God to others who seek him knowingly or unknowingly.
Witness to Christ
The Christians by their lives, by their being and action (by words and deeds) have to function as a beacon of the light of Christ to the world. This is the mission of the Christians, the mission of establishing the Kingdom of God in the world. What St. Mathew brings out by the simile of light in his exposition of Jesus' Sermon of Mount is brought out in other parts of the New Testament and especially in the Acts of the Apostles by the invitation to bear witness to Christ (Acts 1, 8; 22, 20; Heb 12, 1). Explaining the role of St. John the Baptist in the redemptive work of Christ St. John the Evangelist would say that it was bearing witness to Christ, the Light. "There came a man, sent by God; his name was John. He came as a witness (eis martyrian), to bear witness to the light so that all might believe through him. He was not the light but he came to bear witness to the light. For the true light was coming into the world, the light that enlightens everyone" (Jn 1, 6-9). The Baptist's role was to bear witness to the light that was to enlighten the humankind while the role of the Christians is to share from the light of the One who has already enlightened it.
Witness as Mission
Just before his ascension Jesus said to the disciples: "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you will be my witnesses (mou martyres) in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1, 8). It is this mission of witnessing to Christ by a life of love similar to that of Christ, which is the vocation of every Christian and of the Church. It is now our turn to be his witnesses in our own villages, and towns, throughout this vast country and to the ends of the earth. The more we are seized by Christ and anointed by His Spirit, the more we will be impelled to give witness to his word and love, to be committed to his mission, to be bearers of his light to others. The less we are so, the less will be our commitment to his mission. From this lack of depth in faith in Christ and love of his church comes also the lack of zeal for the mission of Christ, nay even doubts about it and questions against its relevance. The love of Christ urged St. Paul to preach his Gospel both in opportune times and in adversities. The true disciple of Christ radiates his light by his witness of prayer too. He is a man of God who attracts men to God. Let us pray that the traditional prayer of our great country tamasoma jyothir gamaya may get its 'fulfilling complementariness' in the light of Christ.
The Disciples of Christ as individuals or as the Church do not impose anything on others, needless to say that they do not force others to get them converted to Christian faith. The true Christian preaches and professes what he believes namely the truth of the Gospel that has already converted him to God's love. It is the same truth of the Gospel, to which the Christian bears witness by word and love that penetrates the hearts of people and causes the change or conversion of their vision of life. This is God's work, not of man, and no one can hold it back. The Spirit blows where it wills. When the light of the truth of God shines in the hearts of people, for which light we are servants in word and deed, they are led to the requirements of that truth, namely justice and equity and the fruits of the love of God namely kindness, patience, peace and joy. In Redemptoris Missio the Servant of God Pope John Paul II says: "It is not we who are the principal agents of the Church's mission, but Jesus Christ and his Spirit. We are only co-workers."
Eschatological Light
Let us conclude this reflection on the biblical theme of light recalling the eschatological promise for the servants of the lamb given in the Book of Revelation. It is said "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of lamp or sun, for God himself will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever" (Rev. 22, 5). The Bible opens with the act of God, who is Light, creating light and concludes with the promise of God to gather all his faithful servants in his Light. Let us gather the oil of the Holy Spirit for the lamps of our lives from the word of God that we are listening to and from the Word made flesh broken for us in the Holy Qurbana as we pray before the holy communion, "let us receive the Lord in his Body and Blood and be sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Let us not be mere torch bearers of the Gospel but like Mary, Mother of Christ and our Mother be real bearers of the light of God and Jesus Christ so that we may walk in his way and help others too to find and walk in the same way of salvation.
Introduction
The cleansing of the temple by Jesus narrated in the gospels has been inspiring Christians in all generations to be daring to do courageous actions in the name of God, and it often pushed them to challenge the corrupt social and religious structures of their time. The attraction of this text persuaded several scholars to make research into its historical background as well. Interestingly, scholars then discovered that Evangelist John has a special way of presenting the cleansing event: the synoptics present the cleansing of the temple by Jesus at the end of his earthly ministry, in the context of his last and the only journey to Jerusalem (Matt 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48); the gospel of John, by contrast, presents the cleansing at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus and in the context of his very first journey to Jerusalem. Jesus, according to John, made at least three journeys to Jerusalem (Jn 2:13-22; 5:1; 11:55). Actually there are a number of elements that make the gospel of John different from the synoptics. The synoptic narrative and chronology about the cleansing of the temple might be historically more reliable, not only because these gospels were written earlier but also because it is difficult to understand how the Jewish religious authorities would have tolerated such an offensive act at the beginning of Jesus' ministry when he had not gained any strong popular support.
If the synoptic chronology is thus true, then John seems to have moved the temple-cleansing scene to the beginning of his gospel because it served his theological concern. If this is acceptable, there emerge several questions like the following: a) What is the theological notion that persuaded the evangelist to transpose the cleansing scene to the beginning of Jesus' ministry? b) Why did John prefer to present more materials that were not found in the synoptic while he omitted several things found in them? c) Why did John follow his own sequence of events which was different from the order of events visible in the synoptics, while narrating the message and events in the life of Jesus?
Background of the Gospel
In order to find answers to the above said questions, one might look into the main goal of the evangelist in writing this gospel. The main goal of the gospel is set in its final verses: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (Jn 20:30-31). There is still another important purpose which is set in the final discourse of Jesus: "I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage! I have conquered the world!" (16:33). From the first text which is the concluding statement of the evangelist four things seem to be clear: John wanted to declare Jesus as the son of God; in fact, the fourth gospel uses the title Messiahs (Μεσσίας the transliterated form of the Hebrew-Aramaic Mashiah, M'shiha; 1:41; 4:25) twice, Christos 17 times, and Jesu Christos 2 times; still the evangelist did not wish to comment on all the existing traditions about Jesus. From the statement it is also clear that among his hearers, there were people who doubted the divine sonship of Jesus; it also says that the goal of the gospel is to help people attaining life. The second text (16:33) indicates a persecuted community, which needed encouragement. In order to achieve his objectives, John seems to have made a choice between the existing traditions, and he reinterpreted the chosen traditions in order to communicate his theological notions. This theological emphasis was probably the missionary demand of the time. It is now necessary to make a research into the mind of the evangelist and his readers/hearers, if we want to discover the theological notions of the evangelist and the spiritual needs of his hearers. Actually we have only internal evidences to support our arguments.
The gospel begins with statements that give some ideas about the theological background of the evangelist: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (Jn 1:1-2). This Word according to John was the Creator-Word: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being, what has come into being" (1:3). This Word took human flesh and became man: "The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the father's only son, full of grace and truth" (1:14). The incarnate Word was greater than John the Baptist because the latter was only a human being sent by God: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John... He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him" (1:6-10). His own people did not accept him; those who received him became the children of God: "He came to his own, and his own people received him not, but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:11-12). These statements together with the polemical style of John visible in the whole gospel show that there were at least four groups of people as the hearers of the gospel, or are relevant in the understanding of the gospel: there were those who did not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus (towards whom John makes the first verses); there were those who held John the Baptist as greater than Jesus ('He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light'); there were Jews who rejected Jesus ('His own people did not accept him'); and there were people who accepted Jesus as their Lord (those who received him became the children of God).
Let us have a look at the society and situation in which these four groups became relevant. The earthly mission of Jesus was carried out in Palestine and the message about Jesus as the messiah had been announced to the Jews. The Jews had then decided against Jesus. At this time, the followers of Christ met with opposition from the Jews and their leaders (Act 4:1-4, 17-18). The intervention of Gamaliel seemed to have calmed the situation (Act 5:33-40). In Act 8:1-5 we find a subsequent situation of tension between the Jews and followers of Christ, and persecution of the church, but this persecution in fact helped the spreading of the gospel, probably through the Hellenist Christians. The persecution should have ruined the peaceful situation between the Jews and the Christian believers which, in the following years, led to some acts of violence like that of the execution of James (son of Zebedee) and imprisonment of Peter (Act 12:2-3). At the time of the Jerusalem council (49 A.D.), the situation appears to be calm, and the Christian community might be living in peace with the Jews in Jerusalem. This conclusion is plausible because James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded in his attempt to execute some of the important things in the Mosaic Law in the whole Christian church including the gentile Christians (Act 15:22-29). This decision might have helped to avoid conflicts with Judaism. Even in 58 A.D., when Paul came Jerusalem, it was still customary for the Christians to go to the temple in Jerusalem (Act 21:18-26). In 60 A.D., when James was executed at the command of the high priest, the relationship between the two groups seems to have lost. Yet the Christians did not break their relationship with the temple.
The destruction of the temple, the only cultic center of the Jews in 70 A.D., opened a new chapter in the Jewish-Christian relationship. It demanded a radical reorientation of Jewish religious life. Pharisees, priests, Christian Jews, and others, struggled for religious identity and power; subsequently, the pharisaical/rabbinic branch of Judaism slowly succeeded in asserting its control over the other groups. The centre of the religion (temple) being destroyed, the emergent leaders had to find out means to hold the people together in their traditional faith; actually, since the time of Ezra-Nehemiah till now the temple had been functioning as the principal unifying factor of the religion.
Danger of extinction forces any community to become rigidly orthodox in order to survive. As the temple was destroyed, the law became the only factor that could unify the Jews together. They had to hold on to the law rigorously.
Now the attitude of Paul towards the law might have been well known, and the subsequent behavior of the Christians as well as the reaction of the Jews towards the Christians. By 80 A.D., there were organized attempts on the part of the Jews to force the Christians out of their synagogues. The main synagogue prayer of the Jews coined at this time, the Eighteen Benedictions (Shemoneh Esreh), echoes this Jewish disposition: the twelfth benediction, that was labelled as the Benediction Against Heretics (Birkath ha-Minim), was a curse on the heretics. The text would read in the following way: "May the converted lose hope. May the reign of impertinence be uprooted quickly in our days! May the Nosrim and the Minim (followers of Jesus) vanish in an instant, may they be erased from the book of the living and not be inscribed with the just ones. Blessed are you Lord, you who bend the proud hearted!" According to the Jews the intended heretics were primarily the Jewish Christians. If a Christian believer in the synagogue recited this benediction, he would be cursing himself; or he had to quit the synagogue.
At the same time, the apostles and the early Christians proclaimed Jesus as the son of God reinterpreting the books in the Bible (OT), especially the "deuterocanonical books"; Jesus was declared as God: actually John's gospel begins and ends with the declaration that Jesus is God (1:1; Jn 20:28). It then became necessary for the Jews to limit the number of their holy books in order to avoid 'misinterpretation of the holy books.' This led to the formation of the Jewish canon probably in the council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. Through this the Jews could avoid some books that were reinterpreted by the Christians. At this time, Rabbi Gamaliel II became the president of the Council of Jamnia, and in his time, the Christian believers might have been expelled from the synagogues. The fourth gospel is conscious of and echoes the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues: "They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God" (16:2; cf. also 9:22; 12:42). The intense rhetoric against "the Jews," and predictions of expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues, their persecution, and martyrdom found in the gospel point to this intra-Jewish conflict and its consequences (cf. e.g., 15:18-16:3). In the gospel, the OT is often referred to as "your law" (10:34), "their law" (15:25), and "As I said to the Jew" (13:33).
The religious crisis and the subsequent extinction of the various Jewish groups except Pharisees seem to be the reason why the gospel never refers to the various groups in Judaism like, Sadducees, or Zealots. The evangelist employs only the term 'Jews' (and Pharisees) when he speaks of them: he uses the name 63 times in the gospel against five times in Matthew, six times in Mark, and three times in Luke. The term generally refers to the enemies or the synagogue group; when the evangelist wanted to say something about the believers, he did not use the term 'Jew' but 'Israelite' (cf. Jn 1:47). The fourth gospel thus appears to be written after 90 A.D. events.
Christian writers of the first half of the second century A.D., seem to have not known the gospel of John (e.g., Ignatius, Policarp, Barnabas, Hermas); however, the writers of the second half of the second century have quoted from this gospel. 10 Heracleon wrote the first commentary on John around 150 A.D." In an Egyptian papyrus (PS2) generally dated 125-150 A.D., Jn 18:31-33, 37-38 is found written suggesting that the gospel was known in Egypt in the first part of the second century. 12 The gospel might have thus been written before 125 A.D. It needs a certain length of time for a text to be accepted by the communities, duplicated, and brought to other distant areas. Based on these and similar documents several scholars posit a date between 90-100 A.D. for the final edition of the text of the gospel.
Traditionally the fourth gospel is thought to have originated in Ephesus in Asia Minor (Turkey). This tradition is supported by Papias. 15 According to Acts, disciples of John the Baptist were living in Ephesus (18:24-19:7). The gospel speaks about a discussion between the Jews and the disciples of John the Baptist: "Now a discussion about purification arose between John's disciples and a Jew" (3:25). It is now known that the disciples of John the Baptist were considering John as the messiah. The evangelist rejected this claim when he made John declare that he was not the messiah: "He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, 'I am not the Messiah" (Jn 1:20). In the prologue the evangelist affirmatively stated that he (Baptist) was not the light: "He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light" (1:8); Jesus was the true light: "In him was life, and the life was the light of all people" (1:4); "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). Jesus claimed that he had a better witness than John (5:36). Instead of thinking Baptist as the messiah, the evangelist thought, the disciples of John should do what Baptist did, i.e., lead all the people to Christ, the true messiah: "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (1:29); "The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, 'Look, here is the Lamb of God!' The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus" (1:35-37). John the Baptist wished that if all his disciples had followed Jesus that "He must increase, but I (Baptist) must decrease" (3:28-30). In the community where the gospel was written, the Christians were giving baptism, while the disciples of John were doing the same. Both were Jewish sects in the beginning. There existed every possibility of a discussion in which each group claimed superiority. The fourth gospel appears to be the Christian answer to the questions of the disciples of John the Baptist (1:19-34; 3:26-36).
Although Jesus had won some Jewish friends (like Nikodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea), in the gospel the Jews are generally treated as the enemies of the gospel of Jesus: "From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, 'If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor" (Jn 19:12; cf. also Jn 5; 8:39-47; 11:45-53 etc.). The gospel sees the Jews as representing the world and as enemies of the project of God: "If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you... If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause" (15:18-25). They were planning to execute him: "Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?" (Jn 7:25). As we said above, these texts show that during the time of the formation of the gospel, the Jews turned out to be the enemies of the Christians.
Johannine Replacements
The main reason for this separation between the Jews and the Christians was theological. The important problem which was faced by the Jews in accepting Jesus as the messiah was his claim of divinity. For the Jews, the messiah, the anointed, was an earthly king from the house of David. Although born in the house of David, Jesus proclaimed himself to be the son of God and equal to God." Jesus always referred to God as "the one who sent me" (e.g., 4:34; 5:38; 8:29), and as his father (e.g., 5:17; 6:45; 14:16). He claimed that he and his father (God) were one and equals (5:17, 18, 19, 21,26; 10:30, 38; 14:10). According to the Jewish traditional belief, that was scientifically exposed by of the Deuteronomic theologians, Yahweh was the only God of the universe and there was no other God like him (Deut 32:39; Is 45:5-7, 22-25). The Jews every day proclaimed this faith through their daily prayer 'Shema Israel": "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our God is the only Lord. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates" (Deut 6: 4-9). This belief in one God was the basic tenet of the Jewish religious thought. The first commandment taught them that they had only one God (Ex 20:3; Deut 5:7). When Jesus presented himself before them as the son of God and as God (14:9-13; 5:16-18), it was equal to say that there were two Gods. The Jews who could not think of such a notion, accused Jesus of blasphemy (Jn 10:30-33). Being a human being, according to them, he not only exalted himself as God but also said that there were more Gods. This 'blasphemy' slowly led to his execution of which the Jews thought that they were making a sacrifice to God: "Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God" (16:2).
This polemical situation seems to have persuaded the evangelist to seek the then existent 'Holy Scriptures,' to find arguments to prove the divinity of Jesus. This led him to the wisdom tradition of Israel that could conceive more energies or even persons in the only God. The wisdom tradition had enough communication with Greek philosophical concepts. According to Proverbs 8:22-30, there was a personified wisdom working with God in his creation activity. In fact, this was not totally in conformity with what was said in Genesis 1: in Genesis God alone is the creator. This ambiguous wisdom text was then interpreted by Jewish sages with the help of Greek philosophy (middle-Platonism). The interpretation was visible in the first century work, Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 6:22-25; 7:22-8:8).
Middle-Platonism was alive from 80 B.C. to 220 A.D. These philosophers sought clarity of notions about all the existing things. They emphasized the primary reality of the immaterial-intelligible realm; subsequently, they tried to define who the real God was. The first definition that they gave to the Creator God was that he was eternal and transcendent. If almighty God is transcendent, then, what about the existence of the visible world? Who preserves it? Who is at work in the visible universe if not God? In order to answer this question, they made a distinction between two aspects of the divinity: transcendent and immanent. The first aspect of the divinity was essentially transcendent and basically inner-directed; the second aspect was an active, demiurgic power which was responsible for the creation and ordering of everything else in the universe: it was God in the process of self-communication. The suggested distinction in God was not simply metaphorical, but was meant as a metaphysical explanation which helped them to present not only the transcendence of God, but also the relatively orderly character of the universe. The second aspect of God that was responsible for the preservation and existence of the universe was labeled by these philosophers as 'logos,' (the word of God).
The Greek word logos meant 'word. That means that according to the middle-Platonists the word of God had created the world. This philosophical notion was then taken by Philo who interpreted the LXX in the light of middle-Platonism. According to Philo logos was an intermediary between the transcendent God and the visible world. He called this logos the image of God (De fuga et inventione, 101). This was the essence that stood closer to God. Logos is not only the image of God but it is also the model according to which the universe was created. The blueprint of everything in the world is in the logos (De somniis I-II, 2, 45). Logos is not only the model according to which the world was created, it is also the instrument of the creation of the world and the energy behind the preservation of the world. Philo also labeled the logos the first begotten son of the uncreated father (De confusion linguarum, 146; De somniis I-II, 1, 215), the principal angel (Quis rerum divinarum heres, 205), and the chief priest of the universe (De fuga et inventione, 108). Logos, he thought, was the intermediary between God and man.
The Greek reflections on logos and that of Philo (if he was not the author of the Book of Wisdom of Solomon) seem to have influenced the author of the Wisdom of Solomon. The Book of Wisdom attributed all these qualifications of logos to the personified wisdom which he identified with the word of God: "for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. For in her there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her, for she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. Though she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with wisdom; for she is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail. She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well. I loved her and sought her from my youth, and I desired to take her for my bride, and I became enamored of her beauty. She glorifies her noble birth by living with God, and the Lord of all loves her" (Wis 7:22-8:3). The author identified this personified wisdom with the word of God, the creator of the world: "O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by your word" (Wis 9:1; see also 16: 25-26; 18:14-16, 22).
Among the Diaspora Jews who knew the middle-Platonic philosophy, and read the LXX and the bible interpretation of Philo, the personification of the word of God was a comprehensible idea. It is in this philosophical notion that the Evangelist John found his argument to present his Christology and answer to his Jewish opponents. In the prologue of his gospel he begins with statements on the pre-existent logos of God who created the universe. In fact, the fourth gospel is built on two theological claims in relation to incarnation of Jesus which is set in the prologue itself: 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (1:1), and 2) "the Word became flesh and lived among us" (1:14). That means that the claim of Jesus to divinity was not a blasphemy, but the climax of revelation. In fact after incarnation, Jesus provides access to God in ways never before possible, because Jesus' revelation of God derives from his most intimate relation with God: "No one has ever seen God; the only son, who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known" (1:17).
For the evangelist, the excommunication of the followers of Christ by the Jews signified the rejection of Jesus himself. Directing the attention of the readers of the gospel to the special situation of the rejection of Christ and his followers by the Jews, the evangelist says the following comment in the prologue: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (Jn 1:11). All those who believed in Jesus, however, have now the possibility of becoming the children of God: "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:12). These affirmations should be set in the context of the notion of the special election of Israel as the chosen people of God (Ex 19:5).
Through the covenant at Sinai, Israel was chosen to be the possession of God. By making the above said affirmation (Jn 1:12), the evangelist was trying to say that the church has replaced the chosen people. The reason for this replacement is stated in the following verse which challenges the source of the pride of the Jews. They believed that they were in possession of the law (will) of God which God communicated to them through Moses who was thought to have seen God face to face and conversed with him (cf. Num 12:7-8). Now the evangelist denying this religious claim states that "No one has ever seen God; the only son, who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known" (Jn 1:17). With the coming of the son of God, the will of God remains no more a simple obedience to the Mosaic Law; rather it consists in obeying the new law taught by God's son and his church. In other words, Jesus has replaced the Law of Moses because Jesus has a better communication with God (1:17). In fact, the theme of replacement runs throughout the gospel. Let us have look at this theme in the coming pages.
After the initial presentation of the replacement of the Law, and the affirmation that John the Baptist is only a voice that prepares the way of Jesus (1:19-27), the evangelist speaks twice of Jesus as the lamb: (1) the lamb which carries the sin of the world: "the next day he (John the Baptist) saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (1:29), and (2) the lamb of God: "He looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God!'" (1:36). These two diverging references to lambs seem to allude to the two lambs slaughtered on the day of atonement. Actually the main concern of the Jewish religion was their sin and purification from sin. They were called to be a holy nation before God: "You shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). In order to be holy and pure before God, a number of sacrifices were prescribed in the Book of Leviticus (chapters 1-7). The most important annual feast in relation to the removal of sin was the celebration of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Since the evangelist speaks several important things in relation to the Jewish feasts (cf. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22), it might be more appropriate to interpret this text in relation to the Day of Atonement.
The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur; cf. Lev 16.1-28) was the most important feast day of the Jews. It was a day of complete fasting and reconciliation; the day on which the people and the temple were cleansed of their impurities: "This shall be a statute to you forever... for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord" (Lev16:29-30). On this great annual feast/fast day, two lambs (one goat) were brought to the temple for the atonement liturgy. One was designated as an offer for Yahweh; this lamb would be slaughtered by the high priest, and then the altar, temple, and people would be sprinkled with its blood so that they would be purified from the impurities caused by the transgression of the people. The other lamb/goat (destined to Azazel) was intended to carry the sins of the people away from the city; the high priest would lay his hands on this goat and would confess over its head all the transgressions and sins of the people. This goat would then be lead to the desert away from the city with all the sins of the people on its head; it will be left in the desert alone. The lamb carrying the sin of the people would die in the desert. With its death the sin would be removed." John seems to have this image in mind when he speaks about the two lambs. According to John, the lambs of the Day of Atonement have no worth anymore. They have been replaced by the lamb of God, Jesus of Nazareth. In Jesus we have the new lamb which carries away the sin of the world (cf. Jn 19:20; he died outside the city) and the blood of whom will effect purification. This discussion on the replacement of the lambs will end with a comment that the true Israelites would recognize Jesus as the son of God and as the king of Israel (Jn 1:49). Since John the Baptist was preaching repentance, and was giving a baptism of the remission of sins (1:23), it was appropriate to speak about the lambs of the removal of sins in connection with this feast.
On the Day of Atonement, after the offering of the lamb of God in the temple, the priest had to purify himself with water (Lev 16:24); the one who led the lamb to the desert would also have to purify himself through a ritual ablution (Lev 16:26). These ablutions were necessary in order to make them clean and pure. The next Johannine text, the first miracle of Jesus at Cana, seems to continue the same idea of replacement in relation to the Jewish waters of purification (2:1-11). In fact the Jews practiced several rites of purification with water.
For the marriage feast (2:1-11) Jesus and Mary were invited, and in a critical moment of need Mary interceded on behalf of the head of the family ("they have no wine"). Jesus first rebuffed that his time had not yet come. The appointed time of Jesus was the time of his glorification: his death and resurrection. Through this process of glorification he was going to bring the attention of all to himself: "When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (Jn 12:32). At that time he was expected to purify the humankind form all the sins through his blood. Although Jesus first seemed to reject the req request of Mary, he did not turn her down; instead, by doing a notable miracle, he showed his glory to his disciples and drew them to him even before his appointed time (2:11).
Many scholars think that this wine is the prefiguring of the Eucharistic wine which replaces the Jewish waters of purification (cf. Jn 6:53-56; 19:34). In the fourth gospel, water represents the old covenant (Jn 4:7; 13:5-8). In the Christian tradition the gospel of Jesus was thought to be the true wine: "no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, 'The old is good" (Lk 5:39); "They are filled with new wine" (cf. Act 2:13). The mentioned six water pots (imperfect number according to Jewish thought) would have been probably empty as the celebration went on. The servants were then commanded to fill them again. The water that Christ gives (cf. 4:14) fills the jars and this will then be served. No old water then remained in the jar. The old purification is totally replaced by the new wine, the blood of Jesus that purifies the humankind.
One another replacement that takes place in the same story is that of Mary. In Rev 12 one finds a woman who plays an important role in the history of salvation. Here there is enmity between the woman and the serpent, between the serpent's seed and her seed, and the seed of the woman enters into conflict with the serpent (Gen 3:15). According to Rev 12 the woman brought forth a child who would then be taken into heaven, i.e., the messiah. Since Mary was the one who brought forth the messiah, Christian tradition identified her as the woman in Rev 12; however, it is generally thought that the woman of Rev 12 is the people of God, i.e., the church. Mary is in fact a symbol of the church. Notably, the figure of Eve gives background to the description of Rev 12; from the earliest days of Christianity, Mary was considered to be the symbol of the church and the new Eve,
In the Johannine writings, at Cana (Jn 2:4), under the cross (19:26), and in Revelation (Rev 12) there is a 'woman.' The birth pangs mentioned in Gen 3:16 and Rev 12.2 might be associated with the death of Jesus. According to Revelation, the son of the woman was taken to the heavens. The serpent/dragon then makes a war against the other offspring of the woman (Rev 12:17); that means that the first seed of the woman is the messiah who was taken to the heavens; it is the son of Mary. The woman has also other offspring. In John, in fact, Mary woman is associated with the disciples of Jesus: the first miracle at Cana is related to the call of the disciples of Jesus; at the foot of the cross Mary - woman is given to the disciples (John) as their mother and she is to protect them. In both these events Mary is labelled as the 'woman.' At Cana Mary's request was apparently rejected by Jesus signifying that during the earthly mission of Jesus no other human being was supposed to interrupt the divine project; he is to exercise the sovereignty of his father. Still in view of his glorification, and her mission thereafter, her prayer was heard. At the foot of the cross the disciples were entrusted to her (19:27); then she had a mission. Mary is here the symbol of the church. During the earthly mission of Jesus the church had no mission; her mission begins with his glorification and the consequent belief of the disciples (cf. 2:12). The struggle of the church against the satanic kingdom comes to its climax on Mt Calvary. She has to struggle there. The same struggle continues till the end of the world. Mary and her sons together fight against Satan's temptations. The disobedient Eve of the Old Testament, who is the mother of the Jews, is here replaced by the new Eve who calls all her sons to obey Jesus' commands (Jn 2:5).
With regard to the Jewish daily purification rites, the temple played the most important role. All the sacrifices for purification were offered there. John therefore next speaks about the role of the temple itself. Actually the temple compound built by Herod the Great that existed at the time of Jesus was a vast area: the platform was an irregular trapezium; at the northern side it was 313 meters long (1020 feet); in the southern side it was 280 meters (910 ft) long; in the western side it was 485 meters long (1578 ft) and in the eastern side it was 470 meters long (1530 ft). The temple proper was only 100 cubits long (165 feet) and 50 cubits wide (Ezek 41:13-14) situated east-west at the centre of this platform; the temple was also surrounded by a high stone wall; the vast area outside the wall was accessible to the gentiles. At the extreme southern side of the yard was the long building called the king's portico where they used to sell the unblemished animals for sacrifice and where they exchanged the local coins with the coins which could be given to the temple. These animals and coins were in fact necessary for the pilgrims; moreover, this transaction in no way disturbed the activities in the temple because the king's portico and the temple proper were separated by the vast gentile court. It was not the disturbance in the temple that outraged Jesus; rather it was the Jewish attitude towards him. According Jesus the Jewish authorities had changed the temple of God their business place.
The temple was the only holy place on earth for man to meet his God (Deut 12: 5). When Jesus came, this temple lost its significance. Notably, when Moses consecrated the first tent of meeting, the glory of God visibly came to this tent (Ex 40:34-38). Israelites were asked to visit this God in his place of manifestation three times a year: "Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God" (Ex 23:17). The Mosaic temple system was expected to wait for the messiah and prepare the people for his coming. Instead of fulfilling this duty, they made it a market place for profit. When the son of God came, it did not recognize him. The temple therefore has lost its significance. With the coming of Jesus he has become the new temple where man can meet his God (Jn 2:19-22). Jesus had already categorically declared that "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (Jn 1:51). In the light of the vision of Jacob in which he saw a ladder connecting heaven and earth (Gen 28:11-17),26 the hearers of the gospel could understand that the place where the angels came down and went up was a holy place. Beth-el was the first place in which Israel (Jacob) first encountered his God. Jesus, the new temple, has now substituted the old temple of God's presence.
In relation to the vision of Jacob, God had promised the land to the Israelites (Gen 28:13). A nation and land were the two important promises of God to Abraham (Gen 17:1-8). Israel thought of God as their king and his kingdom (Promised Land) was thought to be the kingdom of God. In other words the Land of Israel was the kingdom of Yahweh. In the Old Testament generally the notion of the kingdom of God was confined to the Promised Land. When people did not believe in life after death, all the theological notions had a secular color. The kingdom of God accordingly was the country under the rule of Yahweh. The notion was to be understood in the context of the polytheism of the Ancient Near East. After the redemption from the Egyptian bondage, God became the king of the Jews (Ps 103:19; 145:11). God led his people to the land of God (Promised Land); and he gave them that land as a possession. In order to defend this land, God fought with the people (e.g., Josh 10:1-11). At that time they had no earthly king and
God was the only king. In a subsequent time, however, the people requested God for an earthly king just as other nations had it. God approved their request and gave them a king (1Sam 8); accordingly, Saul was chosen to be their first king, who was later rejected by God. The subsequent kingdom of David replaced that of Saul's. The Davidic dynasty received a divine promise that assured an eternal earthly kingdom (2Sam 7:12-16). This kingdom was later divided into two and first the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern Kingdom were destroyed and the people were sent into exile. Although apparently everything was over, the divine promise had always given the Israelites a hope of the restoration of land promised to Abraham (Gen 15: 18-21) and the eternal kingdom promised to David (2Sam 7:12-16). Prophets spoke of the reestablishment of the new kingdom (Is 33:22:52:7-11). The faithful were thus always looking forward to the establishment of this divine kingdom.
After replacing the Law and temple, now the evangelist is coming to the replacement of the old notion of the kingdom of God together with the definition of the subjects of this kingdom. The expression 'kingdom of God, which is frequent in synoptics appears only twice (only in one story) in the fourth gospel (Jn 3:3, 5). The land was promised to Abraham and his offspring. Being the offspring of Abraham, Israelites were proud of their election as the people of God and this, according to them, assured divine protection (8:33, 37-40). They thought of the Promised Land as the kingdom of God. They were the children of God (Deut 32:6; Jer 31:9; Is 63:16; 64:8; Mal 2:10). One of the main themes of the preaching of Jesus according to the synoptics, as mentioned above, was the kingdom of God. Jesus was trying to convince his hearers through a number of parables that the kingdom of God was something spiritual and not material (e.g., Mt 13:24, 31, 44, 47; 20:1; 22:2). Instead of the parables of the kingdom, what one finds in the fourth gospel is a plain statement of Jesus that his kingdom is not of this world (18:36); consequently, it is not bound with the Promised Land. In the discussion with Nockodemus, a teacher in Israel (the only references to the kingdom of God), who came to him at night (Jn 3:2, 10), Jesus is speaking about the condition to enter the kingdom, viz., rebirth by water and Spirit. In other words if one is not baptized, he would not enter the kingdom of God (3:3-5). Here John has replaced heredity with rebirth. Jews think that they are the children of God (Ex 4:22; Deut 32:6; Hos 11:1). John rejects this notion because that which is born of flesh is only flesh (Jn 3:6), whereas God is Spirit (4:24). The condition to be a child of God is no more hereditary but it is rebirth in Jesus Christ who comes from heaven. This was already declared in the prologue: "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:12).
Only the Son who has come down from heaven has entered there (3:13). Only he who knows the things in heaven can bring someone to heaven. Those who do not believe in the son of God have already been judged because they have failed God's plan of salvation (3:16-18). Through the affirmation, "this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (3:19-20), in the context of Nokodemus coming at night, the evangelist seems to present the Jewish leaders as dwelling in darkness.
In relation to the discussion on rebirth and baptism, it is also important to say a word about the baptism of John the Baptist. According to the evangelist, Jesus is greater than Baptist because Jesus comes from heaven (3:31-34), where as John is from the earth. The baptism of John is not enough to enter the kingdom. The conclusion of the discussion on entering the kingdom is the following: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (3:36). Jesus has really changed and replaced the conditions for attaining life.
After replacing the temple, the conditions of membership for the new community of the chosen people, and after declaring John's baptism as inadequate to be part of the elect, the evangelist, in the fourth chapter, presents the true mode and place of worship in relation to the next closer group to the Jews, i.e., the Samaritans. The Samaritans had the Law (Pentateuch) in common with the Jews. 29 They thought that Mt Gerizim, on which was built a temple of Yahweh, was the true place of worship because it was a traditional holy place: when Israelites entered the Promised Land Moses had asked the people to set the blessing on Mt Gerizim (Deut 11:27; 27:12). Jews, by contrast, thought that the true place of worship of the only God was Jerusalem (Deut 12). After the long discussion through which Jesus led the Samaritan woman to repentance, Jesus declared that the true place of worship is neither in Jerusalem nor on Mt Gerizim (4:20). It is not even a specific place upon the earth, the reason being that God does not have a material body; he is rather Spirit and omnipresent. By making affirmations like (1) "Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father" (4:21); (2) "the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him" (4:23); and (3) "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (4:24), Jesus replaced the place of worship and changed the Jewish manner of worshipping God. Jesus himself is the truth and he is the giver of Spirit (16:7; 20:22); he is also the new temple (2:21). Any true worship should be Christ oriented. Only such worship can give one eternal life. As the result of this new teaching, many Samaritans who were considered to be non believers by the Jews believed in Jesus and thus have replaced even the Jewish community (4:39-42).
Another important religious institution that is related to the Law and temple is the Sabbath. After the discussion on the baptism and rebirth, the evangelist presents a miraculous cure of a sick man which echoes the Christian baptism. This miracle which is set in the context of the Sabbath also shows the superiority of Jesus on Sabbath-law. On an unnamed Jewish feast day, Jesus cures a lame man who was sick for 38 years at the pool of Bethzatha: "there was in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Bethzatha, which had five porticoes; in these laid a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, and paralyzed; for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. A certain man was there, who had an infirmity thirty and eight years." (5:1-18). This man was healed by Jesus. From patristic times a baptismal interpretation has been given to the curing of the lame so that it became one of the readings used in the early church for the preparation of the catechumens. Fathers thought that the pool stirred up by the angel represented the Jewish Law given by an angel; some scholars also see in the five porticoes the five books of Pentateuch. The question of Jesus "do you want to be healed" reflected the interrogation before the baptism. The man who was waiting for 38 years to be cured symbolized the Israelites who wanted to be saved through the Law but were unable. Jesus now, showing his superior power above the Law by breaking Sabbath, replaces the Law and cures the sick. This miracle shows Jesus' superior authority.
Through the miraculous healing, Jesus presented himself as (equal to) God. Jews admitted the fact that God was caring for his creation even on Sabbath. The birth and death of people on earth were thought to be proofs of God's working on Sabbath. Humankind, however, was forbidden from doing any work (Ex 20:11; Deut 5:15). By healing a man who was there for 38 years and asking him to carry his mat through the street, Jesus was consciously breaking the Sabbath-law to show his authority. Through this he was going to declare his divinity: God has the authority to give the law and to change it. Jews then accused him of breaking the Law. Rejecting the accusation, Jesus pointed to God who is at work even on Sabbath: "Jesus answered them, 'My Father is still working, and I also am working" (Jn 5:17). Through this he not only replaced the Sabbath law but also revealed himself as the son of the living God. He has got his authority from God to change the laws (5:19-26) because he does the will of God (5:30). This declaration of Jesus might have been a great relief for the expelled Christian-Jews.
In the sixth chapter, in the context of the Passover Feast the evangelist makes another important replacement. According to the Jewish tradition, Moses had instituted the Passover Feast and after its first celebration, he led the people to the desert (exodus). During their journey, they were given manna in order to sustain their lives. Although manna helped them to maintain their lives in the desert, and it was given by God himself, it was unable to give them eternal life; fathers who ate manna died; therefore, now God has given the true bread of life to those people who believe in his son. Jesus the true bread has now replaced or taken the place of manna. Those who eat from this bread will live forever: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst..." (6:35-81). The one who rejects Jesus will lose eternal life. After the discourse on Eucharist many disciples deserted him. This idea was unacceptable for them. Jesus then turns to the twelve to know their reaction. It is here that John first presents the twelve disciples of whom Peter is the leader. The discourse comes to the conclusion by communicating that the new community of God is going to be a community that confesses Jesus and gathered around Eucharist. Historically speaking, the disciples who deserted him might be those who found it difficult to get out of the synagogues (cf. 9:22).
In the seventh chapter, in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus once again presents himself as the fulfillment of the Israelite expectations. The Feast of Tabernacles was an eight-day annual feast (Lev 23:33-44) on which all the Israelites visited their holy city and temple. Tabernacles was a feast of joy and rejoicing (v. 40). The feast primarily commemorated indwelling in tents of the forefathers when they were liberated from Egypt (Lev 23:43). It was also a thanksgiving feast for the permanent abode given to them in the Promised Land; after the erection of the temple, the feast thanked God for the permanent place of worship (cf. 1King 8:2; 12:32). This was one of the obligatory feasts for a Jew. According to Prophet Zechariah on the day of the Lord "Every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles" (14:16). Zechariah also foretold that if any nation does not come to Yahweh they will not have any rain (14:18) which was necessary for living in the desert. On these feast days, therefore, supplications were also made for rainfall. As part of the celebration, every morning of the celebration a priest in a procession - went down to the Siloe fountain; from there, he brought in a golden ewer water which was poured on the altar of holocausts amidst the singing of the Hallel (Ps 112-117). This became an occasion for Jesus to invite all the people to come to him and be sources of living waters: ""Let anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink" (Jn 7:37-38). Now people, instead of going to Jerusalem, have to come to Jesus and believe in him to acquire the life-giving waters (7:38; 4:14).
After presenting himself to be the source of life and of living waters, Jesus replaces the law of judgment with a law of mercy (8:1-11). As he was still in Jerusalem, the Pharisees and the Scribes brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus seeking his opinion before stoning her according to the Law of Moses. At first Jesus did not respond to their request; when they insisted, however, he allowed them to execute their judgment on condition that the first one who threw the first stone should be devoid of sin. The accusers had to quit. Jesus forgave her, and commanded her not to sin again. Jesus had replaced the Law of Moses on punishment with a law of forgiveness.
This will be followed by the replacement of another important religious concept of the Jews. They had been proud of their ancestry from Abraham (8:33). Divine promises were given to Abraham and the chosen people had originated from him (Gen 15; 17). According to the promises, Israelites would be slaves in Egypt for 400 years and then they would be liberated from there (Gen 15:13). The Jews were conscious of this promise and the freedom that Moses had brought them in Egypt. The consciousness of being the offspring of Abraham made them feel overconfident. Now Jesus challenged this pride and declared that if they believed in his words, they would know the truth and truth would set them free. This provoked the Jews and led to a very hot discussion between Jesus and the Jews; even though they were not politically free, they thought, being sons of Abraham, they were spiritually free before God. Responding to their arrogance, Jesus said that the relationship with Abraham would not be decided on the basis of biological ancestry but on the basis of faith, a faith similar to that of Abraham. It is through his exceptional faith that Abraham became the father of the chosen people. In order to have relationship with Abraham one has to have faith in Jesus who existed even before Abraham.
If faith is the criterion, what about the faith of the Jews that is taught by the Pharisees and scribes? The answer to this question is presented in the 9th chapter in the context of the discussion after the expulsion from the synagogue of a blind man who was healed by Jesus on Sabbath. The most important Jewish institution for worship after the temple was the synagogue. Although scholars differ in their opinion on the historical origin of the synagogues, it is generally thought that synagogues originated during the Babylonian exile. Since at this time they were deprived of their temple, many of the functions of the temple were taken by the synagogues. Historically speaking the first references to the synagogues might be fund in Ezekiel (cf. 8:6; 11:16; 14:1; 20:1).
In the New Testament times, synagogues had become one of the most important Jewish institutions that controlled religious life. The Jews all over the world came together in their synagogues on Sabbath day, and they recited prayers and heard the word of God there. Sabbath observance was one of the important marks of their identity. When the Christians were expelled from the synagogues, the evangelist understood that the significance of the synagogues had been lost; therefore, he now substituted the synagogue with belief in Jesus. In the story of the born blind (Jn 9), it was said that Jesus' glory was going to be manifested through the blindness of the man. He broke the Sabbath law in order to heal the blind. The Johannine reference to the Sabbath is deliberate because it comes only in the middle of the story as an afterthought (9:14). After several inimical discussions, the healed man would be expelled from their synagogue (9:22). It signifies that if one makes a true worship (in Jesus) he will not have a place in the synagogue. Jesus then meets him and asks him if he believes in the Son of Man. The healing of the blind is symbolic. By believing in Jesus he had become one who sees while those who did not believe in him are marginalized as blind. A believing blind man has replaced the leaders of Israel who were proud of having the sight (9:39-41). The things taught by the blind leaders will not be the true faith. Through this story the person of Jesus is also presented as replacing the synagogue and Sabbath.
The coming discourse of Jesus in chapter 10:1-21 presents the new centre of attention once the synagogues are out of reach for the Christians and the leaders of the Jews are declared to be blind: here Jesus presents himself as the good shepherd around whom the new community of faithful should be gathered. The leaders who preceded him were thieves. Jesus is a shepherd who leads a flock of sheep. A new image of a leader is here introduced. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promises to his people (Ezekiel 34). He is more than a good shepherd for whom Israel waits; he is also the way to life (the gate), and he leads the way to life (the good shepherd). Jesus is the way to life because he is himself life (10:10; cf. 14:6). Jesus leads the way to the life because he lays down his own life (10:11, 14-15). These non-transferrable attributes show Jesus as the one sent by God. In fact, the images of Jesus as the gate and the good shepherd have meaning only in the presence of the sheep. The statements of Jesus ("I am...") do not simply reveal who Jesus is, but more specifically reveal who Jesus is in relationship to those who follow him. The identity of the new community is determined by the shepherd's (Jesus') relationship to it and its relationship to the shepherd (Jesus): the believer's identity is determined by Jesus' identity. Who Jesus is' for the community determines what the community is. All who gather around Jesus receive their identity as members of the flock. They share in the knowledge of God and Jesus; their relationship to Jesus is modeled on Jesus' relationship to God (10:15). Listening to Jesus' voice is the source of its unity (10:16). Now Jesus who has come down from heaven has become the means of access to God. It is no more the ancestry of Abraham or the Law of Moses that counts. Through him the community gathered around Jesus gets abundant life (10:10).35 Judaism and its leaders are no more the way to God.
The Feast of Dedication was an important Jewish festival. In 1Mac 4:52-59 it is called "the dedication of the altar." It celebrates the recapture of the temple in Jerusalem from Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria in 164 B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and its purification and rededication. Antiochus had attempted to gain obedience from all his subjects by forcing them to follow Greek customs in order to create unity in the empire: the basic imperial principle was one country, one faith, one culture, one language, and one king; consequently, Jews living in Syria had to give up their religion. From 175 B.C., he forbade Jews their religion and desecrated the temple in Jerusalem probably by setting statues of Zeus and other Greek gods on the altar, and ordered the Jews to worship them. Many Jews were tortured and killed when they refused. A small group of Jews led by Judas Maccabaeus took to guerrilla warfare. The conflict lasted for three years, but eventually the temple was regained and cleansed. In order to commemorate this event the Feast of Dedication was instituted. The celebration of the feast reminded them of their great ancestors and divine providence of which they could be proud of. In the context of this feast, Jesus states that he is the true temple consecrated by the Father: "do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming, because I said, 'I am the son of God'?" (10:36). Jesus is the newly consecrated temple. This was already said in 1:14 and 2:19.
In the climax of the narration of the first part (The Book of Signs) Jesus seems to replace death with life. A friend of Jesus, Lazarus, died and Jesus knew about this even before his death. His sister believed in the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age; however, Jesus wanted to teach them that he had authority of give life just as God had. So he waited till Lazarus was dead. He then came to Bethany and raised him from the tomb. Through the raising of Lazarus, Jesus replaced death with life: "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live" (11:25). Now the Jews who had become the enemy of Jesus would try to kill not only Jesus but also Lazarus, the friend of Jesus, because his life was a testimony for the truth of Jesus as the giver of life (12:10). In the event of raising Lazarus one finds the fulfillment of the purpose of incarnation (cf. 3:16; 20:31).
The first part of the gospel, the Book of Signs, which gives the public ministry of Jesus, concludes with another important replacement: now the Gentiles are coming to Jesus (12:20-50). He had already announced that he has other sheep too: "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; so there will be one flock, one shepherd" (10:16). These words of Jesus are now fulfilled; the gentiles are seeking Jesus. In relation to this coming, Jesus announces that his hour of glorification has come; further he makes another affirmation announcing the universal character of the new community that is originating from Jesus: "when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (12:32). The Jewish religion itself is replaced by a universal community that believes in Jesus. This idea was already present in the prologue: "He came to his own, and his own people did not accept him; but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:11-12). The believers in Jesus are encouraged to face persecution because if they are with Jesus they will be respected by God (12:24-26); moreover, through his death Jesus will draw all humankind to himself (12:32). Jews are accused of not believing; even those who believed did not show the courage to proclaim their faith in Christ (12:42). The new community has also a new law code, viz., love (13:34-35), that derives from the love of God (3:16) and the love of Jesus (13:35). It has a new way of living, i.e., doing service (13:13-15).
After speaking about the replacement of the old community with a new and universal one, the evangelist reaffirms the same argument with the parable of the vine (15:1-17). In the Old Testament Israel was often compared to the vineyard or vine of God (Ps 80:8-15; Is 3:14; 5:1-7; 27:2; Jer 2:21; 12:10). God planted his vineyard and protected it with care, but at the end it yielded only bitter fruit. Now Jesus, who executes the will of God, portrays himself as the true vine and new Israel. Christians who are united to him are the branches of this vine. God is the vinedresser. Through their intimate relationship of the Christians with Christ, they are going to be the new people of God. The present persecution is only a pruning by the vinedresser.
Since the new community of God is established on the face of the earth, which is rejected by the Jews (who were God's own people), they are considered sinners and as 'world' representing evil (15:18-25). The disciples have to know that they are not greater than their master. The disciples are loved by God and have personal relationship with him (16:27). Eternal life consists in knowing God and his son Jesus Christ (17:3). If the enemies persecuted Jesus, they would also persecute his disciples (15:20-21). The reason for this is that they do not know God (15:21). The scope of this gospel is also set here: "I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!" (16:33).
In the final part of the gospel, Jesus will be presented as the paschal lamb (cf. 19:36; Ex 12:46). According to the synoptics, Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples and it is at that time that he instituted the Eucharist (In John Eucharist becomes a challenge placed before the believers; this is the belief that will define their identity; cf. Jn 6).
According to John, however, Jesus was crucified by the Jews and killed at the hour when the paschal lambs were slaughtered in the temple by the Jewish priests: "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God" (cf. 18:12-14, 19-24, 28-32; 19:7, 12).36 Being the enemies of God and thieves, the Jews preferred Barrabas to Jesus (18:40). Even though Pilate, the gentile, was willing to let Jesus go free, Jews wanted him dead (19:12). Since the Passover lamb is replaced by Jesus, he will be slaughtered by the Jews in the right time. Since the traditional paschal lamb has been replaced by Christ, the Jewish Passover (lamb) has no value any more. While some Jewish people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea believed in Jesus, the nation as whole became the enemy of the plan of God. It should therefore be replaced.
At the end of the trial, Pilate brought Jesus before the Jews and declared who the real man was: "Pilate said to them, 'Here is the man!" (19:5). This man would die in order to do the will of God (cf. Jn 5:30). First man was created in Eden and his disobedience caused death and expulsion of humankind from the garden. Now through his obedience to the will of God, by dying for the will of God, the new man is going to enter in the garden of God. In the garden of Gethsemane he declared his readiness to do the will of God (18:1-5); after his death in obedience to the will of God, his body would be brought to a garden and buried there (19:41-42). The Garden of Eden is replaced by the garden of Gethsemane and the garden of the tomb. Similarly, the old Adam (man) is replaced by the new Adam.
In Eden God had created man from clay and had breathed into his nostrils making him a living being (Gen 2:7). He had lost this life through sin (2:17; Gen 3:24). Jesus died in order to redeem the dead humankind. After his death and resurrection, he came to his disciples and breathed on them making them new creatures. Breathing was a sign of giving Spirit and baptism (Jn 3:5-8). There the disciples would be commissioned to continue the earthly mission of Jesus. He gave them his power over sin: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (Jn 20:23). The old creation was replaced by the new one. This new birth will happen through the baptism in water and Spirit (cf. 3:5). Those who do not believe in Jesus and refuse to be baptized will remain dead.
Conclusion
The theme of replacement is one of the major themes that runs throughout the gospel narrative. The evangelist firmly believed that Jesus was the messiah and the gift of God for the life of the world (Jn 3:16). He was aware of the plan of salvation prepared by God, and Jesus of Nazareth was the apex of this great plan (Jn 1:45). Now, however, the chosen people of God through whom God had prepared the people have rejected God's plan and expelled the followers of Jesus from their synagogues. So what is the future of the community of believers and what is the future of the Jewish institutions? The evangelist's answer to this question was the concept of replacement: Jesus the son of God, he thought, has replaced all the important Jewish institutions that were unable to recognize the divine project. After replacing the lambs of the Day of Atonement and the temple, the evangelist speaks of all the important Jewish institutions and feasts that are replaced: in fact Jews were commanded by law to go three times in a year to celebrate three important feasts (Ex 23:14-19; cf. Jn2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 10:22). Since Jewish institutions are unable to recognize the son of the only God, they are now replaced by God and the feasts have lost their significance. The old Israel is replaced by the new community of believers in Jesus.
In order to present this replacement theology, the evangelist has chosen the relevant material from the tradition and interpreted it. The order of events narrated in the synoptics was not relevant for him. He wanted to address the relevant groups and show them how the Jews slowly became the enemies of God. This swayed him to explain the reason for the persecution and suffering of the Christian communities. He also wanted to declare the baptism of repentance of John the Baptist as insufficient to enter the kingdom of God.
The replacement theology was a pastoral necessity. The fourth gospel was written in the context of the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues; this was a time in which these Christians had lost the possibility of practicing the Jewish religion and participating in the traditional Jewish festivals. It was also a time of persecution especially from the Jews. In order to encourage the believers to hold on to their faith in Jesus, and to establish a new style of community, John seems to have written this gospel. In order to attain this goal, John seems to have reinterpreted the traditional material in relation to the existential problems of the Christians.
Introduction
According to the book of Exodus (23:14-17) there were three annual festivals held in Israel. They were the two Spring festivals of Unleavened Bread and of Harvest, celebrated at the beginning and the end of the corn harvest and the one autumn feast of In-gathering, celebrated at the end of the fruit-gathering season. These three were suitable for a farming community where corn and fruit were regu-larly grown. Passover and Unleavened bread merged into one. The harvest feast became Pentecost which commemorated the giving of the Law at Sinai. In-gathering feast became the feast of Booths (or tents) which commemorated the wandering in the wilderness. Jews were obliged to go to Jerusalem at these three major feasts of Passover, of Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Adding the feast of Dedi-cation to it, the Johannine account presents Jesus at the Temple in all these feasts. Although I present Jesus at the temple through the eyes of John, I compare the Johannine account with the Synoptics wher-ever it is called for. My presentation follows the following hermeneu-tics in this paper. What is it?
In order to understand the words and the works of Jesus on the Jewish festivals in the temple, it is not enough to read those passages as independent units. The passages in the gospels are related to the Old Testament passages read in the temple during that time. These Old Testament passages are not read at random but they were se-lected and arranged according to the lectionary system of the Jewish Triennial cycle. The difficulty arises when we see the absence of the direct Old Testament quotations in the gospels on these occasions but only their allusions. Therefore the task is to locate the gospel passages into their corresponding Old Testament passages within the ambit of the
Jewish triennial cycle. How to do this? Here comes the role of the Rabbinic literature in my essay which in turn illumi-nates the words of Jesus at the temple in Jewish festivals. The main focus in my paper throughout is the gospel of John which seemed to have meticulously arranged the presence of Jesus in the temple on Jewish festivals on the background of this Jewish triennial cycle. The result is that the Rabbinic literature becomes a hermeneutical key to unlock these gospel passages.
This paper is divided into two main parts. First is the triennial cycle where I try to locate the Jewish festivals in the triennial cycle and second is the Jewish Feasts where I analyze and interpret the passages in John from the above background.
The Triennial Cycle
This term denotes a custom according to which the weekly Pentateuchal readings on Sabbaths are completed in a three-year cycle. While this was practiced in Palestine, the one year cycle of the same was practiced in Babylonia. The latter, then, became the accepted traditional custom throughout the world. According to the traditions, the 154 divisions of the masoretic text of the Pentateuch, known as sedarim, corresponds to the minimum number of Sabbaths in the triennial cycle. This 150 sections of the Pentateuch and then adding the concluding passage from the Prophets, known as a haphtarah and finally even Psalms into 150 to correspond to the number of Sabbaths in three years suggest the three-year Palestin-ian triennial cycle.
Evidence for the Lectionary Readings
New Testament
The following New Testament passages give evidence for the Palestinian triennial cycle in which the regular Sabbath readings of Torah in the Synagogues took place. They are Acts 15:21, Luke 4:16ff., and Acts 13:14ff., Let us take one example from the above to show that the Sabbath readings were already marked. "When he came to Nazareth... there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written...He rolled up the book, and gave it back to the attendant" (Lk 4:16-20). The verbs "opened" in 4:17 and "rolled up" in 4:20 show that Jesus simply opened the book at the place already selected for him. When he had finished reading, however, he rolled up the scroll. This pas-sage also shows that the synagogue reading also included the Proph-ets by the first century.
Mishnah (c. 200 CE)
According to the Mishnah (mMeg 3, 4) there was a set order of Sabbath readings from the Pentateuch by Mishnaic times. In this particular passage, after explaining the four special Sabbath readings for the twelfth month, Adar, it continues "on the fifth [Sabbath] they go back to the set order," i.e., the ordinary cycle of Sabbath read-ings from the Pentateuch was resumed. In the Mishnah (mMeg 4, 10) we find a discussion with regard to Ezekiel 1 and 16 as to whether they can be read as concluding prophetic lessons. "They do not use as the prophetic lection the selection of the Chariot [Ezek. 1:1ff.]... They do not use as the prophetic lection, Cause Jerusalem to know [Ezek. 16:1ff.]."" To explain one example that Ezek 16 with its phrase "Cause Jerusalem to know" denounces Israel's apostasy vehemently and evidently the portion was considered unsuitable for public read-ing. All these show the use of a regular lectionary reading by the first century.
Evidence for a Triennial Cycle
We come across a Palestinian triennial cycle and a Babylonian annual cycle. In the Babylonian Talmud (bMeg 29b), a reference is made to the people of Palestine, who complete the reading of the Pentateuch in three years. "Yes, for the people of Palestine, who complete the reading of the Pentateuch in three years." But this was later ousted by the Babylonian annual cycle the world over. According to the Mishnah (mMeg 4,2.4) the Law on the Sabbath would be read by seven persons, three verses each. "On the Sab-bath, seven" (mMeg 4,2). "He who reads in the Torah should read no fewer than three verses" (mMeg 3,4). Thus, the twenty-one verses read on each Sabbath would accord with the reading of the Pentateuch in a triennial cycle. As I have mentioned above the Massoretic divi-sions in the Hebrew Bible, numbering 154 in the Pentateuch corre-spond to the triennial cycle of the Sabbath lessons. These above reasons show that the triennial cycle was in use by the first century A.D.
The Triennial Cycle and the Jewish Festivals
This above triennial cycle is based on the study of A. Buechler where he has strongly argued for the beginning of the Pentateuchal lections on the 1 Nisan, which is the beginning of the New Year's Dayland on this the cycle of the Jewish festivals is based. How-ever, we should not forget the fact that the whole above discussion is only a hypothesis and I apply this to John's gospel only because that it throws some light on various important passages which are other-wise very dim as I will show in the paper.
The Triennial Cycle and the Pattern of the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus is presented as a teacher giving discourses and his miracles illustrate what he says. These discourses are presented on the successive feasts of the Jewish year. While they reflect the Jewish triennial lections read at the feast, the purpose of which seems to be to set forth Jesus himself as the fulfillment of the things typified by that feast. Therefore, let us begin to explore this gospel from this lectionary background. We can divide the gospel of John in the following way:
Prologue 1:1-18
In the second part of the gospel Jesus orderly attends all the Jewish feasts and manifests himself as the fulfillment of what is typified by the feast. Thus,
John 6 (parallel to John 13) Passover
John 5 (parallel to John 14) Pentecost/New Year
John 7-9 (parallel to John 15:1-16:24) Tabernacles
John 10 (parallel to John 16: 25-18:27) Dedication
John 11 (parallel to John 18:28-19:27) (Purim)
John 12 six days before the Passover, therefore completes the cycle. John 19:28ff. returns to Passover. The Jewish triennial cycle, in this way, fits very well with the pattern of John as has been shown before through the diagram.
Jewish Feasts Passover
Definition
Passover is a seven day festival commemorating the Exodus from Egypt. In Ex 34:25 we see the biblical name "the feast of Pass-over," because God "passed over" the houses of the Israelites (Ex 12:23). Pesah in Hebrew refers to the paschal lamb sacrifice that is slaughtered on the 14th day of Nisan (April) and eaten toward evening, in family groups (Ex 12:1-28, 43-49; Deut 16:1-8). Scripture presents the Passover as the key element of the bounty of divine redemption. "Unleavened Bread" (Ex 23:15; Lev 23:6; Deut 16:16) is the name of an originally distinct 7 day spring festival which began on the 15th day of Nisan. Scripture combines the Passover sacrifice with the feast of Unleavened Bread.
Ceremonies
In Ex 12-13, the Lord instructs Moses and Aaron as regard to the way to offer this sacrifice and then Moses instructs the elders of Israel. It consisted of the preparation of a one-year old sheep or goat on the 10th of Nisan, its slaughter on the 14th of the month, and its consumption in family gatherings on the night of a full moon, that is, on the 15th. The animal was eaten along with a vegetable the "bitter herb" and a grain the "Unleavened bread." This sacred meal was apparently followed by yet another festival. During the seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread, starting on the night of 15th day, Nisan, Israelites were to avoid leaven and eat only unleavened bread, massot. Thus, the flock (nomadic society) and the harvest (settled society) found a new meaning in terms of the Exodus experience as a cel-ebration of God's liberation of Israel.15 Now let us go to John. Here there are three incidents where the Passover imagery is used. They are,
i. Jn 2 the cleansing of the Temple: Passover I
ii. Jn 6 the feeding of the multitude: Passover II
iii. Jn 13ff the passion and death: Passover III
Therefore, these incidents should be understood in the Pass-over context.
Passover I
Context
"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (Jn 2:13). "When he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name" (Jn 2:23). Therefore, the incider is between vss 13 and 23. Here Jesus says "destroy this temple ai in three days I will raise it up" (Jn 2:19). To this John makes a cor ment, "but he spoke of the temple of his body" (Jn 2:21). If Passove refers to the sacrificial lamb which is dead once and for all, John probably wants to say here that Jesus the perfect sacrifice will not only be dead but also be raised again. Yet, this incident presents a chronological problem when compared to the other gospel accounts. But when we try to understand this from the Jewish lectionary back-ground it not only solves the problem but also illumines the whole passion narrative in John. Let us elaborate this.
Gospel Accounts
According to the Synoptics, Jesus went to Jerusalem for just one Passover in His public ministry where they describe a cleansing of the temple precincts. This is the only ministry of Jesus in Jerusa-lem just before he died. In Mt 21:10-17 and in Lk 19:45-46 Jesus does this cleansing on the day on which he enters Jerusalem in tri-umph. In Mk 11:15-19 he does this on the day after he entered Jerusa-lem in triumph. According to John, Jesus went to Jerusalem for three Passovers in his public ministry (2:13; 6:4; 11:55). Here, the cleans-ing of the temple takes place in the first of three Passovers.
Argument That Favours John's Dating
i. In the Synoptic tradition there is only one journey to the Temple in Jersalem and this journey precedes Jesus' death. Since the Temple is in Jerusalem, the first three evangelists had no option about where to place the scene. The Johnannine outline, which has several jour-neys to Jerusalem, was freer to locate the scene at the point in time where it really happened.
ii.The Synoptics betray some traces of a much earlier setting when Jesus raises the question of John the Baptist (Mk 11:27-28). This seems to indicate that John the Baptist's ministry is a recent memory, an indication that fits John's localization better.
iii. At the trial of Jesus his statement about the temple is re-called with difficulty by the false witnesses as if it had been uttered long before (Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61). In John's chronology, however, it would have been uttered at least two years before.
Arguments That Favour Synoptic Chronology
Solution
Following the above arguments one may wonder whether there were two incidents of the similar kind. But it is not possible to sup-pose that John and the Synoptics describe two different cleansings of the temple precincts, since, not only do the two traditions describe basically the same actions, but also we may suppose that such a serious public affront to the temple would not be permitted twice. "Considering the seriousness of this particular action, we do believe that the Synoptic account should have been historically true. If so why should John insert this incident at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry? The answer to this question is very important be-cause it can help us to understand several other contradicting points in John in comparison with the Synoptics better. It is at this juncture as I mentioned in my introduction we apply the specific hermeneu-tics to interpret this passage. It is as follows:
The Lectionary Background
Johannine Chronology: The Fourth Gospel takes pain to date the incidents exactly, as, for instance, in 7:37 "on the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed" or in 12:1 "six days before the Passover." If we assume that John knew the tradi-tion behind Mark, then, his dating of the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the ministry is puzzling. Yet, although this episode of the cleansing of the temple is placed in a different year in John from that of the Synoptics, the season of the year is the same, namely, not long before Passover. For lectionary purposes the month was impor-tant but not the year. For John what matters is the lectionary calen-dar. This lectionary time is the real time for John and this he departs from the historic time as preserved in the earlier tradition. This I suppose accounts for the impression that the Fourth Gospel stands outside time and we can not locate exactly its historic place. 1" Such explanation throws a light on the Jahannine presentation of the pas-sion narrative which is very different from the Synoptics. Jesus who suffers in the Synoptics is the triumphant one in John. Here those who come to arrest Jesus on this day fall down upon the ground. Through his "I am" statements he is in full control of the situation. Through the combination of the expressions "Son of Man" and "lifted up" in 3:14; 8:28 and 12:32-34 Jesus is presented as the exalted sav-ing Messiah even while undergoing death on the cross. This can be understood better against the above explanation of the lectionary background where any one Passover is simply one of an eternal series of Passovers, and the Christ who suffers this Passover is the Christ who has already triumphed, risen, and ascended last Easter. This is the cyclic conception of time where the rituals were seasonal like many other great rituals of the ancient world, the Jewish rituals among them, and were based upon a cyclic experience of life.
This insight of John is a great lesson for us. He takes something negative and tells that in this event there is saving presence of God.
Suffering which is a part of human life can give forth goodness. Here God in Jesus does not avoid or escape from suffering, but God suffers and in that suffering brings salvation.
Passover II
At the second Passover Jesus apparently remained in Galilee where the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves took place near Tiberias. John with Lk 9:10 locates the place as "Bethsaida on the north east shore." In both Mark-Matthew and in John (but inexplica-bly, not in Luke) the multiplication of the loaves for the five thousand is followed by the walking on the sea. Let us see the passage more closely in John.
In Jn 6:4 we read, "now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand." After this, in the chapter, we have two incidents: the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the sea. These are followed by the discourse where with the reference to "the manna in the wilderness" (vs 31), Jesus claims "I am the living bread which came from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die...and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (vss 51-52). Finally when Peter, acknowledging Jesus, speaks for the twelve: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed...." (vss 68-69), Jesus answers, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (vs 70). Then John as its climax makes a comment and ends the chapter. "He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him" (vs 71).
The problem here is to understand that what do the incidents of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the sea signify and why that the evangelist gears the discourse to mention about Judas Iscariot when he presents Jesus as the life giving bread. It is here I appeal to the lectionary background.
The Lectionary Background
The lections for the second half Nisan are Genesis 6:9ff., Exodus 15:1 or 22, and Numbers 11 which speak of the crossing of the Red Sea and the gift of the manna. "Thus, these two miracles which the Old Testament lectionary readings present as appropriate for Passover-time fit very well with the two signs in Jn 6, namely, the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the Sea. They must have brought home to the assembled crowd in the synagogue the following:
The manna is the bread from heaven and it has saved the Isra-elites from starvation and death in the wilderness. In the same way Jesus or we may say that the Eucharist is the bread from heaven and those who eat it will not hunger or die. At the same time Jesus is the true bread and the fulfillment of the manna because all those who eat of it will never die and will have eternal life. As the crossing the Red sea signifies the escape of the Israelites from death at the hand of the Pharaoh, so also, the walking on the sea signifies the Resurrec-tion of Jesus from the dead. This incident precedes a significant event in John, that is, Jesus withdraws from his disciples when they enter the boat. This withdrawal in this context seems to represent his sepa-ration from them by his death and burial. Thus, every incident in John 6 symbolically develop the events of Passion Week, namely,
The feeding the last supper
The withdrawal = the crucifixion
The walking on the Sea = the resurrection
Let me just give just one example to show the connection be-tween Jn 6 and its corresponding lectionary readings in Ex 16 and Numbers 11. While the other New Testament passages use the word soma to refer to the Lord's supper, John 6 uses the word sarx for the same. This may be because in Ex 16:3, 8, 12 and in Numbers 11:4, 13, 18, 21, 33 the Israelites in the wilderness asked for "flesh" to eat.
Finally these lectionary readings give a hermeneutical key to understand theclimax of John 6 which is the reference to Judas Iscariot. The lectionary readings for Nisan (Exodus 16; 14; Number 11 i.e., on manna) emphasize the lesson of faith. The same is re-inforced and re-interpreted by the Johannine accounts of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water. From this perspective the Evangelist seems to approach the problem raised in the Church by Judas' participation in the last supper. Therefore the words of our Lord "unless you munch the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (Jn 6:53) and the sudden mention of Judas in 6:70f., makes the point clear that the guarantee of eternal life does not automatically come from the mere partaking of the supper of the Lord but that faith is essential.
Passover III
John from the lectionary background: Here in chapter 12 we see the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. We see two main reactions from the people in welcoming Jesus. They are, the carry-ing of palms and the shouting of the Hosanna. "So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, "Hosanna!" (vs 13). The problem here is to how to understand this passage. Carrying of palms is normally associated with Tabernacles or Dedication. This gesture is a symbol of Jewish Nationalism. For example in 2 Macc 10:7 the Jews brought palms (phoenix) to temple when Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple altar after it has been profaned by the Syrians. Again we see in 1 Macc 13:51 the Jews carrying palm fronds (baion the only occurrence in LXX) when Simon conquered the Jerusalem citadel. Both of these expressions (phoe-nix and baion) are used by John here in 12:13. Thus, the action of the crowd in welcoming Jesus has certainly a political overtone. The second action of the crowd was the shouting of the Hosanna. In 2 Sam 14:4 and 2 Kgs 6:26 it was used in addressing kings. Thus we can say that this action, too, is related to the nationalistic conception.
If we are not careful, we too, may misunderstand like the crowd. The key to understand this passage is the context in which John presents Jesus, that is, the season of Passover and not Tabernacles or Dedication. Therefore the nationalistic overtone has no place here. However, one may say that the parallel passages in the Synoptics, too, are presented in the Passover context. Yet, to sharpen the different understanding of the incident, John deviates further from the Synoptic accounts. Here John does not inform us about the send-ing of two disciples as in the Synoptics to find a donkey's colt in Bethpage. Only after the procession has begun does John (vs 14) tell us that Jesus found a young donkey. In this way John puts the emphasis on the sitting on the donkey which was the reaction of Jesus to the crowd's acclamation. In Zech 9:9 and Zeph 3:16, for example, this action was a prophetic action which Jesus adopts to dispel the misunderstanding of the crowd. Again while for the Synoptics (Mk 14:5, 2-17; Mt 26:17, 19-20; Lk 22:7-9, 13-14) the sacrificial meal whch Jesus ate with his disciples occurred the night before his crucifixion, for John it occurred "before the feast of the Passover" (13:1). This is to depict Jesus as a Passover offering be-cause Jesus is crucified at the same time as the paschal lambs are being slaughtered at the temple. This may be because John presents Jesus in parallel with the OT lections of the Passover. For instance, the lectionary readings for the second and third years of the cycle we read, "and you shall not break any of its bones," (Ex 12:46; Num 9:12). John interprets this as a fact that this ritual direction concern-ing the Passover lamb found its fulfillment at the crucifixion of Jesus whose legs were not broken.
Finally, we see another aspect in Jn 12, that is, the repetition of the Passover theme. As we have seen before that in Jn 6 the two miracles symbolize the last supper and the death-resurrection of the Lord. So also here in Jn the supper at Bethany is followed by the anointing of Jesus' feet which John interprets as the preparation of Jesus' body for burial: "let her keep it for the day of my burial" and further this is followed by a discourse on theme of death and resur-rection. We can understand this repetition of the Passover theme in relation to the lectionary background.
Pentecost
Definition
This is a Greek name (pentakoste) for the Jewish Feast of Weeks. It derives its name from its occurrence of 50 days after Passover (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). This feast of Weeks was the second of the three great Jewish feasts. It concluded the period of seven weeks which began with the presentation of the first sheaf of the barley harvest during the Passover celebration (Lev 23:15-16; Deut 16:9). Thus it was originally an agricultural feast marking the end of the grain harvest and was celebrated during the month of Sivan (May/June). "The Jewish inter-testamental writings refer to this feast as Pentecost: "Then they went up to Jerusalem, as the feast of weeks was close at hand. After the feast called Pentecost, they hastened against Gorgias, the governor of Idumea" (2 Mасс 12:31-32). "When I arrived home and my wife Anna and my son Tobias were restored to me, at the feast of Pentecost, which is the sacred festival of the seven weeks, a good dinner was prepared for me and I sat down to eat" (Tob 2:1). This feast of Weeks was iden-tified with the celebration of Moses' receiving the Law on Mount Sinai and it has no distinctive ritual.
Jesus' Visit
"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (Jn 5:1). An early tradition identifies this unnamed feast as Pentecost. At this feast Jesus went up to Jerusalem and healed a man on the day of Sabbath by the Sheep Pool (Jn 5:1-15).
The Lectionary Background
The main lections at this feast are Deuteronomy 1-2 with a Nisan cycle, and Deuteronomy 31-32 with a Tishri cycle and the main themes of these lections are judgment and the ascent to God. The judgment theme can be culled through the blowing of the trum-pets at this season and the ascent to God theme through the baking of the loaves for the festival in the shape of ladders.
From this background we can examine John 5 and its parallel John 14. Jn 5 talks about Jesus healing a man who had suffered for thirty-eighty years and the healing is followed by a discourse on Res-urrection and final Judgment. The early chapters of Deuteronomy, the prominent lection during the day narrates the Jewish unbelief for 38 years when they had wandered in the desert and then the Hebrews were commanded, "Now rise up, and go over" (Deut 2:13). Similarly Deut 30-31 presents God as Judge2" who decides for life or for death and this is precisely the theme in John 5 where Jesus who received authority from the father will execute judgment, as it is said, "and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man" (5:27). Hence the idea of God's judgment which was associated with this Feast of trumpets (New Year) is linked with the thought of the judgment-seat of Christ, the Parousia.
Tabernacles
Definition
This is an autumnal harvest feast which received the name of Sukkot (huts, but also translated booths, tents, tabernacles) because people celebrated it outside in the vineyards where they made huts of tree branches. Theologically this was associated with the dwelling of the Israelites in tents during their wanderings in the desert after the Exodus. Lev 23:39 fixes the beginning of the eight day feast as the of Tishri (Sep-Oct): on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the feast of the Lord seven days; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest." Although Leviticus speaks of eight days, Deut 16:13 mentions a seven day celebration.
Background History of the Feast
To understand what Jesus says in Jn 7:37-38 and later in ch.8, one must have an intimate knowledge of the celebration of Taber-nacles. In the time of Jesus this feast was especially sacred and important to the Jews.
A Festival of the Temple: The special relation of the feast to the Temple can be traced back to the king Solomon who dedicated the Temple at Tabernacles (I Kg 8:2).
A Hope of the Messiah: An association of this feast with the triumphant "day of the Lord" is described in Zech 9-14. At this feast, the messianic king comes to Jerusalem "triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass" (Zech 9:9) and Yahweh "will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication" (Zech 12:10). "Then every on that sur-vives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of booths" (Zech 14:16). In this ideal feast of Tabernacles everything in Jerusalem will be holy, and there will be no more merchants in the temple (Zech 14:20-21). Zech 14 is probably the background for John 7:38. The messianic interest in Tabernacles persisted into the later centuries of Judaism as well. According to a statement associated with the 4th century Rabbi Abba bar Kahana that the feast holds within itself the promise of the Messiah. During the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D.132-35) the pseudo-Messiah Bar Kochba (Ben Kosiba) used symbols from Tabernacles on his coins.
Ceremonies That Sprang up with This Celebration
During this feast, in all the seven mornings there was a proces-sion that went down to the fountain of Gihon. There a priest filled a golden pitcher with water, while the choir repeated Is 12:3 "with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation." Then the whole crowd went up to the temple carrying the symbols of Tabernacles, namely in the right hand the lulab and the throgland singing the Hallel psalms (113-118). On reaching the temple, they proceeded around the altar waving the lulabs and singing Ps 118:25. Then the priest went up the altar to was a seven fold circumambulation of the altar. There was another ceremony connected with this feast, that was, a ritual lighting of four golden sticks in the Court of Women. Their golden bowels on the top contained the wicks made from the drawers and girdles of the priests and when they were lit, the whole Jerusalem reflected them.
The Water-drawing for the Rain
According to the Mishnah (Sukkah iv. 9)33 the water was poured out, together with a libation of wine, into two pipes. The Water-liba-tion was a symbol of the rain needed in Palestine. This is the expla-nation given by the Talmudic injunction, "why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on Tabernacles? The Holy one, blessed be He, said, Pour out water before Me on Tabernacles, so that your rains this year may be blessed."
The Water-drawing for the Gift of the Holy Spirit
In the Jerusalem Talmud, we read thus: "why is it called bet hashshoebah [place of drawing]? For from there they draw the Holy Spirit, in line with the following verse of Scripture, "with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation."35 Clearly here the cer-emony is connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this connection the passage in John where Jesus says, "Let anyone who is thirsty come to me. And let the one who believes in me drink. As the scrip-ture has said, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water" (Jn 7:37-38) is very apt. And, immediately, we hear the note-worthy comment of John, "now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (vs 39). This agrees completely with the note of Talmud.
The Illumination
This ceremony is described in the Mishnah, "And there were golden candleholders there, with four gold bowls on their tops, and four ladders for each candlestick... And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem which was not lit up from the light of bet hashshoebath."36 Here also we see the relevance of Jesus' words when he says, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in dark-ness, but will have the light of life" (8:12), and of the miracle of illumination, both physically and spiritually, in chapter 9. The ritual of the temple, then, is a key to understand the discourses and miracle in chapter 7-9.
The Lectionary Background
As the special lectionary readings for the Feast of Tabernacles, the Talmud (b.Megillah 31a) cites two passages, Zechariah 14 and 1 Kings 8. "On the first day of Tabernacles we read...for haftarah, behold a day cometh for the Lord."3" "On the next day... what do we read for haftarah? And all the men of Israel assembled unto king Solomon. " They echo the themes of the festival, namely, the themes of water and light. In Jn 7-10, too, this feast is connected with these two ceremonies of the feast, namely the water-drawing and the illu-minations.
Dedication
Definition
The term "Hanukkah" in Hebrew means dedication. The main aspects of hunkkah are narrated in 1 Maccabees. According to 1 Macc 1:54, the Syrians had profaned the temple by erecting the idol of Baal on the altar of holocaust. This pollution of the holy place, states 1 Macc 4:41-61, came to an end when Judas Maccabeus drove out the Syrians, built a new altar, and rededicated the temple on the twenty-fifth of Kislev. In 2 Maccabees (1:8; 10:1-5) again, the above aspects of Hanukkah are related. However, it adds that the eight-day dedication ceremony was performed in analogy with Solomon's consecration of the temple (2:8, 12). This feast was the annual cel-ebration of the reconsecration of the altar and temple and this is not a pilgrimage feast.
In Jn 10:22-23 we read, "it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon." There is a realism in John. He says it was winter season, that is, December. Usually at this time the cold winds blow from the east across the great desert. One needs to protect himself from this sweeping wind. The outermost court of the temple was surrounded by covered colonnades on all four sides. These were open on the inside facing the temple but closed on the outside. The oldest portico on the east was Solomon's Portico. It was outside the temple proper as Acts 3:2 mentions, "as peter and John came out of the temple... the people stood astonished in the portico which is known as Solomon's." This was only one of the porticoes whose closed side could protect anyone from the east wind. Therefore Jesus was walking there. We see here the stress on the season in John. Here when the Jews press him to answer two basic questions: Is Jesus the Mes-siah? (vs 24); Does he make himself god? (vs 33), Jesus answers them by evoking the theme of the consecration that he is conse-crated by the Father to be the Son of God (vs 36) and finally ends with a claim "that the Father is in me and I am in the Father (vs 38). But still it is not clear whether Jesus answered those questions affir-matively or negatively. We also don't see an obvious connection be-tween the consecration of the temple and the consecration of Jesus although we see a glimpse of it in Jn 10:36. Therefore we go to the ceremony and the lectionary of the feast to find whether they could throw some light on this chapter 10 in John.
The Lectionary Background
The main lectionary theme of the feast is the sheep and the shepherd and the main feature of the Dedication ceremonies was the lighting of candles in private houses. But the ceremonies seem to bear no obvious relationship to the Parable of the Good Shepherd. Therefore let us have a deep look at them one by one. If we follow the synagogue lections read at this feast, we see that almost all the readings, for example, Genesis 46:28-47:31 is the seder for the first year of the cycle. Ezekiel 34 is the second year haphtarah. Deuteronomy 20:10-22:5 and its haphtarah, 1 Samuel 17 are the third year lections have the sheep and shepherds theme."
In John chapter 10, too, we see the same. In its first part, for example, Jesus speaks of himself figuratively as a shepherd. But his hearers did not at once understand, for John gives a comment, "this figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them" (vs 6). But as the chapter proceeds Jesus con-tinues to use that image and it deepens the misunderstanding of his hearers, "there was again a division among the Jews because of these words" (vs 19). It is at the height of the controversy, the evan-gelist introduces "the feast of the Dedication" (vs 22) and Jesus con-tinues to speak of himself as a shepherd (vs 26ff.,). Then his hearers understood what he was trying to say and they want to stone him for that (vs 33). Now, what does this image of the shepherd signify and how is it related to the feast of the dedication? In the OT back-ground, the shepherd was a frequent symbol for the Davidic king (Ezek 34:23). Thus, in Jesus' claim to be the shepherd there were messianic implications. Once we identify this Messianic theme, then, we can even see the significance of the Hanukkah lamp which symbolizes an emblem of Sovereignty in which case it would account for the Messianic theme.
Conclusion
In the above pages I have shown that Jesus' words in the temple on Jewish festivals depend for their interpretation on the Jewish lectionary background. This is not that John edited the teaching of Jesus against the Jewish liturgy, but he seemed to have preserved the historical events as Jesus himself says in Jn 18:20 "I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, I have said nothing in secret." Thus, the use of the Old Testament lections in John seems to be systematic. If that is the case, then, the reading of the gospel can not be limited to the conven-tional exegesis for its interpretation and it should go beyond wher-ever it is called for. What I have done in this paper is an attempt in that direction following the Rabbinic interpretation. Here the Jewish tradition enshrined in the Rabbinic literature plays a vital role to illu-mine the gospel passages. It is my wish and concern that such method of studying the Bible may receive adequate attention in our Catholic circle, so that, we may know the truth and the truth shall make us free.
Introduction
We approach the Fourth Gospel from a narrative critical point of view and rhetorical approach, which can be applied to a text for two quests: the quest for the role of the reader in the establishment of the meaning and purpose of the text or the quest for the rules of classical rhetoric as relevant for the understanding of our text. But the laws of rhetoric in antiquity were developed for the writing of speeches. Therefore we have limitations in applying this method to a text like the Fourth Gospel because it is not necessarily to be understood as a speech in the strict sense though it contains speech materials. At the same time we should remember that the Gospels were written primarily to be proclaimed, and so laws of classical rhetoric as an aesthetic approach can be applied but with caution. It calls for a narrative-critical study of the Fourth Gospel. As G. R. O'Day writes,
The power of the Fourth Gospel's rhetoric depends in a large measure upon its ability to create a linguistic, textual, imagistic world that addresses the needs and yearnings of a concrete religious community. It was in the encounter of tradition and community, story and theology that the Fourth Gospel first found its voice, and our methodology must strive to hold both sides of this encounter together. The Fourth Gospel speaks in a rich and distinctive voice that cannot be fully heard in one-sided studies of either social history or narratology. The Gospel itself challenges the interpreter to hold together social and narrative worlds in attempts to uncover its profound meaning.
Both narratology and rhetoric approach take the liberty for the role of the reader in the establishment of the meaning and purpose of the text. As R. Kysar puts it, "the reader enters the world of the text to become one with it, bringing his or her own subjectivity into it, or pulling the text out its objectivity into the reader's own consciousness"" but at the same time "the text is more than the creation of the reader's imagination." The aim is to give a coherent picture of the text of the Fourth Gospel, and that we do not want to loose the sight of the forest by concentrating on the individual trees. A structure of a literary work is deliberately designed not merely to unveil the genius of the author but to persuade the reader. The author wants to 'impose' his own order and theology into the text. But, how do we get to know the design of the author? A plan of a book appears to the reader in the way he looks at a piece of literature. In other words, the hermeneutical approach to a literary work determines its structure because the text has a world of its own independent of the real author. Therefore, we consider the Fourth Gospel as a unified whole and treat the text as is extant to us. Instead of focusing on the 'tensions,' and 'inconsistencies" in the text, we focus on the internal consistency, which a feature of narrative-critical analysis, i.e. a synchronic approach.
There had been many attempts to establish a literary structure of the Fourth Gospel. The variety of the structures proposed is an indication of the diversity of approaches and, in turn, the lack of any accord leaves room for us to look for more blueprints of the Fourth Gospel that can enhance our comprehension of significance of this masterpiece. Furthermore, as M. W. G. Stibbe puts it, the Fourth Gospel is a "multi-story phenomenon calling for a multi-disciplinary narrative methodology."
In this essay, we consider some of the hints of threads of unity that we find it extremely difficult to divide the Fourth Gospel into "book of sign" (1:19-12:50) and "book of glory" (13:1-20:31), which has become a popular fashion. We have serious reason to consider the entire Fourth Gospel as a "Gospel of Sign of Glory." In a book that was published, I argued for a coherent rhetorical design of the Fourth Gospel with two prologues (1:1-18 and 1:19-51), two epilogues (20:1-31 and 21:1-25), two bridge passages (2:1-12 and 19:25-42) and a keystone text (12:20-36) that keeps the gospel proper (2:13-19:24) into a unity." This design is presumed in this essay.
Entire Gospel as the "Gospel of Sign of Glory"
It is widely accepted that the author of the Fourth Gospel appends a relevant discourse to a significant sign with the result that the sign is 'extended' so as to reveal the 'reality.' For instance, the first and second signs (2:1-11 and 4:46-54) are about a length of synoptic miracle accounts. But, the next three signs (5:2-9; 6:2-21; 9:1-7) have extended discourses attached to them. In the sign of Lazarus' resuscitation, "the dialogue advances the action and delays the sign, thereby building dramatic interest." If we apply this progressive development technique to the following chapters, we can detect that the final sign of manifestation of glory on the cross starts in 12:20-36 (our keystone text) and is advanced by discourses (Chs. 13-17), that the actual sign is delayed, until, so to say, the entire Chs. from 18 to 19 constitute the final phase of 'sign of glory.'
The extraordinary similarity between Lazarus incident and the Passion narrative prompts us to think that the seventh sign (11:1-46) triggers the next phase of seven signs because there are seven signs in Chs 13-21. A sign in John is any action of Jesus, which is comprehensible if only its meaning is explained by him or by the "omniscient narrator." We detect seven signs each before and after the keystone text and that there is perfect balance between these two sides, and the function of the keystone is that of a rooftop that does not divide the roofing, but hold the covering into a unified one.
The washing of the feet of the disciples by Jesus is a sign (13:1-11), the meaning of which Jesus had to interpret (Ch 13:12-20).21 The arrest scene with the soldiers making a prostration before Jesus is another sign (18:1-11), which is similar to the sign of walking over the waters (6:16-23). Both scenes reveal Jesus as the bearer of God's name, the ἐγώ εἰμι ego eimi. The Exaltation of Jesus on the cross, and the dispensation of the rulings from the cross culminate in the death of Jesus, which is the sign of the handing over of the Spirit (Jn 19:25-30). The piercing the side of Jesus and the water and blood (Jn 19:31-37) is another sign in the Johannine mold, the meaning of which is interpreted by the narrator by scriptural citations. The face-veil in the tomb, seeing which the Beloved Disciple believed in the resurrection is a typical Johannine sign of the reality of the resurrection (20:8). Jesus would comment on this sign and the subsequent faith of the beloved disciple in 20:29, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." In the Gospel traditions, the beloved disciple is the only one who believed in the resurrection without witnessing a resurrection appearance.
The breathing of Jesus on the disciples (20:23) is the sign of confirmation of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is further explained by the appearance of the risen Lord and invitation to Thomas to check the sign of the resurrection (Jesus' words to Thomas, "Have you come to believe because you have seen..." is an indication of the sign that is seen by him). The miraculous catch of fish followed by the "preparation of breakfast" with the bread from the other world in 21:1-15 is definitely a miraculous sign in Johannine fashion that has splendid similarities with a synoptic miracle narrative (Lk 5:1-11).
The following table demonstrates that there are seven signs before the keystone text and seven signs after it. Furthermore, there are some striking similarities and theological import between the first, central and last signs in each segment. gment. Look at the table below.
There is some correspondence between the first sign of water changed into wine (2:1-11) and the central sign after the keystone text viz., the water and blood from the side of Christ (19:34). Both contain the notion of revelation in Jesus of Nazareth, the gift of the Spirit and sacrament of Eucharist. Whereas the first sign happened on "the third day" (2:1), the other happened "on the Day of Preparation for the Passover" (19:31). The central sign before the keystone text is the multiplication of loaves and fishes (6:1-15), which has definite ties with the climactic sign of miraculous catch of fishes and preparation of breakfast with bread (21:1-15). Both episodes contain the crucial phrases like "bread and fishes," "Jesus took bread and gave to them" and "so also the fish" (6:11; 21:13). Jesus' interpretation of "bread of life" and "water of life" (Cf. 4:10, 14; 7:37-39) in terms of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man has undeniable relation with the water and blood from the side of Christ (19:34). Thus, there are not only seven sign after the keystone text but also there are some interesting links between the signs on both sides.
In the 'sign' by the Sea of Tiberias (21:1-15), we stumble upon the phrase "Nathanael from Cana of Galilee." The name 'Nathanael' occurs in the first and last chapter only (1:45; 21:2). Secondly, the mention of Cana (21:2) points back to the first and second 'sign' at Cana (2:1-11; 4:54).23 A further notice would be on the word tritos τρίτος ("third"). John has numbered only the archen ἀρχὴν ("first" 2:11) and deuteron δεύτερον ("second" 4: 54) signs in the beginning of the Gospel. If he meant seven signs, why did he not give a clue of that? When one looks for the next number, we find only 21:14 (triton τρίτον "third"), though 'sign' is not mentioned there.25 But, when we consider the number tritos τρίτος in 21:14 along with the phrase Kana tēs Galilaias Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας in 21:2, we realize the author's pondering of the first and second sign in Cana in Galilee (2:1-12 and 4:46-54). S. S. Smalley has argued that John's use of the sign in Ch. as sequel and climax of the entire series of signs.
Does the evangelist mean that this is the last Sign? J. Painter observes, "The whole Gospel is in some sense a book of signs... [and] the whole gospel could be called a book of glory."2" But, without doing injustice to both "sign" and "glory," we can call the entire Fourth Gospel is a "Gospel of Sign of Glory."
"Sign" in the Fourth Gospel does not mean "symbol" or "miraculous action" (Cf. 2:11; 4:54; 6:14; 12:18), but, as mentioned above, the death of the Lord is the paramount sign (Cf. 12:32 and 18:31-32).29 Lightfoot puts it correctly, "In this gospel the lifting up of the Lord upon the cross is, in another sense, his exaltation; in the outward form of the manner of his death St. John sees a sign, a symbol, of his triumph: 'The Lord reigns from the tree. Signs are ratified by the glory and glory is evinced through the signs. Since they cannot be separated in the fabric of the gospel narrative the division of the gospel into two books is rather shaky. A warranted suggestion would be to treat the entire Fourth Gospel as a "Gospel of Sign of Glory." This title lays emphasis on both aspects equally, which we think does justice to the design of the author.
That the Lord's death happened in a Passover context is undisputed (Cf. 1 Cor 5:7).31 It is reasonable to think that the Fourth Evangelist invites the reader to see the Lord's whole work in close connection with the Passover. Since Jesus is the sacrificial lamb (Jn 1:29, 36), the thought of the Passover feast is especially conspicuous in the Fourth Gospel. Special attention is called for into the mention of Passover in three crucial locations of the Gospel:33 (1), Jesus goes up to the Temple for the Passover (2:13), and there is a good reason to consider Chs. 2-5 as developing the sign of the Temple. There is also good reason to suppose that Jesus' public ministry starts at 2:13, with his visit to Jerusalem (since 2:1-12 belongs both to the Preamble and the Gospel proper and it functions as a bridge).34 (2), In 6:4 Passover is mentioned again and the Evangelist develops the sign of the bread/drink, flesh/blood and water (the theme of 'water' in the next chapters, especially Chs 7 and 9). (3), In 13:1, we find the third Passover, and here the evangelist develops the theme of the Lamb. 36 But, the first mention of the third Passover is in 11:55, and this is akin to the Passover mentioned in 12:1,37 which in turn is pointing to the Passover in 13:1. So, it is risky to divide the Gospel in the middle of Chs. 12 and 1338 since these chapters are linked by the theme of the same Passover. Thus there is good ground for our proposal that the Keystone text (12:20-36) joins both par parts with the theme of Passover.
The Fourth Gospel begins with a Passover (the Passover of the Temple), progresses with another Passover (the Passover of the Bread: the flesh and blood of the Son of Man) and climaxes in a Passover (the Passover of the Lamb: the unbroken bones, mingled blood, and mention of hyssop). But the interesting thing is that the final and decisive Passover is mentioned three times (11:55; 12:1 and 13:1) that we find it difficult to find a climax (of the so called "Book of Signs") in 12:50. How can we "divide" in between 12:1 and 13:1, when both mention about the same Passover?
Furthermore, the Fourth Evangelist himself calls his entire book the Book of "Signs" in 20:30-31. The author himself viewed his entire work as a "record of signs." If so, how can we assign this title only to a section in this work?
We also find it hard to divide between the sign and reality that it signifies. What is a sign? It is a visible thing that points to a reality. The Fourth Evangelist has made it clear that the judgment of the world is the immediate effect of Jesus' death (12:31), which is the supreme sign in this gospel. But, John presents it in a way that whenever light is manifested in the so called 'Book of Signs' there is also judgment. Yet "all such judgments stand under the rubric: lēsous oudepō edoxasthe Ἰησοῦς ουδεπω εδοξασθῇ. The full reality of signs awaits the act of death-and-resurrection, which is Christ's doxasmos δοξασμος. Therefore the reality to which the signs point is the "glory" of Jesus, who is the salvific presence of God on the earth. Jesus said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9). Jesus himself is the sign of the Father and this sign is most present in his exaltation on the cross (glorification), where God's saving presence was most felt. Sign is not intelligible without the manifestation of glory and glory is not manifested without a sign.
Frequency of the Term doxa
Very often the frequency of a term is taken into account to determine major theme of a section. One of the bases to consider Chs. 13-20 as constituting "Book of Glory" is the presence of the theme of glory (doxa δόξα) in this section. The noun doxa δόξα occurs 18 times in the Fourth Gospel and the verb doxazō δόξαζω 23 times. 40 Out of these, doxa δόξα occurs 14 times" in the first part of the Gospel (Chs. 1-12), while only thrice it comes in the Chs. 13 to 20.42 The verbal form occurs 16 times in the second part, while only seven times in the first part. So, a total of occurrences are in the first part, while only 19 times in the second part. Though the frequency of occurrences is not an inflexible criteria, this amounts to say that doxa δόξα is a major theme in the first part (which some scholars classified as "Book of Signs") as well as in the second. It is to be noted that in the First Prologue itself the theme of glory appears (1:14). As Culpepper observes, the evangelist gives the reader a piece at a time (e.g. doxa δόξα in 1:14; 2:11), and slowly many pieces fit together and finally unveils the course and meaning of the events. Therefore, we cannot divide between the pieces; but all pieces add up to the progress of the story."
Suggestive Inclusio
Very interestingly, the first sign at Cana and the so called 'seventh' sign (the resuscitation of Lazarus) are bracketed by the theme of doxa δόξα, 45 and not by the theme of semeia σημεία. 46 The word semeia σημεία47 does not occur in connection with the resuscitation of Lazarus.48 There is an inclusio between 2:11 and 11:40 that is very suggestive." While the first sign was fashioned to reveal 'his glory' (2:11) the seventh sign is meant to reveal 'God's glory' (11:40).
Another thematic inclusio that should be noted is between 12:1-8 and 13:1-12 and 19:38-42: What is an inclusio? It means that an idea or phrase is repeated in two places that the material between them is considered to be a unity. It is a kind of bracketing. The anointing at Bethany (12:1-8) anticipates the anointing in the tomb (19:38-42).50 The anointing at Bethany (12:1-8) and Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples in 13: 1-12 are related to each other in a considerable manner.
John's account in 12:1-12 (like Lukan account, 7:36-50) has Jesus anointed on the feet.5t This makes a parallel with Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples (13:1-11).52 Jesus interprets the woman's 'consecration' as to be fulfilled by his death of which the washing the feet of the disciples by Jesus is a pre-figure. Jesus enters the city as the anointed king, and also as the dying king ("anointing of the feet" and "washing of the feet" imply this. Anointing the head, as in Mark, is a royal anointing), but who reigns from the cross (Cf. 19:19, 26-30)! He is buried as the royal king (19:38-42). Since all these two anointings and washing are so interrelated it is not fair to find a full stop in 12:50.
The two "Son of Man" sayings in 1:51 and 13:31-32 also make an inclusio. The first Son of Man saying deals with "the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man," and the latter on the "glorification of the Son of Man." In the Fourth Gospel, the reaction of the High Priest in 11:50, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed," is the symbolic killing of Jesus, the anointing by Mary, which follows immediately is the symbolic burial (12:1-11) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem is his symbolic resurrection (12:12-19).54 The washing of the feet of the disciples by Jesus is the symbolic death of the disciples (13:1-11), their martyrdom by which they will be cleansed. In their being cleansed the Master himself undergoes death (13:12-20), Peter representing the church can have a "part" מללaning "inheritance" Cf. Num 18:20; Deut 17:8; Isa 17:14) with Jesus if only he allows Jesus to die and he himself "will glorify" God by a martyrdom (21:18-19). This suggests that the division of the Fourth Gospel in the middle of Chs. 12 and 13 is rather to be put to serious re-examination.
Conclusion
What do we gain ultimately? The Fourth Gospel, "in which a babe can wade and an elephant can swim,"56 is, as D. F. Strauss puts it, a "seamless garment" which is, as J. Ashton complements, "free from stitches and sutures that disfigure the other three [gospels]. Studies oriented towards finding in the gospel joints, aporias, inconsistencies and thematic incompatibilities, and the presence of many hands in its construction (concerns of Historical-Critical Method) do have significance. But, do we want to treat the gospel simply as a historical artifact? Do we approach the gospel to find out all these discrepancies and duplications? We read the gospel to get a spiritual message, which is best obtainable in a synchronic approach than a diachronic one? Thus, "the intentions of the author cannot be identified only by way of a substraction of his or her 'additions' to the traditions received or the recognizable 'alterations' of a Vorlage, but by the complete work as it stands today. It has become and is now his/her text, literary work, and can be studied as such."
Contributing an article for the Festschrift in honour of a great Johannine scholar Prof. Emeritus Matthew Vellanickal, on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of his Priestly Ordination, is an honour for me and at the same time a sign of my genuine esteem for the Jubilarian.
Scholars say that the fourth gospel is not a book for children. Children can, without much difficulty, read and understand the first three gospels as stories about Jesus, but not the gospel of John. One of the reasons for saying this is that behind its apparent simplicity the fourth gospel contains great theological wealth, often enshrined in the author's particular literary style, which children and the uninitiated will not be able to easily understand. Besides its theological depth the gospel of John has its own peculiarities such as geographical and chronological inconsistencies, apparent contradictions, play on words, repetitions etc. Furthermore, the literary, dramatic and theological reshaping and presentation of the story of Jesus, as we have it in the fourth gospel, is certainly beyond the grasp of children.
John's theology and his characteristic literary style are intimately and inseparably linked together. In fact the gospel of John is characterized by a literary style that interweaves narrative, dialogue and discourse creating superb drama-like scenes (cf. Jn 1:19-28; 4:4-42; 6:1-69; 9:1-41; 18:28-19:16 etc.). The author of the fourth gospel frequently makes use of figurative expressions and story telling techniques like irony, symbolism, misunderstanding, double meaning etc. for the reader to discover the deeper theological meaning of the expression or the event. In other words, the text of John's gospel is not a direct reporting about Jesus, about things "seen" and "heard". It seeks again and again to go beyond the level of things seen, visible, material, the superficial and it tries to lead a person into a further dimension, the world of reflection, of spirit, ultimately to the world of God
The aim of this essay is to discuss the salvific character of faith in the fourth gospel. Believing is a very important theme in this gospel and the verbal form of this key term is present everywhere in the gospel of John. It will not be possible to do full justice to this major theme or even to an aspect of it within the limits of an essay such as this. Therefore we have chosen the limited area of the salvific aspect of faith for our study and we shall proceed as follows: We will begin with a brief description of the stylistic features of the fourth gospel as John's theology of faith is also expressed, to some extent, in his literary style such as misunderstanding, double meaning, figurative expressions etc. This will be followed by a summary description of the centrality of the theme of faith in John and its Christocentric character. We shall also mention certain related expressions that the author of the fourth gospel uses figuratively in reference to believing. Finally we shall study the salvific character of faith in the gospel of John.
Literary Stylistic Features in the Fourth Gospel
The literary style of the author of the fourth gospel is different from that of the synoptic evangelists and of the other NT writers. A consideration of the characteristic stylistic features of John is a prerequisite for a proper study of his gospel. Among the notable characteristic in the style of John are the following:
a) Misunderstanding (cf. 2:19-21; 3:3-5; 4:10-11; 6:26-27; 8:32-35; 11:11-13, 24; 14:5-8 etc.). The misunderstanding device is often related to the figurative or symbolic language of Jesus. For instance, water, bread etc are to symbolize his revelation but the audience does not understand them as symbols; they misunderstand the meaning and message of Jesus and remain only on the material, superficial and visible level of the metaphor. The misunderstanding device may also be a studied literary technique giving Jesus an opportunity to explain his message more fully.
b) Double Meaning: There is a twofold meaning of a given word that Jesus uses. The listener may understand the word in one sense while Jesus intends a different meaning (cf. "born": 3:3-4; "living water": 4:10-11; "lift up": 3:14; 8:28; 12:34).
c) Irony: In an irony words mean something more or different from what they appear or intended to mean. In other words, statements made about Jesus are true in a way the speakers never realized. For example, the opponents of Jesus make statements (sometimes derogatory) about him. But these statements, however derogatory they may be, are true in a way they never intended or realized (cf. 3:2; 4:12; 8:22: 9:40; 11:48-50 etc.).
d) Inclusion: This is a literary device by which a passage or a unit is enveloped or bracketed by the same idea or detail. In other words, at the end of a unit or a passage a word or an idea is mentioned which was already mentioned at the beginning of that unit or passage (cf. 1:1 and 1:18; 15:12 and 15:17).
e) Chiasm: This is again a literary device used in the composition of a passage or a unit in which parallelism between members is found inverted, that is to say, in a unit or a passage that has a number of parallel features, the first verse corresponds to the last verse, the second verse corresponds to the penultimate verse etc. forming an inverted parallelism. If there is a central verse that is not paralleled then we have a concentric parallel structure in the unit/passage (1:1-18; 6:36-40; 18:29-19:15).
f) Explanatory notes: Explains names, symbols etc (cf. 1:38,42; 2:21; 3:24; 11:2; 12:33; 21:20).
g) Translations of Semitic expressions, symbolism, and statements about a division among the people, often on account of Jesus, also form part of the stylistic features of the fourth evangelist.
The Centrality of faith in the fourth Gospel
Each of the four gospel writers attempts to present authentic Jesus' traditions which were alive and which were lived in his own particular church. And in presenting these traditions each gospel becomes a piece of rhetoric proclaiming who Jesus is and inviting from the readers/audience a response of faith in him as the Saviour of the world. While describing the ministry of Jesus, his passion, death and resurrection the gospels are thus also documents of faith in the service of faith; they are a unique form of proclamation in order to evoke a response of faith from the readers and audience. This is preeminently true of the gospel of John that invites its readers, explicitly and implicitly, to believe in Jesus.
Terminology
"Believing" is a major theme, indeed a central theme in the gospel of John. Pisteuein (to believe) is a characteristically Johannine word which occurs 107 times in the Johannine corpus out of a total of 241 instances in the NT. In the gospel of John pisteuein is found 98 times while in Matthew it occurs only 11 times, in Mark 14 and in Luke 9 times. The importance of this verb in the fourth gospel is not only because of the high numerical frequency of its occurrence but also because it is found in all sections of the gospel except chapter 21 which is considered a later addition as an appendix to the gospel. Besides it is also to be noted that the word pisteuein occurs in the introduction (Jn 1:7,12,50; 2:11) and conclusion of the gospel (20:31) and that most of the episodes in the book of signs (1:1-12:50) conclude with a redactional statement of the evangelist mentioning faith (cf. 2:11; 4:39,42,53; 10:42; 11;45; 12:11 etc.). Again it is important to observe that the evangelist concludes several key episodes with a confession of faith in Jesus (cf. 2:11; 4:42,53; 6:68-69; 9:38; 11:27; 16:30; 20:28).
Scholars have already noted that the noun "faith" (pistis) does not appear in gospel of John, but it occurs once in 1 John and 4 times in the Apocalypse. By insisting on the verb "to believe" the evangelist John emphasizes faith as a dynamic act, as an active commitment and not an interior disposition. The fourth gospel does not invite us to have "faith" but "to believe" in Jesus. The expression "believe in" introduces a relationship.
Johannine Concept of Believing
The great importance that John gives to "believing" in his gospel can be seen from the use of pisteuein in different constructions. The 98 occurrences of pisteuein are distributed in the following constructions. Pisteuein with the preposition eis (in/into) followed by accusative is found 36 times in the gospel; pisteuein with dative 18 times; pisteuein followed by a hoti (that) clause 13 times; pisteuein used absolutely 30 times and once pisteuein is used with a neuter accusative (11:26)." In addition, the participial expression ho pisteuôn (the believer / one who believes) is characteristically Johannine and is found only in the gospel of John with one exception in Acts 13:39.12 John has the expression 23 times in his gospel and the participial expression too points to the active character of faith in John.
It is not possible, within the limited space of this essay, to discuss extensively John's concept of faith or to deal with all the texts that mention faith in the gospel. Therefore we shall first discuss briefly the literal expressions of the Johannine concept of believing which will also point to the different stages of faith according to John. We shall also mention the related expressions or John's figurative and less literal references to faith in order to understand the centrality of the notion of faith in the fourth gospel. First we shall see the use of pisteuein in different constructions.
Pisteuein Constructions: As noted above the fourth evangelist uses the verb pisteuein principally in four different constructions: pisteuein followed by the preposition eis with accusative; pisteuein followed by a hoti clause, the absolute use of pisteuein and pisteuein with dative.
The construction of pisteuein followed by eis with the accusative occurs 36 times in the fourth gospel. This construction reveals the direct object of believing. Of the 36 instances 2 cases contain God (the Father) as the direct object of believing (12:44; 14:1); all the other 34 instances present Jesus as the object of belief (cf. 1:12; 2:11,23: 3:16,18bis, 36;; 4:39; 6:29,35,40 etc.). It simply means believing in Jesus. As we have seen already this construction is more numerous than any other Johannine constructions of pisteuein. It shows John's preference for this construction and the use of the preposition eis rather than en indicates the active and dynamic dimension of faith. This type of faith involves much more than trust or confidence in Jesus. It is rather the acceptance of the person of Jesus and his claims and an active commitment of oneself to him.13 The most characteristic aspect of Johannine faith is that it is always directed to the person of Jesus (except in 12:44 and 14:1) as the direct object of the verb "to believe". Faith in the gospel of John is essentially faith in Jesus; faith in God is mentioned only rarely.
The dynamic and active character of the notion of faith in John is also indicated by the expression "to come to Jesus" which is parallel to "believe in Jesus" in 6:35 and 7:37-38. In 6:35 the verb "to come to" Jesus is in clear parallelism with the verb "to believe" in Jesus. "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me will not hunger and he who believes in me will never thirst" (6:35). Similarly in 7:37-38 too "coming to Jesus" and "believing in Jesus" are parallel to each other and they imply that belief in Jesus is something active and dynamic. It is an acceptance of the self-revelation of Jesus as Christ and Son of God and a personal commitment to him on the part of the one who believes.
Except in 14:1 (cf. also 12:44) where belief in God (the Father) is also spoken of, 16 pisteuein eis with accusative expresses the Christological content of faith in John. The Christological content of faith is also indicated by pisteuein followed by a hoti (that) clause which describes the identity of Jesus," or his origin and mission from the Father.
In other words, as far as the Christological content of faith is concerned many texts with pisteuein eis appear to be parallel to the texts that retain pisteuein with a hoti clause.
Furthermore, the construction of pisteueim with dative, which occurs about 20 times in John (cf. 5:24,38,46,47bis; 10:37,38; 8:31,45,46 etc.), is often considered as essentially the same as pisteuein eis with the accusative. 20 Pisteuein with dative means to believe, to give credence, to accept someone or something as true etc.21 Thus John speaks of believing the word (4:50), the writings (5:46-47) and the works (10:38). In all these cases the indirect object of pisteuein with dative leads the action of believing to someone or something beyond what they represent, ultimately to the person of Jesus. These indirect objects could be quotations from the OT or references to Jesus' own words or deeds. A good example is John 5:46-47, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?" There is correspondence among the four dative objects of pisteuein in this passage. As J. Gaffney points out, "In that passage, the believing of Moses is first of all compared with the believing of Jesus, whereupon both these objects are set in parallel with, respectively, the writings of Moses and the words of Jesus", Thus pisteuein with dative means to believe Jesus and this construction is often found in Jesus' discussions with the unbelieving Jews in the first part of the gospel.
Finally Pisteuein is used absolutely without explicitly mentioning the object of belief. The absolute use of pisteuein occurs some 30 times in the gospel of John. In many cases the content of pisteuein in the absolute is clear from the context but there are cases where the content is not clear (cf. 4:48,53; 6:64; 11:15,40 etc). It seems that the implicit reference of the absolute use of pisteuein also involves a claim on the part of Jesus.
Thus all these constructions with pisteuein refer to Jesus either directly or indirectly as the object of believing. In other words, the Christocentric character is the most striking feature of the notion of faith in John2" as it appears in all pisteuein constructions. If this is so one should not then make a sharp distinction between the various constructions with pisteuein, except perhaps for the different emphases. On the other hand, one can detect stages of development or progression of faith in John. The first stage of faith seems to be "believing Jesus" as indicated by pisteuein with the dative (5:24,38,46,47bis; 8:31,45-46; 10:37,38bis etc.). The second stage of faith is, perhaps, believing in Jesus' identity and mission as shown by pisteuein hoti (6:69; 11:27,42; 13:19; 20:31 etc.) and believing in Jesus (pisteuein eis with accusative) appears as the final stage of faith (3:16,18bis; 6:29,35,40; 11:25,26,45,48 etc.).29 Believing in Jesus (pisteuein eis + accusative) is the true, salvific faith and it is the condition for having eternal life (3:16,36; 6:40; 11:25-26 etc.).
The above survey of the verb pisteuein, its numerical frequency in the fourth gospel as compared with the synoptic gospels, its particular Johannine usages, its redactional introduction at the end of many episodes and the faith confessions, again redactionally attached to certain important events in the fourth gospel, show the centrality of the notion of believing in the gospel of John. Moreover, the fact that the object of the verb pisteuein is almost always Jesus reveals the Christocentric character of believing in the fourth gospel. In this the gospel of John is different from the synoptic gospels. In the synoptics faith is primarily faith in God and only once it is said as believing in Jesus (cf. Mk 9:42=Mt 18:6). Furthermore, in the synoptics faith is spoken of in the context of healing miracles (cf. Mk 5:34; 10:52) or some miraculous power (Mk 11:22). In striking contrast with the synoptic usage, faith in the fourth gospel is centred on Jesus and "it appears as a fundamental and comprehensive decision and attitude towards the eschatological envoy of God and his saving revelation". It is the acceptance of Jesus and the revelation brought by him leading to a personal commitment of oneself to the revealer. In other words, faith in John has attained a distinctively theological eminence in that, unlike the Pauline faith in the crucified and risen Lord, John has brought faith into his account of the earthly ministry of Jesus. Nevertheless, John takes for granted the faith of the post Easter community, namely, the faith of those who have not seen Jesus in the flesh but have believed in the crucified and risen Lord and presents a blessing from the risen Lord on those who believe without seeing him (20:29).
Related Expressions
In the gospel of John, besides the mention of pisteuein, there are other terms and expressions that refer figuratively to the same idea of believing. We may be justified in seeing here the Johannine literary style of "double meaning" in his usage of words and expressions referring to faith. We have already mentioned above that the expression "coming to Jesus" is equivalent to "believing in Jesus" (cf. 6:35,37,44). The expressions "to receive/welcome Jesus" (1:12; 5:43; 13:20), "to accept our testimony" (3:11; cf. 3:32), "to receive/ accept my words" (12:48; 17:8) also appear to refer, "to believe" in Jesus. In all these cases (cf. also 5:43 and 13:20) the verb used is lambanein and it means, to take, to welcome, to receive, to seize etc. This verb may be used with an active or a passive connotation; actively it means, to take, to welcome etc. and passively used it means, to receive. Both the active and passive meanings are found in John; the active meaning is when the object of the verb is Jesus, his witness or his words or a person and passive meaning is when the object is the Holy Spirit.
There is consistency in this matter. The object of the lambanein is Jesus in 1:12; 5:43; 13:20; his witness or testimony in 3:11,32,33 ог his words in 12:48; 17:8 etc. In all these cases the emphasis is rather on the active meaning of "welcoming". But when the verb has for its object the Holy Spirit (cf. 7:39; 14:17; 20:22) the emphasis is on the passive meaning of receiving.35 In this connection it is worth clarifying the meaning of John 19:27b. Here again the verb lambanein is used for the action of the beloved disciple with regard to the mother of Jesus. The verse says "...elaben ho mathętęs auten eis ta idia". The meaning of the verb elaben in 19:27b is not took/received/accepted in the literal or material sense and therefore the translations of this verse by the RSV and NRSV ("And from that hour the disciple took her to [into - NRSV] his own home") or by the NIV ("From that time on this disciple took her into his home") or by the Jerusalem Bible ("And from that moment the disciple made a place for her in his home") are not quite accurate. These translations seem to understand the verb lambanein in the physical and material sense which the action of "taking" implies. It is not a question of the beloved disciples giving hospitality to the mother of Jesus in his home (in the material and physical sense) but rather the beloved disciple welcoming her in faith and fulfilling the duties of a son (i.e. personal relationship).
Another expression that can stand for believing is "hearing" the words/voice of Jesus (cf. 5:24; 8:43,47: 12:47; 18:37 etc.). In these and other Johannine texts the verb "to hear" means "to accept", "to obey", "to believe"; in other words, it can mean, "to listen to Jesus with faith" (cf. 10:3,16,27). The word "follow" is also used in the sense of believing (cf. 8:12), especially in the metaphorical discourse about the shepherd-sheep imagery in chapter 10 of John (cf. 10:4.5,27). Besides, "believing" is spoken of in close association with important Johannine themes like signs, works, disciples and with thematic verbs such as seeing, knowing, having eternal life etc.
Thus our brief presentation of the theme of faith in John shows the central importance that the fourth evangelist attaches to believing.
From the above discussion it is fairly clear that faith in John is also Christologically oriented. Therefore a detailed discussion of the Christocentric character of faith in the fourth gospel is unnecessary here. Nevertheless, we shall mention, in a summary fashion, a few points about the Christological orientation of the Johannine faith.
As G. Mlakuzhyil emphatically states, "The most striking feature of the Johannine understanding of faith is its radical Christocentric character, for 'faith' in Jn means essentially faith in Jesus; faith in God is spoken of rarely (5:24; 12:44; 14:1) and that too in the context of believing in Jesus".3" The Christocentric character of faith in the fourth gospel is abundantly clear in the author's statement about the purpose of his writing: "These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). In fact the object of the believing-statements in John (pisteuein and dative, pisteuein with a hoti clause, pisteuein with eis and accusative) is the person of Jesus. Even when the object of believing is scripture, sayings or deeds of Jesus (cf. 5:46-47), these refer indeed to Jesus and his mission. The case is not different when pisteuein is used absolutely. The object of the verb can often be inferred from the context and here too the reference is to Jesus (cf. 1:7,50; 3:12,15,18 etc.).
Thus from the Johannine use of pisteuein in different constructions, it is clear that the notion of faith in the fourth gospel is directed and oriented to the person of Jesus making it thoroughly Christocentric in the gospel.
The Salvific Character of Faith in John
It is clear from the above study that "believing" is perhaps the most important thematic word in the fourth gospel and that Jesus is the object and content of believing in this gospel. It means that in the gospel of John faith is Christologically ordained and, as we shall see, in this gospel Christology itself is ordained and oriented to Soteriology. In other words, faith in the fourth gospel, focused as it is on a personal relationship with and a commitment to Jesus, enables the believer to attain to eternal life/salvation. Here faith does not mean just believing Jesus (cf. 4:21; 5:38,46; 6:30 etc.) or his words (2:22; 4:50; 5:47) or his works (10:38), nor is it a belief in the titles of Jesus merely (6:69; 11:27; 20:31) or in the revelatory "I am" statements used absolutely (8:24; 13:19) or a belief in the origin and mission of Jesus alone (11:27,42; 17:8,21 etc.). It is rather the faith in Jesus (pisteuein eis with accusative cf. 3:16,18bis; 6:29,35,40; 11:25, 26, 45,48 etc.) which means acceptance of him and his claims resulting in a personal relationship and an active commitment to him, on the part of the believer.
The varied constructions with pisteuein in John are to be understood as different shades of the meaning of faith in Jesus pointing to the development of the stages of this faith. In all the constructions with pisteuein and in different stages of the development of faith, the object of faith in John is, almost exclusively Jesus revealing thereby the Christological character of faith. It is not faith alone that is Christocentric and Christological but the entire gospel of John is Christologically designed and oriented. For John faith in Jesus, namely, the Christologically centred faith, is also salvific. That faith brings salvation is expressed in constantly repeated and varied sayings to the effect that the believer has eternal life (cf. 3:15,16,36; 6:40,47; 20:31 also 1 Jn 5:13), that he has passed from death to life (cf. 5:24), that he will not be judged (3:18; also 6:35; 11:25-26; 12:46) etc. Clearly the thought is that the one thing necessary for salvation is faith.
Indeed the very purpose of writing the gospel, as the author himself states is "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that through believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). There is a twofold statement here, one is Christological, namely, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and the other is soteriological, namely, that there is eternal life/salvation through faith in Jesus. In the Christological statement Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God is the object of believing and the soteriological statement emphasizes result of this faith, namely, eternal life in his name. Here faith in Jesus the Messiah and Son of God is related to eternal life/salvation and this implies that Jesus is the bringer of salvation or the mediator of salvation for those who believe in him (cf. 3:17; 10:10; 12:47 etc.).42 In other words, faith and salvation go together in the fourth gospel; the demand to believe is juxtaposed with soteriological offer (cf. 3:15,16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25-26 etc.).
Thus believing in Jesus is a condition for attaining eternal life (cf. 6:40,47). And because of the saving power of faith in Jesus John's Christology itself is oriented and directed to soteriology. "Everything that the Johannine Jesus says and does, all that he reveals and all that he accomplishes as 'signs', takes place in view of man's attaining salvation, in view of his gaining divine life"." Christology is the dominant theme in the gospel of John and everything is Christologically interpreted by the evangelist and Christology itself is ordained to soteriology as salvation for John is inseparably linked with faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God. Undoubtedly, all the gospels are Christological documents for the hero of the stories they narrate is Jesus Christ and it is his words and deeds his passion death and resurrection that they describe in their gospels. Nevertheless, the presentation of the Christological aspects in each of the gospels could be different. The different Christological presentations and the different Christological emphases in the gospels are due mainly to the theological perspectives of each evangelist." The following layout of the gospel of John shows how the fourth gospel is Christologically designed and oriented to salvation and life through faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God.
The Christological emphasis of the evangelist in the entire gospel narrative can be seen from the above thematic layout. Each chapter emphasizes some aspect or aspects of Christology. Jesus Christ the Son of God is the mediator of salvation for everyone who believes in him (cf. 3:16). In other words, the focus of the fourth gospel is on Jesus Christ and on the significance of faith in him for man's salvation. It is not the Christological titles that are emphasized in John but the revelatory and salvific function of Jesus for those who believe in him.
Chapter1: The prologue (1:1-18) is a Christological hymn to the incarnate Word and it mentions the soteriological function of the Word incarnate for those who believe in him (1:12-13,16). The role of John the Baptist, both in the prologue and in the section that follows it, is to bear witness to Christ (1:6-8,15,19-36).45 Jesus is the light (1:7-9), and Christological titles such as Lamb of God (1:29,36), the Messiah (1:41), Son of God, King of Israel (1:49) and Son of Man (1:51) are mentioned in the opening chapter itself.
Chapter 2: Jesus manifests his glory and the disciples believe in him (2:1-11) and Jesus is the new temple (2:13-22).
Chapter 3: contains Johannine kerygma about Jesus as Son of God and the necessity of having faith in him to gain eternal life (cf. 3:15-21,31-36).
Chapter 4: Jesus is the Messiah, the giver of Living Water and he is the Saviour of the world. The Samaritans believe in Jesus.
Chapters 5,7 and 8 speak of Jesus' heavenly origin, his mission and his relationship with God the Father. Jesus is the light of the world, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12).
Chapter 6: is concerned with presenting Jesus as the bread of life. Faith in Jesus is mentioned in several texts (cf. 6:35-40,47-58; also the faith confession in 6:69).
Chapter 9:presents Jesus as the giver of light (sight) to the blind man who is brought to believe in Jesus (cf.9: 35-39).
In chapter 10: Jesus is the door of the sheepfold; he is the good shepherd. He came that they may have life and have it in abundance (10:10). Faith is mentioned in different ways in 10:35-42.
Chapter 11: presents Jesus as the resurrection and the life: "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, even though he die he will live. And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die" (11:25-26). In 11:27 there is a faith confession in Jesus as the Messiah the Son of God.
Chapter 12: The passion of Jesus is announced symbolically in the anointing (12:1-8) and openly in 12:20-36. The hour of Jesus has come (12:23-26); the Son of Man will be lifted up (12:31-33). Faith is mentioned in 12:36.
Chapter 13: Jesus knows that his hour has come to return to the Father; he is servant and master; he gives the love command.
Chapters 14,16: Farewell discourse, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Discourse on faith and love; the Holy Spirit through Jesus.
Chapter 15: Farewell discourse is continued. Jesus is the vine, the necessity of remaining in him, in his word and in his love is emphasized and the Love command is repeated to the disciples (15:12, 17).
The Salvific Character of Faith
Chapter 17: Prayer of the hour, Jesus prays mainly for his disciples who believed and for those who will believe through their word.
Chapters 18-19: The passion and death of Jesus. Jesus is King and Messiah. John emphasizes the soteriological value of Jesus' passion.
Chapter 20: The risen Lord and the disciples, seeing and believing in Jesus. Faith in Jesus the Messiah, Son of God gives eternal life (20:31).
Chapter 21: The risen Lord and the disciples, Jesus the risen Lord appoints Peter to the shepherding ministry in the Church.
Thus the entire gospel of John is Christologically designed and every chapter brings out some aspect of Johannine Christology. The Christological emphasis in the fourth gospel is not for its own sake for the Christology of John is oriented to salvation through faith in Jesus (cf. 3:14-16,18,36; 6:40,47, 11:25; 20:31). Salvation itself is expressed in the fourth gospel in terms of eternal life, as life in contrast with death (5:24; 11:25-26), as light in contrast with darkness (1:5; 8:12; 12:35-36,46)." The Christ-centred faith is the one condition necessary for salvation, according to John. Thus the notion of faith in the gospel of John has a Christological and as well as salvific character. These two aspects of faith are important and closely linked together in the gospel.
The Johannine faith, which is thoroughly Christ-centred, has its full significance only from the promise of salvation. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life" (3:36). Here eternal life is promised as a gift in the present life. According to John the believer has already acquired salvation in the present; "he does not come under judgement, but has passed from death to life" (5:24). This view is in line with John's realized eschatology and with his characteristic tendency of anticipating the future salvific realities to the time of Jesus' ministry. This, however, does not mean that John has no future eschatology (cf. 5:28-29; 6:39-40; 12:48). According to John, judgement is connected with the presence of Jesus (3:17-19) in particular with the passion of Christ (3:14-15; 12:31-33).
Not only the theme of judgement but also the theme of exaltation in John is in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 3:14-15; 8:28; 12:31-33). Exaltation in the primitive kerygma meant Jesus' heavenly exaltation at his ascension (cf. Acts 2:32-33; 5:31; Phil 2:9 etc.). The newness in John is that he uses the word "exalt" not in the context of Jesus' ascension but in reference to Jesus' crucifixion thus anticipating the soteriological value of Jesus' ascension to his crucifixion. Similarly, salvation is a realized reality in John while it is an eschatological reality elsewhere in the NT. In this probably we should see only a Johannine emphasis on the present reality of salvation because of the presence of Jesus the mediator of salvation. John does not deny, as we saw, the eschatological aspects of the salvific realities. Our evangelist too has the "already and the not yet" dimensions of the salvific realities of resurrection, judgement and eternal life.
Introduction
What is truth and what is the Truth?
Two thousand years ago, Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth"? (Jn 18,38). But Jesus did not readily answer him nor Pilate bothered about getting an answer from him! It is because both Pilate and Jesus had different views about the concept of truth. Jesus was telling Pilate that "everyone who is of the Truth hears my voice" (Jn 18,37); whereas Pilate's question was not 'of the Truth'!
To Pilate, as to many modern people, truth is merely an agreement between the intended subject and object. But to Jesus, it is something more. In order to understand what Jesus exactly meant by the expression "the Truth", we need to examine the whole Bible, especially St. John and St. Paul.
The Truth in O.T. & N.T.
In the O.T. the Hebrew term commonly used is 'emeth' which means 'firmness', 'fidelity', 'integrity' etc. (cfr. Gen 42, 16; Dt 22,20; 2 Sm 7,28 etc). This term is often translated into Greek by LXX, 'aletheia' for the truth. Hence we may say that 'emeth' in the O.Τ. designates a reality, which is firm and unchangeable. The O.T. has applied the term both for God and human beings (Dt 32,4; 2 Chr 15,3). With regard to God 'emeth' signifies a quality of His nature, will, constancy, unchangeability etc. The king being God's representative must have the same quality (Ps 45,4; Prov 29,14; 1 Sm 12,24; Ex 18,21). So also, as the manifestation of God's will, the truth is synonymous with His words (Ps 43,3; 51,6).
In the N.T. especially in the Gospels, the adverbial form 'alethos' truly, is found commonly used while introducing Jesus' words. "Truly, truly, I say to you" (Mt 11,11; 18,3; 18,19-23; Mk 9,41; Lk 18,19; Jn 5,24). John and Paul use 'aletheia' more frequently than all other N.T. writers. John has the term 39 times, while Paul makes use of it 44 times. Both of them understand it as the key-word for expressing our relation to God and Christ.
John's Use of 'Aletheia'
To John 'aletheia' has the same signification of 'emeth' in the O.T., namely, a permanent reality. He adds two new features to it; the identification of Christ with the truth and the description of the appropriation of the Truth. Jesus reiterates constantly that God is truth (Jn 3,33; 7,28; 8,26; 17,3; 1 Jn 5,20; Rev 6,10). It means that God never loses sight of the goal, which He had from the time of creation, i.e., His salvific will towards the sinful world. This is evident from the sending of His only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (Jn 3,16). His ways (Rev 15,3) his judgements (Rev 16,7) and his words are always true (Jn 17,17; Rev 19,2; 21,5; 22,6).
According to John the Baptist, Jesus and the disciples were bearing witness to the intrinsic energy of the divine truth (Jn 5,33; 18,37; 20,24; 1Jn 5,20). Thus God determined His salvific will to be universally known. In this sense Jesus called himself the Truth (Jn 14,6; 16,13). Thus the intimations of God's salvific plan, which were already given in the history of Israel have been actualized in Jesus Christ. Consequently, He is the true light (Jn 1,9), the true vine (Jn 15,1; Jer 2,21) and the true heavenly bread (Jn 6,32; 55). Unlike the creatures of this world, which come into existence and soon pass away, Jesus has being in himself. Like the Yahweh of Exodus (3,14), He is who He is!!
The truth has, therefore, an escathological characteristic in John. Jesus is the clear saving presence of God in this world. Everything which Jesus says, does and offers is true in accordance with the plan of God (Jn 7,18; 8,16). He communicates himself to other people and make the truth known to them (Jn 1,1, 17; 17,17). He could thus promise that His work would be continued by the "spirit of truth" (Jn 14,17; 15,26; 16,31).
Paul's View of the Truth
St. Paul also adopts the O.T. view of the truth. Christ as a servant, shows God's fidelity to His covenant (Rom 15,8). The hidden aspects of God's reign of mankind has come to light through Jesus (Rom 1,1-6; 16,25-26; 2 Cor 4,6). When Paul says that the truth is in Jesus, he thinks in the first place, about the realization of God's redemptive work in Jesus Christ. Hence the truth is the Gospel as well (Gal 2,5, 14; Eph 1,13; 4,20; Col 1,5). The Gospel describes the process, by which Christ and the Church are jointly engaged in bringing salvation to mankind (2 Cor 4,2; 2 Thes 2,12f; Gal 5,7).
Biblical Concept of Freedom
In the O.T., freedom is commonly understood as exemption from slavery or forced labour, which they did not enjoy in Egypt (Ex 1,8-16; Dt 4,20) or in Babylon (2 King 25,8-21; Ps 137,1-4). Nevertheless, as sons of Abraham, they all felt that they were free in as much as they never went astray from Yahweh, God of Abraham (Ex 3,6; Ps 137, 1-4). In this sense only we are able to understand their words to Jesus: "we are descendants of Abraham and have never been in bondage to anyone" (Jn 8,33).
But Jesus was speaking to them about spiritual freedom, namely, freedom from the bondage of sin. It is true that they are sons of Abraham according to generation; but not at all according the faith. Abraham's faith in Yahweh was a true one. He obeyed every word of God, as it is stated: "Abraham believed in God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom 4,3). But these Jews are not justified, because their faith is not true faith! This is what Jesus meant when he told them, "If you were Abraham's children you would do what Abraham did; but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did" (Jn 8,39-40; Gal 3,7).
In the true sense they cannot be called sons of Abraham. For, they honoured God with their lips only, while their heart remained far away from God. Hence, they worshipped God in vain, leaving the commandment of God and holding fast the traditions of men (Mark 7,6-8; Is 29,13). Jesus called them hypocrites (Mt 23,1-39). Their father is not Abraham, but the devil!
If God were your father, your would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God... You are of your father the devil and your will is to do your father's desires... There is no truth in him; but because I tell the truth, you do not believe in me... He who is of God, hears the words of God (Jn 8,42-47).
God is the Word and the Truth
John's Gospel begins thus: "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1,1). Therefore he asserts: "He who is of God hears the Word of God" (8,47). Pilate was not of God, as many other Pharisees and the Scribes. Having ears, they could not hear. This is the reason why Jesus repeatedly exclaimed: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt 11,15; 13,16; Mk 4,9,23; 7,16).
Jesus is the Word made flesh, and so exactly like God, the Father (1,14). He asserted: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father" (14,9). He is full of grace, truth and glory, as of the only Son from the Father (1,14). Those who are of the world do not hear His Word, although they have ears to hear. On the contrary His disciples hear Him because they are not of the world (17,14-16). So Jesus said: "I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from Thee; and they have believed that Thou didst send me" (17,8; 6,28-29). Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life; and no one comes to the Father, except through Jesus (14,6).
The truth is made equivalent to the Word. "Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice" (18,37). It is truth that really makes one free. "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (8,36). He is the true liberator, "who condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8,3) and brought human nature to its divine destiny (Acts 2,24). He freed all those who kept his Word (Jn 8, 31-32), from their bondage to death, which is the wages of sin (Rom 6,23; Jn 8,34).2
Transition to the life of freedom is made at Baptism, by which the believer is crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Christ (Rom 6,3-4). This transformation is made in time, but the end is in eternity. "Beloved, we are God's Children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be" (1 Jn 3,2). So Paul reminds: "you are called to freedom; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love, be servants of one another" (Gal 5,13).
Christ: the True Liberator
"If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 8,36). For the Son is the Word of God (1,1-14), the Truth (14,6), the life eternal (6,53-58; 11,25-26) and God Himself (14,8-11). The basic condition for attaining true freedom is faith in Jesus Christ. It is the will of God. People asked Jesus: "What must we do, to be doing the will of God? Jesus answered them: "This is the will of God that you believe in him whom God has sent" (Jn 6, 28-29).
The Second Vatican Council in its decree on Revelation (DV.5) teaches that faith is a self-commitment, or, an assent to the truth revealed by God. Christ is the fullness of revelation and so the Gospel is the source of truth:
Christ the Lord, in whom the full revelation of supreme God is brought to completion, commissioned the apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth (DV.2,7).
Preaching of the Word of God is essential for receiving faith, as St. Paul says: "Faith comes from what is heard and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom 10,17). Therefore Jesus specially chose and taught twelve Apostles (Mk 3,13-15) and some other disciples (Lk 10,1-9) and authorised them to go and proclaim the Gospel of Christ (Gal 1,7) which is the Gospel of the truth, the Gospel of God (Mt 28,18-20; Rom 1,1; 1 Thes 2,8; 1 Tim 1,11). At the same time Jesus foresaw the difficulty of getting true disciples until the end of time, and so he asked his followers "to pray the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest" (Mt 9,37).
True Discipleship
True faith results in discipleship. St.Paul says: "You did not so learn Christ, assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life, and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4,20-24; Gal 2,20; Phil 1,21; 3,17; 1 Cor 1,14-16).
This means that anyone who has received Jesus by faith is a new creature, a new man. Paul insists several times on this point (2 Cor 5,17; Gal 6,15; Eph 2,15; 4,24; Col 3,10). One who has undergone this change by means of faith in Christ, has already become his disciple (Jn 8,31; Mt 19,21; Lk 14,26-27).
St.John uses the term 'disciples' 76 times to denote both the twelve apostles as well as true believers, who may be called children of God. He has never used the term 'apostle', or tried to distinguish between the twelve and other disciples as the Synoptics do, even though he mentions the number 12 four times in his Gospel (6,67, 70,71; 20,24). Discipleship in John is a progressive relationship, established through a process of coming, seeing, believing and remaining with Jesus (1,35-51). They bear much fruit (15,5). The key-note of discipleship is love: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13,35).
True Knowledge
True knowledge consists in the understanding of God's salvific plan, revealed through the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. To this end Jesus prayed for all ultimately: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (Jn 17,3). The disciples obtained it and believed in Jesus Christ: "I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me" (17,8). Accordingly they kept the words of Jesus, as he told them: "If you continue in my Word, you are truly my disciples and you will knew the truth" (8,32).
True knowledge is spiritual and salvific. Paul says that Jesus Christ desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2,4; cfr. 2 Tim 3,7-8; Rom 10,2-3).
Wisdom of this World
Paul has distinguished between the wisdom of the World and the wisdom of God in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1-4). Accordingly, the wisdom of the Gospel of Christ, which he preaches, "is not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age who are doomed to pass away" (1 Cor 2,6), though it looks like folly to the world (1,23). But it is true wisdom and true power (1,24). For, worldly wisdom passes away (1,20) while God's wisdom is stable infinite and salvific. He says:
The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us, who are being saved, it is the power of God... For, since in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1,18-24).
Paul definitely declares: "The wisdom of this world is folly with God" (1Cor 3,19). The Prophets also have fore told this and affirmed that the Word of God is true wisdom, Jeremiah says: "They have reflected the Word of Lord and what wisdom is in them!" (Jer 8,9). Micah says: "The voice of the Lord cries to the city and it is sound wisdom to fear Thy name" (Mic 6,9). St. James in his letter, beautifully describes the wisdom of God:
The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity (3,17).
All do not understand the greatness and mystery of the divine wisdom (Lk 10,21; Mt 13,10-17; Jn 6,65). Paul in his letter to the Romans has deeply discussed this problem of this divine mystery and the apparent foolish nature of the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1,21; Rom 1,18-25).
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by this wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them... so they are without excuse. For although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools... (Rom 1,18-25).
This is the meaning and the reason of Paul's statement: "Since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1,21).
In God's wisdom, "ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly revealed in the things that have been made" (Rom 1,20). Still they cannot see God! It is because they make themselves gods in their thinking and their senseless minds became darkened. They claimed to be wise, like those who began to build the tower of Babel with its top reaching heaven! (Gen 11,4). They boasted that they could reach heaven by themselves. It means that they lost faith in God, that they suppressed the Truth! Therefore, it pleased God through the folly of the cross to save those who believe.
If the Son Makes You Free... (Jn 8,36)
The real slavery is interior and personal. Hence, the true freedom is internal and spiritual. Jesus said: "Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house forever; the Son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 8,34-36).
As an explanation these words, Paul writes to the Romans in advance:
When you were slaves of sin, what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed. But now you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end eternal life. But the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6,20-23).
To be in Christ means, to be another Christ, to be totally free from everything in the world, as St. Paul, who says about himself:"For His sake, I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 3,8). Furthermore he says: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, all this is from God... so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5,17-21).
Conclusion
Pope Benedict XVI, in his inaugural address to the Bishops of the African Synod in October, 2009, said: "We are able to find out the truth and practise it in our life only by the help of the Holy Spirit."s Without divine help, without faith, nobody can obtain the knowledge of truth. Jesus said to his disciples: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Jn 16,12). Moreover, Jesus prayed for his disciples and said: "Father, sanctify them in the truth; thy Word is the Truth" (Jn 17,17; cfr. 1Cor 12,4-11).
God has, in fact, given this gift of the Holy Spirit to everybody, so that no one should perish, but find the Truth and obtain everlasting life (Mt 18,14). But "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1,25). This is their own fault on account of their hardness of heart (Mt 19,8). They themselves determined to remain in the slavery of Satan in darkness (Jn 12,48). It is not God who condemns anyone to hell (Jn 8,15; 12,47-48; 5,22). Jesus said: "This is the Judgement, that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (Jn 3,19).
They rejected the Holy Spirit and became faithless (6,65). To them Jesus said: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires (cfr. Jn 6,28-29). He was a murderer from the beginning and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth you do not believe me" (Jn 8,44-45)
To such people Jesus declared: "I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" (Mt 12,31).
Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" (Jn 18,38). But Jesus did not answer him, because Jesus knew he was not of God and so he would not hear him, since he was not of God (8,46-47). Remember the prayer of Jesus for his disciples: "Father, sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth" (Jn 17,17).
The Holy Spirit should open our minds in order to hear and understand the truth of God's word. The experience of those two disciples, who were going from Jerusalem to Emmaus confirms this (Lk 24,13-32). Though Jesus was with them talking and "interpreting to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk 24,27), they did not understand "until the Spirit of the Lord opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (24,45).
Once people asked Jesus: "What must we do, to be doing the works of God? "Jesus answered them: "This is the work of God that you believe in Him, whom the Father has sent (Jn 6,28f). Jesus then said to all who believed in him: "If you continue in my word you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (Jn 8,31).
'Sathyameva Jayathe!
Vachanameva Sathyam!'
In Jn 6:1-14 we have the narrative of the feeding of the five thousand. In 6:15 the crowd makes a futile attempt to take Jesus by force and to make him their king. Jesus goes away into the mountains, evidently to pray (Mt 14:23; Mk 6:46; Lk 9:18). The people seek him out the following day (Jn 6:22-25). But Jesus is in no way impressed by this enthusiasm of the people. He knows only too well that they are after him not because they have understood the meaning of the sign he had performed the previous day, but just because they had a good meal (Jn 6:26). Then in the very next verse Jesus goes on to advise them: "Do not work (ἐργάζεσθε) for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life" (Jn 6:27). This makes them raise the question in v 28: "what must we do (ποιῶμεν) to perform (ἐργαζώμεθα) the works of God (τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ)? And Jesus answers: "This is the work of God (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ) that you believe (πιστεύητε) in him whom he has sent."
There are a few things that no careful reader will fail to notice.
(i) There are first of all in the text some of the key terms and expressions that are found in the gospel of John. They are the term "to go" or "to come" (έρχομαι – ν 24), "to seek" or "to look for" (ζητέω - νν 24, 26), "to find" (εὑρίσκω - ν 25), "to see" (βλέπω, ὁράω ν 26), "signs" (σημεῖα ν 26), "eternal life" (ζωὴ αἰώνιός - ν 27), "to perform" (ἐργάζομαι-νν 27, 28), "work" (ἔργον - vv 28, 29), "to believe" (πιστεύω-ν 29) and "to send" (ἀποστέλλω - ν 29).
(ii) These terms are not only interrelated here just as they are in the rest of the gospel. It is these terms that build up the text. They together constitute an organized movement forward, amovement toward Jesus. It is coming to Jesus, looking for Jesus, finding him, seeing his signs, finally seeing him, believing in him whom the Father has sent, that gives man eternal life.
(iii) When we look at the entire chapter, especially at the concluding section in vv 60-71, the main theme is evidently faith, or believing (πιστεύητευω). All the other terms and expressions circulate around this main theme. But then immediately we note that believing is presented as a "work" (ἔργον). That again has two aspects. It is on the one hand explicitly stated that it is "the work of God" (ἔργον τοῦ θεου). But then it is also presented somehow as the work of man, something that man does, or has to do. That part of the "work" of believing consists of coming to Jesus, looking for or seeking him, finding him, and seeing him through or behind his signs.
(iv) To put it very briefly and succinctly, believing is presented in Jn 6:28-29 at the same as the work of God and the work of man. Believing is the "work of God" performed by man. This is so beautifully expressed in the question put to Jesus by the people: "what must we do to perform the works of God?" or, "what must we do to be doing the work of God"? In his answer Jesus replaces the plural "works" with the singular "work". And that "work of God", according to Jesus, is believing in the one sent by God. So, on the one hand the people ask what must "we do" and on the other what they have to do is "the work of God".
The aim of this paper is to examine the first of the two points, namely in what respect believing is the "work of God". In other words we shall try to consider the grace aspect of believing.
Our study will have three sections. The first part will look at the expression "work of God" indicating its possible meanings; the second part will examine a few texts where believing is presented as a gift of God and in a third section we also consider a few other related themes or ideas in the gospel of John.
The Expression "Work of God"
When we say that believing is the "work of God", something must be said about the specification work "of God". In what sense believing is the work of God? It can be understood mainly in three ways.
(i) In a very general sense it can mean a "divine work" very much like the expression "son of man" )בן אדם some 93 times in the book of Ezekiel, always God addressing the prophet; and υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the gospels referring to Jesus: Mt -31 times; Mk14 times; Lk26 times; Jn 13 times) which means a 'human being', or the expression "man of God" )אלהים אישי ה( referring to the prophets in the Old Testament (1 Sam 9:6, 7, 8,10; 1 Kings 13:1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 23, 26, 2931; 17:18, 24; 2 Kings 1:9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 4:9, 16, 21, 25, 27, 40; 5:8, 15) which could be rendered simply as a 'divine person' though it does have deeper connotations in the Old Testament. Thus in believing there is something divine, a divine initiative or divine assistance, or better, both.
(ii) "Work of God" can also mean work done by God, or at least with the help of God - at any rate God is the primary agent.
(iii) A third possibility would be that believing is the work that pleases God, that is, acceptable to God. That is in keeping with what we read in Heb 11:6: "without faith it is impossible to please him" (χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεστῆσαι) and with what Paul says in Rom 8:8: "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται), which also means the same thing as Heb 11:6 since being in the flesh is exactly the opposite of living by faith. And so the only way to please God is to live by faith. Here insistence is on
believing as something that man has to strive to do, though of course always with help of God.
Of these three aspects, we are at the moment interested only in the first two, the two points that insist on believing as a matter of grace, some thing done with the help of God.
It is important that we state here that this idea is found also in the Old Testament. Faith is seen as a constant going to God, approaching God; it is adherence to God, to God's will. But that going to God is not possible without God's help.
- In Jer 10:23 we read: "I know, O Lord, that the way of human beings is not in their control, that mortals as they walk cannot direct their steps." The walking spoken of here is walking in the way of God's commandments; it is walking towards God. And that is faith. So what the text intends to say is that going to God or believing in God is not in the power of human beings; it has to be granted him by God. Man has to be empowered by God to believe.
- The same point is even more explicit in Jer 30:21 where it is said about the future ruler of the people of God: "I will bring him near, and he shall approach me, for who would otherwise dare to approach me, says the Lord." What is said about the "prince" or the "ruler" here applies to every member of the people of God - no one can approach God unless he is brought near to God by God himself. No one can go to God in faith unless he is drawn by God.
- That is the position also of the author of Ps 118. The psalmist makes it clear that it is through the observance of he Law that one is able to have any contact with God- and that contact with God is precisely faith. But one cannot observe the Law unless he is taught the Law by God himself (vv 12, 26, 33, 64, 66, 68, 102, 108, 124, 135, 171). The implicit meaning is that faith is ultimately a gift of God.
We now proceed to have a look at this aspect of believing in the gospel of John. We should first look at a few main texts where this point is strongly asserted. Then we shall also glance through some other prominent ideas or themes which are related to this point.
The Main Texts That Present Believing as the Work of God
We shall first cite the main texts without making any comments on the individual texts. Then we will proceed to make some general observations about those texts.
The Texts
There are mainly four texts in John that state explicitly that faith is a gift of God. All the four texts come in chapter six and have more or less the same context. So they can be seen together. And those texts are:
Some Observations about the Texts
The main idea implied in these texts from Jn 6 is the same as what we find in Mt 15:13 where we read: "Every "plant" (φυτεία), which my heavenly Father has not planted (φυτεύω) will be rooted up". Though the term φυτεία is found only in Mt 15:13 in he New Testament, the other term "tree" (δένδρον) is quite common in the New Testament. The "plant" planted and tended by the heavenly Father, is the same as the "good tree" found in the gospels (δένδρον ἀγαθόν οι καλόν – Με 7:17, 18; 12:33; 6:43). A "good tree" means a tree that produces "good fruit" (καρπός καλός – Mt 3:10; 7:17, 18, 19; 12:33; Lk 3:9; 6:43). The idea is the same as found in Jn 15:2 which speaks of the branch that does not bear fruit and so is cut away, and the branch that does bear fruit, but which is pruned in order to make it bear even more fruit.
The fruit the good tree is expected to produce is the "fruit worthy of repentance" (καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας). Mark has another way of putting the same idea: "repent, and believe in the gospel" (μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.). So, producing "fruit worthy of repentance" is the same thing as repenting and believing in the gospel. And that means "good fruit" is repenting and believing. A "good tree" is one who produces that "good fruit", one who believes. A good tree is a believer. The believer is thus the "good tree" or the vine planted by the Father and tended and pruned by the Father whom Jn 15:1 presents as the farmer (γεωργός). All that leads us to the emphatic conclusion that believing is in fact a gift of the heavenly Father.
Other Themes or Ideas
There are evidently terms or ideas that are very closely related to the idea of grace; not merely related to the idea of grace, but directly or indirectly states that believing is a grace, a gift of God.
The Term "Grace" (χάρις) in John
The term is not very frequent in the gospel of John especially when compared to its use in the letters of St. Paul or even in Luke -Acts. It is found only 4 times in John whereas it is found 100 times in Paul, 8 times in Lk and 17 times in Acts. But the use of the term in the four Johannine texts is significant. All the four texts are found in the prologue to the gospel, namely in vv 14, 16, 17. In v 14 the evangelist claims to have seen "his glory". Apart from all that is conveyed by the idea of seeing Jesus' glory, I think we should also understand it in the light of Ezek 1:28: "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord". There is evidently tautology in the way the prophet expresses things here. He has been describing a vision that he had had and which had prepared the ground for his appointment as a prophet to the people in exile. Being a priest who is most conscious of the holiness of the God of Israel he does not dare to say that he has seen the Lord, though that is what he has in mind. He does not dare to say that he has seen the glory of God. He does not even say he has seen the likeness of the glory of God but rather the "appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord". So, when it is said in Jn 1:14 "we have seen his glory", it really means 'we have seen him'. Such an understanding is supported by what we find in Jn 12:41 where it is said that Isaiah "saw his glory and spoke about him", that is, Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or more exactly, Isaiah saw Jesus and spoke about him. So, to see the glory of God means to see God; and so to see the glory of Jesus means to see Jesus.
But then the evangelist goes on to add "full of grace and truth", meaning that Jesus was or is full of grace and truth. Jesus is the embodiment of grace and truth. Jesus is the fullness of grace and truth. In fact with Jesus' coming the age of grace erupts into history, in contrast to the age of the law (Jn 1:17). And since he is the "fullness" (πλήρωμα) of grace, on the one hand everything that comes from him is grace; and on the other it is from him, that all grace comes, it is from him that people receive grace after grace (Jn 1:16). Or, to put it in another way, whatever God gives through Jesus, whatever Jesus gives, is grace. That applies to faith also.
That faith is such a gift of Jesus, that it is a grace received from Jesus, is evident from three other texts in John.
The Importance of the Term "to Give" (διδόναι)
Something should be said also about the use of the verb to "give" (διδόναι) in the gospel of John. The term is used 76 times in the gospel. Apparently it is a very ordinary term; but in most of the 76 texts in John, unlike in the synoptic gospels, it has deep theological connotations. The term is used mainly in three different ways.
a. It is used to refer to the Father's giving to Jesus. Whatever Jesus has, has been given him by the Father. There is a variety of gifts of the Father to Jesus. Some of them are: "all things" (πάντα -3:35; 13:3; 17:7), "all judgment" (5:22), "to have life in himself" (5:26), "authority to execute judgment" (5:27), "works" performed by Jesus (5:36), "everything" or rather "everyone" (pan) meaning the believer (6:37, 39; 10:29), the requests made by Jesus in his prayer to the Father (11:22), "commandment" as to what Jesus should say and do (12:49; 14:31), "authority over all" (17:2), "the work" to be accomplished by Jesus (17:4), the disciples (17:6, 9, 24; 18:9), the "words" spoken by Jesus (17:8), the Father's "name" given to Jesus (17:11, 12-the idea is much the same as in Phil 2:9), "glory" (17:22, 24) and the "cup" of suffering and death (18:11).
b. Whatever the believer has is a gift from the Father. Some of the prominent gifts of the Father to the believer are: "the Law" (1:17), "his Only Son" (3:16), "the Spirit" (3:34), "bread from heaven" (6:31), "the true bread from heaven" (6:32), "bread" -"flesh" (6:51, 52), to go to Jesus (6:65), "another Advocate" (14:16), and "whatever" they ask in prayer (15:16; 16:23). The greatest gift of the Father to humanity is evidently Jesus himself who is the Father's "Only Son" (υἱός μονογενής - Jη 3:16).
c. The word is also used to refer to Jesus' gift to the believer. The main gifts of Jesus to the believer are: the "power to become children of God" (1:12), "grace" (1:17), "living water" (4:10, 14, 15), the "loaves" and the "fish" which are already a symbol of the Eucharist (6:11), "the food that endures for eternal life" (6:27), the "Spirit" (7:39), "eternal life" (10:28; 17:2), good "example" (13:15), "new commandment" (13:34), "peace" (14:27), "words", meaning the word of the Father and of Jesus (17:8, 14), "glory" (17:22), and "bread" and "fish" (21:13-symbol of the Eucharist as in 6:11).
All the same it must be noted that there is hardly any text that speaks of a gift from the part of the believer either to the Father or to Jesus. In 4:7 Jesus tells the Samaritan woman: "Give me a drink". But there is no indication that she gave him a drink. There is another text in 9:24 where "the Jews" (Ιουδαῖοι – 9:18, 22) say: "Give glory to God" - but they do not mean it; it only reveals their hypocrisy for the simple reason that they are people who "did not believe" (9:18). So, strictly speaking man has nothing to offer to God as a gift. But all that he has is gift from God, from Jesus. That is the meaning of the sweeping statement in 3:27: "No one can receive anything except what has been given from above". This applies to everything. Everything that man has, every good work that he does, is thus a gift from above, that is, from God. That applies also to faith, which is the gift par excellence given to man by God.
Faith is not giving anything to God; it is simply the disposition of openness to receive all that is given by God or by Jesus. This is the idea implied in the request of the Samaritan woman to Jesus in 4:15: "Sir, give me this water". The same idea is also found to some extent in the request of the crowd to Jesus in 6:34: "Sir, give us this bread always". Further faith means accepting the fact that one is totally indebted to the Father and to Jesus for all that one is and for all that one does and for all that one has, and then the willingness to give, not anything but oneself totally to the Father and to Jesus.
Faith and Adherence to Jesus
In Jn 10:26 Jesus says: "you do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep". That means to be able to believe in Jesus people should belong to his sheep, that is, they should belong to him. In chapter 17 there is much talk about those who belong to Jesus. First of all Jesus insists that they belonged of course they also continue to belong to the Father (v 6). And now they belong to Jesus because the Father has given them to him (vv 2, 6, 9, 11, 24). In this same chapter Jesus insists also that they do not belong to the world, meaning that they belong to him (vv 14, 16).
In 13:1 there is the mention of a "his own" (οἱ ἴδιοι). This expression is to be referred back to Jn 1:11-13. There is first of all mention of "his own people" meaning the Jewish people who "did not accept him" (11). In the following verse there is mention of another group of people who "received him, who believed in his name". Then they are presented as "children of God" (τέκνα θεοῦ- ν 12) “who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God". These "children of God" are the same as the "his own" of Jn 13:1. But then people become children not by their own efforts but because God gives them "power to become children of God", they are empowered by God to become children of God. So, on the one hand it is by believing that they become children of God and on the other it is as a grace of God, a gift of God, that they become children of God.
So, people become Jesus' own by their being given him by the Father. They begin to belong to Jesus when they become children of God; and they become children of God when they receive that power from the Father. Thus believing is ultimately a grace given by the Father.
Fullness of Faith In Jesus
This is a point that we find in the case of the blind man whom Jesus had healed. The man is cast out (Jn 9:34), evidently from the synagogue (Jn 9:22) by the Jews because he staunchly confessed his faith in Jesus. But then in 9:35 we read: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of man?". The wording of the verse seems to imply that Jesus did a certain amount of searching for the man. Jesus looked for the man and finally found him in the temple. Moreover the very use of the term "found" requires searching, because "to search" (ζητέω) and "to find" (εὑρίσκω) are in fact correlative terms and they are found together in a number of texts in John (1:39, 41; 6:24, 25; 7:34, 36).
The conclusion we can legitimately draw is that whatever is narrated in the rest of the story - Jesus revealing himself as the Son of man to him and the man worshipping Jesus (vv 37-38) - would not have happened if Jesus had not sought him and found him in the temple. We may even say based on what the man says about Jesus in Jn 9:11-12 that he would not have been able even to recognize Jesus by himself without Jesus presenting himself before him.
And that certainly is another aspect of grace. The man who is cast out by the Jews is sought out and found by Jesus. It is almost like Jesus looking at Peter in Lk 22:61 - and it is this look that leads him to conversion. Of course Peter responds to Jesus' look- he saw Jesus looking at him and "went out and wept bitterly" (Lk 22:62). But all that happened because Jesus first looked at him. It is also like Jesus looking up and seeing Zacchaeus (Lk 19:5) who had climbed the sycamore tree (v 4) in order to "see" Jesus (v 2). It is Jesus' looking up, seeing him and staying in his house that finally lead to his conversion, to his faith in Jesus (vv 8-10).
It is true that in the gospel of John there is much insistence also on the idea that believing is a human act, something that man does, and has to go on doing all his life. But it must be clearly borne in mind that John sees Believing as a gift of God, a gift of Jesus. If faith has to be properly understood and properly lived this divine initiative in believing must be understood and accepted.
John's Gospel displays the images of a community that is at times exclusive or inward-looking and at other times inclusive or outward-looking. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the inclusive nature of the Johannine theology and its challenges for us today. It is my privilege and honour to offer this interpretation of John 1 as a tribute to my Guru and colleague, Fr. Matthew Vellanickal, as he completes 50 years in the priesthood. A committed scholar, inspiring teacher, and an exceptionally simple and caring pastor, Matthew Vellanickal favours the logic of inclusion and proclaims God's Word in response to the many challenges of contemporary society.
The paper begins with a brief description of contemporary society, and then proceeds with the Sitz im Leben of the Johannine community and its appropriation and presentation of Jesus ("the Word became flesh," i.e., the mystery of Incarnation) in the Prologue to the Gospel. The paper concludes with a reflection on the implications of the Johannine theology of the Incarnation for the Church and contemporary society.
Contemporary Society
Using a broad brush, let me paint a quick picture of the context within which we reflect on the prologue to John's Gospel (1:1-18) and its significance for the contemporary world. We live in an era of globalization. Globalization conjures up different notions in different people; we have different understandings and experiences of globalization. All would agree that it is an ongoing worldwide process with positive and negative effects. On the one hand, globalization is a process that creates a new interdependent world promoting connectedness of societies, cultures and civilizations, while on the other, it is a process that creates a monoculture and enhances unilateralism. Globalization leads humanity to a planetary cosmopolitan society in which global processes determine and shape the destiny of nations and r development and relations. Globalization is gradually leading the world to the centralization of economic power, degradation of ecological systems, alienation of cultural diversities, and privatization of religious heritage.
Our time in history is characterized by both an overwhelming technological advancement, especially in the area of media and instant global communications, as well as a frightening fracturing and relativization of all that was once regarded as permanent and sacred. We are moving toward a more fragmented and less stable era. The emerging secular and technological culture influences our values and life-style, and alters our religious traditions and practices. We witness today a culture of alienation, exclusion, divisions and conflicts, in which religions play an important role. In a multicultural and religious society, this scenario calls for intercultural and inter-religious dialogue as an existential imperative for all, if we want to respond to the challenges of contemporary society in a meaningful and inspiring way without privatizing religions and alienating cultures.
Sitz-im-Leben of the Joahnnine Community
The Gospel of John reflects the history, theology and sociological concerns of the Johannine community. The evangelist reinterprets the "Jesus traditions" in the light of the life situation of the community. Although the provenance of the gospel goes back to Jesus traditions and Palestinian Judaism, the final form of the gospel was produced by, and for, a community living outside Palestine, most probably in Ephesus or somewhere in Asia Minor. This would suggest a community living in a milieu where diaspora Jewish religious traditions and Hellenistic philosophies rubbed shoulders with each other. It is important to remember that during the first century C.E., the boundaries between religious traditions and philosophies were very flexible and fluid. One cannot deny some sort of osmosis or gradual, often unconscious, processes of assimilation and absorption within diaspora Judaism of Hellenism and Eastern Mediterranean cultures. Despite differing opinions concerning the place of origin, it is widely accepted that the community was primarily composed of Jewish Christians, as well as Christians of Samaritan, or Gentile origin. As I argued elsewhere, the community suffered conflicts, persecution, alienation, and divisions, and faced a serious religious and social identity crisis. As we shall see, the Johannine community, characterized by a membership that included Jews, Samaritans, and Greeks, was very sensitive to the religious, cultural and philosophical traditions that enveloped the community when it articulated its experience of the Divine in Jesus Christ (1:1-18).
The Presentation of Jesus in John 1:1-18
What follows is a reading of the prologue to the Gospel of John in the socio-cultural context of the above-mentioned contemporary world. I focus on the intercultural interactions and interreligious dialogue of the Johannine community in her appropriation of the mystery of the Incarnation. It is my contention that the first century Johannine community can serve as a model for contemporary societies in their journey towards a culture of interaction and dialogue.
The Incarnation as a Boundary Shattering Moment (John 1:1-18)
The prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) is an excellent example of an intercultural and intra-religious dialogue that took place in an early apostolic community. The prologue articulates the Johannine Christology, the Joahnnine community's interpretation and appropriation of the birth of Jesus, revealing a community that is sensitive to, and shaped by, the cultural, philosophical, and religious traditions of its members.
The prologue (1:1-18) does not begin with a birth story of Jesus. The prologue is written in a highly poetic style unravelling the mystery of the divine Word (λόγος) in terms of its pre-existence, its relationship with God, the cosmos, and humans. Verses 1-5 portray the Word as pre-existent and eternally in communion with God, an agent of creation, the source of life and a light shining in the darkness. The trans-temporal and spatial dimensions of the Word are brought out in verse la: "in the beginning was (ἦν) the Word." The expression, "in the beginning," coupled with the verb ἦν, the imperfect form of εἰμί, translated in English as "was," suggests ggests the dynamic existence of the Word from eternity. The expression, "in the beginning" refers to the period before creation reaching back to the beginning of all things in Genesis 1:1, and thus reveals the pre-existence of the Word. The existence of the Word with reference to its relation with God is developed in verse 1b: "the Word was (ἦν) towards God or in relationship with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). The Word abides with God from eternity." By emphasizing the intimate communion of the Word with God, the evangelist makes clear that they are two distinct beings. The Word was what God was or the Word is of the very nature of God (1c).12 The change of subject from the Word to all things (πάντα) in verse 3 signals a new theme: the role of the Word in the totality of creation. All things (πάντα) came into existence (ἐγένετο) through the Word (v. 3). The active role of the Word in creation is made explicit by the use of the verb ἐγένετο; the same verb is used in the Septuagint for the creation account in Genesis 1. The Word is the life (ζωή) that enlightens every human being and the light (φῶς) that shines in the darkness (vv. 4-5).
The evangelist is at his best as he plumbs the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word in verse. There is a fine blend of both the divine and the human. The divine Word becomes σάρξ as opposed to the spirit, and becomes "tabernacled" (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us (humans). The notion of σάρξ highlights the human, visible, tangible, frail, limited, susceptible aspects of the divine Word in the incarnation of Jesus in human history. The verb σκηνόω is used with double meanings: both flesh (σάρξ) and glory (δόξα). The verb σκηνόω and the noun σκηνός (tabernacle) are very closely connected, and σκηνός is used to refer to both the tabernacle of the human body (Wis 9:15; 2 Cor 5:1, 4) and the tabernacle of the Ark of the Covenant that manifested God's living presence during the Exodus journey (Exod 40:34).15 The tabernacle imagery better suggests the personification of God's Word in a human body (σάρξ) that manifests God's living presence (δόξα) among humans. The personification of the Word is further described as "full of grace (χάρις) and truth (ἀλήθεια)."16 In Jewish thinking, χάρις and ἀλήθεια )חסר and אַמְת( are attributes of God revealed in the Torah," the qualities of Yahweh as the covenant partner with Israel abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Exod 34:6). In a similar way, the evangelist uses χάρις and ἀλήθεια in the prologue to present the incarnate Word as the revelation of the life of God (cf. 5:18, 33; 8:32; 10:33; 20:28). Towards the end, in verses 17-18, the prologue announces that the story of the Word is indeed the story of Jesus Christ, one "who is in the bosom of the Father" (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός), and underscores that Jesus has the authority to make God known.
The Word (λόγος) as a Cross-cultural/religious Expression of the Divine
In order to appreciate the Johannine understanding of the Incarnation and the significance of the λόγος-σάρξ Christology, one needs to explore the origin and background of the Word symbol and its use in John's Gospel. The Johannine presentation of the role of the Word in creation and in human history seems to have integrated both the λόγος (Word) philosophy of Heraclitus of Ephesus and its later development in Hellenistic Judaism and σοφία (Wisdom) and דבר־יהוה )the Word of God) of the OT.18 The author immixed Hellenistic heritage, Jewish theological motifs and wisdom traditions in order to articulate the mystery of Incarnation in a more meaningful way to the first century Christians living outside Palestine.
The philosopher Heraclitus coined the term λόγος (Word), and the stoic philosophers later interpreted λόγος as the rational principle of order in the universe. 19 Philo, a Jewish Hellenistic scholar of the 1ª century CE, spoke of λόγος as an intermediary between God and God's creation. But neither of these Greek understandings of the λόγος includes the idea of the personification or the enfleshment of the λόγος in human history.
There are many OT texts that speak of the existence of σοφία (Wisdom) with God before the creation of the world (Prov 8:22-23, 27, 30; Wis 8:3; 9:9) and the active role of σοφία in creation (Wis 9:2, 9). The Wisdom is the principle of life, order, and harmony. In the Wisdom Literature, the concepts of Word (λόγος) and Wisdom (σοφία) are sometimes used in apposition or interchangeably (e.g., Wis 9:1-2; Prov 4:5).20 In the Masoretic Text, the Word of God )דְבַר־יהוה( is more than mere spoken or written word; it has a certain dynamic energy, power and existence of its own. In the Book of Genesis, the Word of God is the manifestation of God's creative power. In the creation story, God pronounces and accomplishes at the same time: "let there be light, and light came into existence" (Gen 1:3). The word of God goes to Abraham as the guiding voice of his life and long journeys (Gen 15:1, 4). During the Exodus journey, God spoke through Moses and the Law. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the Word of God is portrayed as a life-giving reality; it is life itself: "Take to heart all the words that I am giving in witness against you today; give them as a command to your children, so that they may diligently observe all the words of this law. This is no trifling matter for you, but rather your very life; through it you may live long in the land that you are crossing over the Jordan to possess" (32:46-47). The Word of God has the energy to heal and deliver the people (Psalm 107:20). The prophets speak of the Word of God as a transforming and empowering spirit. The Word of God challenges and transforms the prophets. Once they accept the Word, it empowers and impels them to go out and proclaim God's message (Jer 1:1-8; Ezek 1:3; Hosea 1:1; Joel 1:1).
The evangelist announces that the λόγος, the divine Word, the principle of order, the divine Wisdom, the creative power, the life-giving reality, the healing energy, the empowering and transforming spirit, operative in creation, in the lives of the Patriarchs, during the Exodus journey of Israel, and in the lives of the prophets, has now become personified in Jesus who is the embodiment of the divine revelation: the visible presence of God in human history.
The eternal λόγος became flesh and pitched its tent among humans in the cosmos (John 1:14). The mystery of the Incarnation is "that boundary shattering moment when heaven met earth, when Word became Flesh that flesh might become glory."2" In other words, the Incarnation bridges and unites boundaries of heaven and earth, divine and human, sacred and secular, and restores the relationship of communion and harmony. One needs to understand the significance of the Incarnation against the background of God's creation and covenant partnership with humans. God created humans (male and female) in God's image and likeness, and gave them the ability and responsibility to shepherd )רדה( creation with responsibility and accountability (Gen 1:28). God made a covenant )ברית( with the entire creation in general (Genesis 9) and with humanity in particular (Genesis 12, 28; Exodus 24). This covenant relationship implies both divine promises and human commitments.22 The election of Israel as "God's treasured possession" (Deut 7) manifests God's graciousness and demands Israel's fidelity. The history of Israel, however, shows that she repeatedly broke this covenant partnership with God. But God's fidelity and steadfast love )אמת and allures, transforms and impels Israel to re-establish the broken relationship and disrupted harmony and communion between humans, the cosmos and the creator. Jesus, the Incarnate Word, thus fulfils and perfects God's promises of the covenant partnership with humanity and makes the cosmos the dwelling place of God.
By presenting Jesus as the λόγος, the fourth evangelist uses a concept that is familiar to the Jewish, Samaritan, and Greek Christians, and reinterprets its meaning and significance for the Johannine community. The mystery of the Incarnation shatters the boundaries of Hellenistic philosophical and Jewish religious traditions and becomes a cross-cultural and interreligious expression of the Divine.
Implications for the Contemporary Church
Although globalization facilitates more interactions between nations, cultures and languages, it also disseminates cultural uniformity. In spite of this globalization process, there is a perceptible counter-movement: countries are becoming increasingly multiethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-religious, thanks to migration and resettlements. As opposed to the coexistence of different cultures, religions and languages, we need to develop interacting and interdependent cultures. This is possible only when each one makes a deliberate choice to meet the other as an equal dialogue partner by putting aside one's mutual prejudices and stereotypes. As our interpretation of the Prologue to the Gospel suggests, the Johannine Jesus challenges us to make a journey from exclusion to inclusion and integration; and from conflict to cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue and partnership.
In his attempt to understand the persistent alienation of peoples in the world, Miroslav Volf, the winner of the 2002 Louisville Grawemeyer award in Religion, defines exclusion as "barbarity within civilization, evil among the good, crime against the other right within the walls of the self." Volf proposes the notion of embrace as a response to the problem of exclusion and alienation. We are called to embrace and envelop the other as we have been embraced and enveloped by God. This inclusion is indeed the heart of the message of the mystery of the Incarnation: the eternal λόγος became human flesh and pitched its tent among us (John 1:14). The divine enveloped the human; the sacred enveloped the secular; the heavens enveloped the earth. This inclusion and integration is possible only when there is communion and solidarity, equality and mutuality, mercy and justice, and participatory leadership and responsible accountability. These are the challenges and promises of the Johannine Jesus for contemporary society.
We need to make use of the deep insights and rich resources of our religious and philosophical traditions for creating and maintaining a network of the relations of interdependence and a life-giving culture of inclusion and dialogue. We need to appropriate a culture of inclusion that enables the members of different world-views and traditions to recognize, respect and reinforce their differences not as mutually exclusive, but as mutually enriching and life-giving. We need to promote a culture of dialogue by reciprocal acceptance, affirmation, and celebration of diversities.
Biblical studies is a prolific field of research. Religion may have gone out of fashion, but not so the Bible. There is no end to the various readings of the Book. Quests have followed freely one after the other. Every scholar dares to voice a proposal, admitting that it is problematic in a number of ways. Amidst a flood of opinions, the common man is often at a loss to decide which findings are uncontested, which safe, which allowable and which dangerous.
The present study, on the two explicitly Marian passages of the Fourth Gospel, has indeed left many stones unturned! It does not attempt a status quaestionis; nor does it polarize in order to polemicize. What it does is to take a stand, adopt a line of argument and present its conclusions as if they are unassailable. I first attempt to link two basic intuitions, one coming from redaction critics who posit at least three stages in the composition of the Fourth Gospel and the other coming from narrative critics according to whom the Gospel contains three narrative strands. Building on this clue, I move on to suggest that Mary plays three distinct roles in the Gospel of John to correspond with the three narrative strands. I conclude with certain theological reflections on the hour of Jesus and the hour of Mary.
Three Stages:
Redaction Criticism and the Fourth Gospel
Redaction criticism is the study of editorial activity. It regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of his source material. Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism, strictly speaking, does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre; instead, it focuses on how the redactors have shaped and moulded the narrative to express their theological goals. Every editorial intervention will definitely leave its mark on the text in the form of "seams" or "stitches". Seams are obvious breaks in the text which interrupt the flow of the narrative. These are called "commentary" by literary critics. A careful study of such breaks will reveal the successive stages in the composition of the biblical text.
There is a large agreement on three stages of composition leading up to the final form of the Fourth Gospel. A pre-Gospel body of material about Jesus would constitute the first stage. Appealing to the Gospel's own reference to many signs worked by Jesus (20,30), many scholars have suggested that the fourth evangelist drew upon a sign-source a collection of Jesus' miracles. The second stage consists of the work proper of the evangelist. By 'evangelist' we mean the person who composed the main part of the Fourth Gospel, taking over previous traditions, making his own contributions, and weaving the results into a consecutive whole. The main theological thrusts as well as literary design of the account are attributable to him. The third and final stage is the work of the redactor. Most scholars posit a figure who edited the gospel left behind by the evangelist and added to it. The most conspicuous of the additions is Ch. Brown sees the hymn material in the Prologue (verses 1-5, 10-12, 14, 16) and the explanatory expansions of the lines of the hymn (verses 12c-13, 17-18) as a late addition of the final redactor, so that the hymn-like material and the original introductory material (verses 6-9 and 15, both pertaining to John the Baptist) are interwoven.
Three Strands:
Narrative Analysis and the Fourth Gospel
One does not have to be a professional exegete to recognize that the Fourth Gospel is an artful, highly literary text. For those who love stories, the Fourth Gospel is a rich narrative that entices and mystifies simultaneously. Even as it unequivocally proclaims the message that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, it also teases the audience with its double and triple entendres, its allusive use of language, and its elliptical statements. The Gospel explicitly acknowledges its own textuality (20, 30-31) and also beckons us to consider it not only as a spiritual resource or historical source, but precisely as a literary work.
It is only relatively recently, however, that literary criticism, sometimes referred to as narrative criticism, has been viewed as a useful, or even a legitimate approach to the Gospel of John. Some scholars felt that resorting to literary criticism somehow negated or diminished the 'gains' of historical criticism. Nevertheless, a literary-critical approach might lead to insights unattainable through historical methodologies. What distinguishes literary critics is their insistence on the importance of dealing with the Gospel in its final form, as a complete narrative. In brief, the diachronic (source/historical/redaction) and synchronic (literary/narrative) approaches to the biblical text are complementary.
The idea of dividing the Gospel into two sections, with the break occurring at the end of Ch., is quite traditional. Dodd refers to the first section as the Book of Signs. This section has a distinct structure built around a series of stories, seven to be precise, that recount the 'signs' (miracles) that Jesus does in order to manifest his glory. Each of these narratives follows a general pattern that consists of the identification of the problem, momentary uncertainty as to whether Jesus will act, the accomplishment of the miracle, and the narrator's note as to its significance. Brown names the second section as the Book of Glory. This section is dominated by the looming hour of Jesus when he is to be glorified. The first part, in other words, covers the public ministry; whereas the second part covers the "hour" of Jesus' return to his Father.
The idea, however, of three narrative strands running through the Gospel, is rather new. We might say that the Gospel contains both a historical narrative, set in first century Galilee, Samaria and Judea and an ecclesiological narrative, set some years later, probably within a Diaspora group that adhered to the Johannine expression of faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. The later readers of the Gospel would have read the Gospel on two levels, as a story of Jesus and as a record of the community's own painful experiences in conflict with the 'synagogue'. There is a third level to the Gospel narrative, one we may term the cosmological story. The prologue and many other passages in the Gospel situate the story of Jesus in the larger narrative of God's relationship with the world or even the broader cosmos. The connection between the historical and cosmological levels is made explicit in 1,14: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us".
Each of these three narrative levels describes the central conflict in a different way. The central conflict of the historical tale is that between Jesus and a group called the Jews. The ecclesiological narrative entails the conflict between the Johannine community and all those who persecute them for their beliefs. On the level of the cosmological tale, by contrast, the plot is propelled by the conflict between God and Satan. The setting of this final level is universal space and time.
Mary in the Fourth Gospel
The two central Marian events in the Fourth Gospel take place at Cana and Calvary. The place the evangelist gives the episodes of Cana and Calvary in his Gospel is no less remarkable. These two scenes frame the public ministry of Jesus. One is the occasion of his first miracle, the miracle inaugurating his public life and providing a foundation for the faith of his disciples (2,11); the other is the 'hour' when 'all is consummated.' (19, 22-30). This is the Semitic procedure of inclusion whose use here is evidence of the importance John gives to Mary.
It is also significant that the final scene at Calvary brings together two figures for whom John never gives us personal names- the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple. That may mean that the significance of both figures lay in their respective roles. In line with the three stages and three strands already mentioned, can we not think of three distinct roles ascribed to Mary? Seemingly this is not a far-fetched idea.
And the Mother of Jesus Was there (2, 1b)
What could be the role of Mary at the historical plane, as the mother of Jesus? The answer has evidently to do with the view of Mary and the family in circulation at the time. "As Fortna reconstructs the pre-Gospel story of Cana, it is rather a simply narrated miracle which Jesus does at the indirect request of his mother. For our purposes, it is particularly significant that the reconstruction lacks the dialogue between Jesus and his mother"." The theological use of the words "hour" and "woman" are the most agreed upon additions.
If one accepts the hypothesis of a pre-Gospel story without the full dialogue of 2, 3-4, the significance of the sign seems to have resided in the marvellous changing of water to wine. Jesus' mother expected him to be able to work marvels; and it was granted without hesitation. Thus Mary emerges as both a believer in Jesus and an influence over him.
Regarding the presence of Mary at the foot of the Cross, Brown believes that she was specifically mentioned in the tradition that came to the evangelist, as seen in 19,25.9 The reference to the Beloved Disciple and the dialogue that follows are to be attributed to Johannine theological inventiveness. However, in the history of exegesis, we find many who believed that the evangelist's primary interest is biographical, i.e., to report simply that after Jesus died his mother went to live in the home of a favourite disciple. This simplistic approach has been responsible for much Marian legend.
Here, it must be remembered that our effort all along has been to discover the pre-Gospel traditions about Mary, the mother of Jesus. We are talking about the way in which historical facts have been moulded by Christians in their attempt to understand Mary's role in what God has wrought in Jesus Christ. The quest for the Mary of history belongs to a stage further removed.
Here Is Your Mother (19,27a)
Most exegetes today will admit to a link between the marriage feast at Cana and the episode of the Cross. It was at the wedding feast at Cana that Jesus made the remark, usually translated thus: "My hour has not yet come." This remark contains an implicit reference to the hour of his death and glorification on the Cross. As we have noted earlier, this reference to the "hour" is an insertion of the evangelist during the second stage of composition. This addition about the "hour" of Jesus is full of mystery. Upon it depends the most profound interpretation of the miracle of Cana.
The Greek οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου could be read both as a statement and as an interrogative." However, nothing obliges us to favour one reading over the other. This enigmatic expression could best be understood as an instance of double entendre. At one level, Jesus makes known to his mother that his hour has not yet come. At a second level, it is Jesus' way of consulting his Father: Has not my hour come? Mary seems to have (happily) misunderstood Jesus' words. That would explain her command to the servants: Do whatever he tells you.
On several occasions during the ministry (7, 30; 8, 20) John says unambiguously that Jesus' hour has not yet come. Only as the passion and death approach, do we hear that Jesus' hour had come, namely, the hour of Jesus to be glorified (12, 23). So how do we explain the miracle? The hour has not come indeed, but it is anticipated (which is a different concept altogether) at the request of Mary. The wine of Cana thus becomes "the symbolic announcement" of the hour of the glorification of Jesus.
The fact that there is one clear Marian passage in the last half of the Gospel is significant, for this is the section of John which deals with Jesus' "own" people. There is less here by way of controversy with opponents and more by way of instruction and care for those whom Jesus would consider his disciples. To introduce the mother of Jesus into this atmosphere is to bring her into the context of discipleship.
Many of the scholarly suggestions about what was in the pre-Gospel tradition (if at all there was any such thing) and what the evangelist added would mean that the evangelist heightened the dramatic importance of the scene and gave Mary a greater role and that too of a symbolic nature. All the other Johannine crucifixion episodes have clear symbolic and theological significance, and by analogy that should be true of 19, 25-27 as well. In effect, we are here grappling with the ecclesiological strand of the narrative.
Within such a perspective, the mother's primary role would not be her physical motherhood. Her motherly role is rather in relation to the beloved disciple. Since it is a role that she receives only as Jesus dies and goes to the Father - a role received in "the hour" of Jesus it is a role that does not pertain to the earthly ministry of Jesus but to subsequent Christian history, the era of the community after Jesus' glorification. It has often been remarked that for John the elevation on the cross is already part of his return to his Father and that Pentecost is anticipated on the cross in symbolic references to the Spirit. Accordingly, the crucified Jesus does not die alone but leaves behind him at the foot of the cross a small community of believing disciples. At the foot of the cross Jesus gives his physical mother a spiritual role as mother of the disciple par excellence and the disciple a role as her son. Thus there emerges a familial relationship in terms of discipleship. Jesus' physical mother, just as in Luke, meets the criterion of the eschatological family; but his physical brothers do not. They are replaced by the beloved disciple. 15 Mary thus assumes the role of a caring mother and a model of hope for the community of disciples under perpetual siege.
Woman (2, 4a; 19, 26b)
There is no precedent in Hebrew or in Greek, for a son to address his mother 'woman' as Jesus does in Cana. Most scholars have therefore detected a special significance in the term. Since it is repeated for Mary as she stands at the foot of the cross when Jesus consigns her to the beloved disciple, one can scarcely interpret the address as a sign of lack of affection.
The address 'woman' could be seen as a symbolic evocation of the role of Eve in the initial chapters of Genesis. At least two similarities may be pointed out here. First, Eve is called the 'woman' in the genesis story, and at her instigation Adam disobeys the command of God. Second, in Gen 3, 15 the woman is not left without hope; rather it is predicted that there will be enmity between the serpent and the woman, and that her seed will bruise the head of the serpent. The passion and death of Jesus is seen in the Fourth Gospel as the triumph of Jesus over the Prince of this world (12, 31; 14, 30). At the very moment of his triumph Mary is brought back on the scene, addressed as 'woman.' In other words, the two Johannine scenes in which Mary is addressed as 'woman' may be seen as the reenactment of the Eve motif with a happier ending. 16 The title 'woman' thus has a cosmological resonance. Mary has a decisive role to play in the central conflict between God and Satan. Far from rebuking His mother or distancing Himself from her, Jesus, in calling Mary "woman," honors her in a way no woman had ever been honored before. She is the New Eve, the woman whose long-awaited Son will defeat the devil and fulfil the prophecy of Genesis.
A word must be said here about the woman in Revelation. There is consensus among scholars that the woman described there refers primarily to the people of God, Israel and the Church. But is there not the possibility of a secondary reference to Mary? The plasticity of apocalyptic symbolism makes a double reference for the one symbol a possibility." The main argument for a reference to Mary is that the narrative refers to the woman as the mother of the Messiah. However, a major objection is that the description of the birth really does not fit what happened at Bethlehem. Therefore we have to ask if there is some other birth scene where Mary could be involved which would fit the imagery of Revelation.
The following thesis has been proposed on the supposition that Revelation is in some way related to the Fourth Gospel. 18 That Gospel reports nothing about birth at Bethlehem; rather its use of birth imagery in relation to Jesus occurs at the Last Supper. In 16, 20-21 Jesus compares the present sorrow and future joy of the disciples to that of a woman in birth pangs, who forgets her sorrow once the child has been born into the world. Between the two texts there are three points of contact: the woman, her maternity and the hour. The birth pangs in John would seemingly refer to the pain surrounding Jesus' departure and death; the birth itself would refer to his return after victory. At the foot of the cross, and therefore at the death of Jesus, attention is called to the presence of the mother of Jesus who is addressed as "woman". This death and subsequent victory, which constitute Jesus' hour, are seen as the moment of the expulsion of Satan (12, 27-31).20
Interpreted in this way, Mary/Eve symbolism in John 19, 25-27 becomes reinforced, since the woman in Revelation is in conflict with a dragon who in 12, 9 is specifically identified with the ancient serpent of the Genesis story.
The Hour of the Man and the Hour of the Woman
The biblical authors are more interested in the history of salvation (succession of kairoi) and less in the chronology of events (chronos). This is eminently true of John. All references to the hour in John, without exception, have to do with that decisive hour when Christ, apparently reduced to powerlessness, was more active than ever and procured the definitive deliverance of humanity.
In 16, 21 Jesus announces a new Adam and a new Eve as well, making his own hour and the hour of the woman coincide each other. The hour of the passion of Christ is thus compared to the role played in the divine plan by the maternity of Eve, who contributed in this fashion to the perpetuation and multiplication of humankind. The new Adam indeed makes his appearance in 20, 20 (The disciples rejoiced at the sight of the Lord), perhaps even before in 19, 5 (Here is the man!). But where is the new Eve, the woman par excellence of the new covenant, whom John had announced in 16, 21?
The answer must be sought in the pericope 19, 25-27. Named "woman" by Jesus, Mary assumes there the role of new Eve, the new "mother of the living". Like the first woman, she is called to play her role, to live "her hour" beside the Man in the divine plan. This role cannot but be maternal. She must give birth to the new People of God, represented by Jesus' disciples. John's Prologue speaks of the power we have received to become children of God, according to the model of Him who was not engendered by the "desire of man", but who was "engendered by God". What the prologue announces finds its fulfillment in the spiritual maternity of Mary at the foot of the cross: Mary, who, at the moment of Incarnation, conceived and gave birth physically to Jesus, now conceives and gives birth spiritually to the disciples of Jesus.
Anticipating the Hour
In the biblical tradition the "hour" is globally that of the end-time, it is the "moment of the final accomplishment". 25 In the realized eschatological scheme of Jolin, the hour is anticipated at Cana, begins with his glorification on the Cross, to be completed at his Second Coming.
One of the characteristic features of narrative literature is its complex use of time and time markers. Overall, the Gospel of John, as a historical tale, moves forward chronologically. But the Gospel also provides a number of analepses (flashbacks) and prolepses (anticipations) that momentarily remove the reader from the chronological sequence. These analepses and prolepses add texture and provide a means through which the Gospel reaches out to its later readers. In doing so they also provide a bridge from the historical to the ecclesiological levels - the era of the community- and finally to the cosmological level, including that future eschatological time in which all believers will join Jesus in his Father's house.
Jesus' hour has not yet arrived at Cana, but in the sign of the water changed into wine, in the sign of the festive gift, his hour of victory is anticipated at the behest of his mother. It also occasioned the anticipation of that hour when he will make the woman, his mother, the mother of all his disciples.
Jesus' definitive hour will be his return at the end of time. He continually anticipates this definitive hour in the Eucharist, in which, even now, he always comes to us. And he does this ever anew through the intercession of his Mother, through the intercession of the Church, which cries out to him in the Liturgical prayers: "Come, Lord Jesus!" In the Eucharist the Church constantly prays for this "hour" to be anticipated, asking that he may come even now and be given to us.
Paradoxically, Mary's definitive hour is anticipated in her being taken up to heaven in body and soul. Mary was instrumental in making the Father anticipate the hour for Jesus. The Son, in return, if we may say so, made his Father anticipate the definitive hour for His mother.
Conclusion
Laurentin endows Mary with the title "Virgin of Commence-ments" and Hémery confers upon her the title "Virgin of Accomplishments." They would have had in their minds the scenes of Cana and Calvary. The mother of Jesus was a constant presence in the life of Jesus: she was at Cana and she was at Calvary. Mary was also a loving presence in the life of the apostolic community: she was an active witness to its foundation; she was particularly present in the life of the beloved disciple. She is also an abiding presence all throughout the life of the Church, terrene and eschatological.
Tracing and asserting a community at the backdrop of the fourth gospel as the immediate or the "real readers" of the gospel has become conventional in any of the Johannine studies. The presupposition of a "community," "circle," or "school" behind the text constantly confronts the danger of circular reasoning, as it deduces the existence of the Johannine community exclusively based on the text, and at the same time interprets the text on the basis of the assumption of the existence of a Johannine community. By emphasizing the significance of the community scholars are of the opinion that the evangelist has shifted from the lifetime of Jesus to the time of the church. The Johannine community is often described as an exclusive and expelled community. This study tries to point out that both these conventional conclusions are unfounded and look for the possibility of reading the fourth gospel without the customary prism of the community framework.
Two approaches can be distinguished in the reconstruction of the Johannine community:
(i) from the text to the community,
(ii) from the community to the text.
From the Text to the Community: A Pluralistic Community
The basic characteristic of the text to community approach is to reconstruct the nature of the Johannine community on the basis of the events or characters described in the gospel. G. Richter argues that the community behind the fourth gospel is composed of four different communities with different christological stances: (i) the 'Mosaic-prophet' Christians, (ii) the 'Son of God' Christians, (iii) the Docetic Christians and (iv) the revisionist Christians. He bases his arguments on the specific passages of the fourth gospel. Similarly, O. Cullman also observes different communities behind the fourth gospel: (i) a special Hellenistic group in the early Christianity in Jerusalem (cf. 12:20-25), (ii) the Johannine circle of disciples and (iii) disciples of John the Baptist. Hence he calls the social milieu that lies behind the fourth gospel "heterodox marginal Judaism."
Meeks and Taylor both argue that several communities with different theological stances could be traced within the background of the fourth gospel. Meeks says, "it is clear that the gospel as it stands is the product of consolidation of traditions of differing provenance." Taylor observes, "the resonance of several religious and philosophical movements of the day," especially of "Jewish and Hellenistic religious tendencies," in the gospel. S.J. Tanzer extends this approach to the community a step further, arguing that every character that enters into conversation with Jesus in the fourth gospel "represents the variety of people for whom this gospel was intended."
D.A. Ihenacho, following Richter, argues that the socio-linguistics present in the fourth gospel and the epistles are traces of the theological views of different groups. On the basis of the repeated usage of λογός, the descend-ascend schema and the dualistic thinking in the gospel he concludes that the community is syncretic. He finds the Hellenistic and Gnostic traces in the backdrop of the Johannine community. According to him, there were Jews, Samaritans and foreigners in the Johannine community. "The Jews" in the gospel according to him signify five groups: (i) the Messiah-expecting Jews, (ii) the crypto-Christians, (iii) the Christians of other apostolic churches and (iv) the Jewish Christianity represented by the beloved disciple and (v) the Jewish opponents of the Johannine community.
What is questionable in this approach of reconstructing the nature of the Johannine community on the basis of the text is how far one can use the specific vocabulary, scenes or events used by the fourth evangelist to reconstruct the community behind the text. We agree that the idiolect and the sociolect of the fourth gospel are mutually related because the evangelist represents and addresses a community with certain specific christological viewpoints. What Douglas observed is likely to be right, that the meaning encoded in a text is ultimately derived from a social system. Similarly, the meaning of the vocabulary and events in the fourth gospel is related to the community to whom the gospel is addressed. Malina observes this fact clearly, "words we use to say and speak do in fact embody meaning, but the meaning does not come from the words. Meaning derives from the social system of the speakers of a language."" However, in interpreting the words and the events of the text in relation to the community, one should not go after speculations. The fourth gospel is an early Christian document; therefore, one must interpret the idiolect as well as the sociolect of the gospel, primarily within the parameters of the early Christian documents in the NT. For example, the tension between the synagogue and the Christians is not exclusive to the fourth gospel, therefore other NT texts also must have a say in determining the sociolect of that event.
From the Community to the Text: An Expelled Community
The second approach attempts to read the text in the light of certain specific historical issues that are believed to have occurred in the Johannine community. J. L. Martyn proposed that the gospel of John could be read as 'a two level drama. '12 On one level it reflects the ministry of Jesus whereas on the other level, it reflects the setting within which it was written. In other words, the interpretive strategy is "to see with the eyes and hear with the ears of that
[Johannine] community and to sense at least some of the crises that helped to shape the life of its members."1" As Reinhartz points out, Martyn interpreted Jesus' healing of the man born blind in Jn 9 "not only as a healing miracle of Jesus but also as a story of a Christian preacher engaged in a controversy with the Jewish leadership of his time. Martyn's theory was an 'epoch-making landmark' in Johannine exegesis. He observes three stages in the evolution of the Johannine community: (i) The early period, in which "the Christian Jews" follow the teachings of Jesus the Messiah and maintain their place in the Jewish synagogues. (ii) The middle period, in which the new messianic community of "the Christian Jews" begin to be viewed suspiciously by other Jews, and are ultimately expelled from the synagogue with the reformulation of the Birkat ha-Minim." (iii) The later period, in which there arose several internal divisions within the community, like the crypto-Christians and the 'other sheep (cf. 10:16). Martyn believes the purpose of the fourth gospel is to strengthen the community, which is confronted with severe persecution from the Jews. 18 Martyn interprets the thrice-repeated reference to ἀποσυναγώγος (= expulsion from the synagogue 9:22; 12:42; 16:2) passages in the fourth gospel, which are unparalleled in the synoptics, as a clue to the Sitz im Leben of the Johannine community. The sole basis for Martyn's hypothesis is the so-called historic expulsion of the Christians from the Synagogue.
Following Martyn's hypothesis, Brown observes four phases in the formation of the Johannine community: (i) The pre-gospel era, in which there arose controversies between the Jewish Christians and the Jews. (ii) The gospel era (around 90AD), in which the tension between the two groups resulted in the expulsion of the Jewish Christians from the synagogue. (iii) The era in which the epistle was written (around 100AD), which is characterised by the internal divisions in the community. (iv) The final phase, in which the internal squabbles were dissolved. The Johannine community, according to Brown, is constantly confronted by several negative factors, such as "the world," which represents the "gentile disbelief" and the "Jews" who represent the authorities who executed the Jamnian expulsion. Besides, he names three more groups of non-Johannine Christians: 20 (i) the crypto-Christians, who maintain a double allegiance to Judaism and Christianity out of 'the fear of the Jews, (ii) Certain other
Christians who were expelled from the Synagogues, but who do not belong to the Johannine community and (iii) the Christians of other apostolic churches. According to Martyn and Brown, even though the Johannine community was at ease with the Jews in the beginning and was participating in synagogue worship, slowly there arose a tension between the Jews and the Christians, which resulted in latter's expulsion from the synagogue.
According to scholars, two types of expulsions were practiced as part of the Jewish discipline: (i) Thirty days expulsion - which was used against those pronouncing the divine name and those bearing witness against Jews in non-Jewish courts. (ii) Exclusion from the congregation-the exclusion from the national and religious fellowship of the Jews. It is argued that the ἀποσυναγώγος references in the fourth gospel (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) belongs to the second group of expulsion.22 Martyn construes these passages as a reflection on the Jamnian revision of the twelfth benediction Amidah. Many of the anti-Jewish statements in the gospel, according to Martyn, are a consequence of this expulsion.
The contours of this hypothesis can be traced back to certain nineteenth century studies on the fathers of the church, which pointed out evidence from the patristic writings to the total separation that existed between the early Christians and the Jews. The main references about the Jewish-Christian revolt recorded by Justin Martyr are the following: (i) The Jews curse the believers of Christ in their synagogues (Dialogue 16 – καὶ ὅσον ἐφ᾿ ὑμῖν ἀτιμάζητε καταρώμενοι ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν τοὺς πιστεύοντας ἐπί τὸν Χριστόν). (ii) "You may not blaspheme (§35, 549 - μὴ βλασφημή τε) Jesus." (iii) There is no hope for those who anathemise Christians in the synagogue (§47, 577- καί ἐπί τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ πιστεύοντας πρὶν τελευτῆς τοῦ βίου οὐ σωθήσεσθαι ὁμοίως ἀποφαινωμαι καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καταναθεματίσαντας). (iv) The high priests and Jewish leaders have defamed Christ and Christians (§117,718 – Οὗ τὸ ὅνομα βεθηλωθῆ ναι οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ διδάσκαλοι εἰγράσαντο). These repeated references to the mockery against Christians in the Jewish synagogues are often argued as evidences for the total separation between Christians and the Jews. 26 Before inferring such conclusions we should not fail to take into account the temporal disparity between the fourth gospel and the Dialogue with Trypho.
Expulsion (ἀποσυναγωγός) Theory is Criticised
Various Johannine scholars accepted Martyn's theory without question until recently. A majority of the Johannine studies that discussed the anti-Judaism of the fourth gospel based their arguments on the "historical event" of the expulsion from the synagogue (ἀποσυναγωγός), suggested by Martyn. However, many scholars now look at this thesis as "unproved" and "unconvincing. Today the scholars have at least began to accept that the question whether the fourth gospel can truly be read as a historical witness to the expulsion of the Johannine community from the synagogue is disputable. In fact, scholars made little attempt to investigate the historical veracity of this thesis. Therefore, we must analyse the historicity as well as the significance of this event within the narrative framework of the fourth gospel. Several significant objections can be raised against this theory.
As a primary objection, one can notice that there is no literary parallel to the genre of "two-level drama," neither in the classical Greek literature, nor in the Hellenistic/Jewish literature contempor-aneous to the fourth gospel. In a recent study, T. Hägerland has analysed all the texts suggested by Martyn as the possible background for the "two-level literary genre" and came to the conclusion that if the fourth gospel is a two-level drama, it is a "literary work of suigeneris. "
Other Possible Interpretations
The Johannine passages that are arguably interpolated with the community issues can be interpreted otherwise. The supporters of the two-level drama theory argue that some events in the fourth gospel can be interpreted only in the history of the community and not in the life of Jesus. For example, Brown argues that Jesus' ministry among the Samaritans described in Jn 4 is historically implausible; rather it reflects the missionary activity of the Johannine community among the Samaritans." The main ground of his argument is that Jesus' Samaritan ministry is unparalleled in the synoptics, and Matthew even denies any ministry among the Samaritans (Mt 10:5b-6; 15:24). Against this view, one can argue that although Jesus' Samaritan ministry is not highlighted in the synoptics, one cannot affirm that it is totally absent there. Luke describes Jesus' passing through Samaria (9:52-53). The third evangelist consistently maintains a positive outlook on Samaritans (Lk 10:30-37; 17:12-19).32 It is wise to think that Matthew's disregard for Samaritan mission is due to his special theology, which holds the view that the salvation comes to Israel first, then to all nations (28:19). This evidence shows that Jesus' ministry in Samaria is not an exclusive invention of John. Therefore, Jn 4 is comprehensible without any allusion to a two-level drama, i.e., to the missionary work of the Johannine community.
Another example would be the so-called anachronistic texts in John described by J.L. Martyn. He finds a relation between Jn 9:4 and 14:12 and concludes that the evangelist makes no distinction between the time of Jesus and the time of the Johannine community (disciples). We will analyse this argument,
9:4a We must work the works of the one who who sent me, while it is the day (ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν)
14:12 He who believes in me will also do the works that I do and graeter works than these will he do, because I go to the father (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι).
A closer look at these verses, as we have explained before, reveals that the evangelist tries to link the continuity between the missions of Jesus and that of the disciples. There is no overlapping of time in these narratives. "No evangelist," as Robinson points out, "so clearly notes the difference between what the disciples understood at the time [of Jesus) and what the disciples came to see later through the Spirit" (cf. 2:19-22; 12:16).34 Moreover, Martyn does not pay sufficient attention to the specific Johannine style of using narrative time as a metaphor.
The "we" passages in John (1:14, 12; 3:11; 4:22; 9:4; 21:24) are often argued to point to the presupposition of the community within the mind of the author. It is true that in these "we" passages the author envisions a community or group of people who share his views. However, there is no proof in the text to conclude that the issues discussed in these passages took place during the time of the community and not of Jesus. The author may have the 'would-be readers' in his mind or these passages may be reflecting the homiletic character of the text.
Birkat Haminim )ברכת המינים( and the Expulsion
The Pharisaic Judaism of Jamnia is argued to be the foreground of the fourth gospel. 35 However, Martyn's argument that Jn 9:22 )also 12:42; 16:5) must be interpreted in the light of ברכת המינים approved by the Jamnia council is to be verified. 36 The twelfth of the eighteen benedictions reads,
And for the apostate, let there be no hope; and may the insolent kingdom be quickly uprooted, in our days. And may the Nazarenes [notzrim] and the heretics [minim] perish quickly; and may they be erased from the book of life, and may they be not inscribed with the righteous. Blessed art thou, Lord who humbles the insolent.
It is to be observed that the Cairo Geniza text contained only the word המינים )the heretics) not the word notzrim (Nazarenes = Christians). 38 The fact that the benediction was always known as Birkat ha-minim and not birkat ha-notzrim, speaks against the wide use of notzrim in the 'amidah." In order to find the specific meaning of ברכת המינים one has to understand the sense of the term המינים in the Tosefta. In Sanhedrin 10:1, there are references to the books of minim. 40 Davies argues that it cannot be the Christian scriptures, because there is no reason to think that the Christian scriptures where read in the synagogues of the first century." Moreover, some of the non-Christian beliefs are attributed to the minim: they deny the resurrection of the dead (San. 90.b) and worship idols (t. hul 1.1). Therefore, it is wise to conclude that המינים is often used in the sense of non-authentic believers (all sorts of heretics) without any specific reference to the Christians.
As R. Kimelman specifies, the ברכת המינים does not reflect a watershed in the story of conflict between Christians and the Jews of the first century. P. Van der Horst argues that the curse in Birkat ha-minim is not the cause but the effect of the ever-growing separation between the two religions." It is suggested that a formal excommunication letter was sent from Jamnia, the headquarters of Pharisaic Judaism after the destruction of the temple, to all Jewish Diaspora, giving an account of Jesus and the Christians, and insisting that there should not be any deal with the Christians.45 J. Frey raises three objections against this view: (i) The historicity of the Synod of Jamnia is disputed. (ii) The Birkat ha-minim does not speak of the expulsion of the Christians from the Jewish community, but rather prays to God to punish the heretics. (iii) The prayer is not against Christians in particular, but against all kinds of heretics.
Scholars agree that post-70 Palestinian Jews were not controlled by the Rabbinic Halakhic-system." This fact is attested by the information received from the Documentary Papyri, 48 which make it clear that there existed neither any Jewish court-system, nor any practise of social excommunication. Hence, the portrayal of the Johannine community as a minority persecuted by the powerful Jewish majority contradicts the historical facts.
Even if we accept that Birkat ha-minim was a test of faith in Rabbinic Judaism, the failure to observe it does not lead to excommunication. For the Rabbinic rule in b. Ber: 28b-29 reads,
If a reader makes a mistake in any other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if in the benediction of the minim, he is removed because we suspect him of being a Min.
The text makes it clear that one who makes mistakes while praying is removed from his post as the reader. However, he is not excluded from the community. This proceeding is only applicable to the male who reads in the synagogue, while no action is taken against the women or the slaves who do not read officially in the synagogue. Hence there is no ground to interpret the Birkat ha-minim as a proof text or an effective tool for the excommunication of Christians.
We contend that there was no officially pronounced expulsion of Christians from the Synagogue in the first century AD.50 We have to investigate whether and how the practice of expulsion from the community existed during the time of formation of the fourth gospel. In the Pentateuch traditions, the penalty of exclusion and death are pronounced on covenant breachers (Lev 26:14-39; Num 25:4-8; Dt 27:11-26; 28:15-68(. The verbs חרם and are used in these passages referring to the punishment. However, the majority, if not all, of the occurrences of these verbs in the Pentateuch are associated with death penalty. The practice of exclusion from the community is referred to in the post-exilic texts (Ezr 10:8; Neh 13:3; cf. lEsdras 9:4; 2Esdras 23:3). Here the verb בלo be divided, separate( is used to refer to the exclusion. 53 However, it is unclear whether those who attempt to enforce excommunication represent the whole community or individuals (cf. also, Ps 69:29; Isa 52:11; Ez 13:9). Even though the practice of life-long expulsion from the community existed among the sectarian groups like the Qumran community (1QS 6.24-7.25; CD 9.23), there is practically no ground to conclude that it was common among the non-sectarian Jews.
Exclusion in practice is described twice in Josephus (Anti. 11.340; 346).54 The verb used by Josephus is ἐκβεβλῆσθαι, which is usually used in the LXX for rendering the Hebrew verb שלח )piel infinitive construct, שלח = send away, let go) which is consistently used to denote the expulsion of Israelites from Egypt Cf. Ex 12:33 -Lxx - κατεβιάζοντο οἱ ;וַתְחֲזָק מִצְרִים עַל־ ה עם לְמַהֵר לְשָׁל חם מן־ ה ארץ Αἰγύπτιοι τὸν λαὸν σπουδῇ ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς γῆς; see also, Ps 44:2).55 It is significant to note that the fourth evangelist uses the verb expel (= έκβάλλω), which is used in the LXX to refer to the expulsion of Israelites by the Egyptians (e.g., Ex 6:1, 11:1; 12:33, 39),56 to refer to the exclusion of Christians from the Synagogue. Thus, the evangelist implicitly states that the second exodus under the leadership of the Messiah has already begun. This points to the fact that his reference to the expulsion from the Synagogue is more theological than historical. The Qumran community used the verb שלח )= ἐκβάλλω) to denote their self-imposed dissociation from the rest of the Jews. Accordingly, the expulsion described in the fourth gospel might also be understood as a self-imposed dissociation by the community.
Historical facts, though scattered, support this argument. The documentation regarding the synagogue ban is found only in later sources.5" Many scholars doubt the possibility of the existing practice of the synagogue ban as a public and common usage during the first century AD.58 D. R. A. Hare argues that in the second temple period the halakic vicissitude was so broad and the community structure was so loose that synagogue bans as well as other expulsions could not have been effectively agreed upon or enforced. 59 They agree on the fact that no measure of expulsion from the Jewish communion was known before AD 70.60 The discussion of the expulsion from the Jewish community, according to Maier, arises out of the false assumption that the Jewish community in the first century was an organised community like the Christian church today. 61 A.D. Crown observes,
Judaism of the second temple period was richly pluralistic -latitudinarian an amalgam of many streams of thought and practice from the Diaspora with its various languages through to the philosophical mystical ideas. It is now quite clear that Christianity in its birth century was part of that pluralism.
If the Synagogue ban comes neither at the background nor at the foreground of the fourth gospel, how can one explain the ἀποσυναγώγος passages in the fourth gospel? These texts could be easily understood in the light of other NT texts, which describe the tension between the Jews and the Christians. For example, in 1 Thes 2:14-16 Paul speaks about the expulsion of Christians,
For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen (συμφυλετῶν) the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out (έκδιωξάντων). They displease God and are hostile to all men (NAS).
It shows that the expulsion of Christians ("perverted Jews") from Judaism occurred at times, without any official declarations. 63 It is reasonable to argue that the fourth evangelist is also speaking about similar particular local expulsions. Many scholars agree that the separation described in Jn 9 is only of a particular locality and not a widespread policy pronounced by a central authority.
The Text Contradicts the Expulsion Theory
The whole hypothesis of Martyn is built exclusively on three passages (9:22; 12:42; 16:4). Reinhartz refers to the story of Mary and Martha in the fourth gospel to disclose the bias of the two-level drama theory. According to the two-level theory, Martha and Mary must represent the Johannine Christians. Nevertheless, the text shows that they are not excluded from the Jewish community, but supported by them (11:19; 12:11). One cannot argue that the Jews came to the family of Lazarus without knowing their affinity to Jesus, because the Jews lamented Jesus' lateness to visit the family of Lazarus (11:37). If there existed an official declaration for expelling Christians from the community, the presence of the Jews would have been impossible. On the basis of this textual contradiction Reinhartz demands a re-examination of the expulsion theory.
The verb ὑπάγω (= depart) in 12:11, according to Reinhartz, cannot be interpreted as a hint to excommunication, because throughout the gospel this verb invariably indicates a voluntary departure rather than forcible exclusion.65 Martyn points out that the verb ὁμολογέω (= speak similarly) is used in the aposynagos passages of 9:22 and 12:42, which, according to him, means that the expulsion is related to the confession of faith in Jesus. Against this, Reinhartz argues that it is not for confessing the faith in Jesus but for acknowledging Jesus' role in the healing of their son that the parents of the blind man feared expulsion (9:22). Moreover, the authorities expelled the man born blind from the synagogue (9:34) before he makes his confession of faith in Jesus (9:38). As de Jonge argues, "the conflict is most likely the literary invention of the evangelist in order to explicate why those who had actually come to believe in Jesus did not openly profess their faith."
Reinhartz further argues that the historical claims, especially the eyewitness claims of the gospel (19:35; 21:24; cf. 20:31), contradict any attempt to read the gospel as a two-level drama. Moreover, many events in the gospel are presented as the fulfilment of prophecies (e.g., 12:12-16; 19:24); Jesus' own words are treated as prophecies fulfilled in his own lifetime (18:32). All these are said to be fulfilled, not in the lifetime of the Johannine community, but in the life of the historical Jesus. Therefore Reinhartz is of the opinion that the earliest readers viewed the gospel primarily as historical tale rather than ecclesiological tale, the story of their community as such. With regard to the exclusion passages, she writes,
First the exclusion passages would have been read primarily in their context in the story of Jesus. Second, these events would have been incorporated into the self-understanding of the community and would have been used in their reflections on their spiritual journey as well as their situation in the world.
She argues that the anachronism of the "expulsion" during the lifetime of Jesus is obvious only to the modern minds; the intended readers were oblivious to this discrepancy. She is of the opinion that the anti-Jewish potentials in the fourth gospel can be part of the ideological agenda of the evangelist, who wanted to safeguard his faithful from turning back to Judaism and losing their unique faith in Jesus the Messiah and the Son of God, rather than the historical experience of the community. It is reasonable to argue that as a part of this ideological agenda, the evangelist radicalised his stance that accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God is the only way to maintain a covenantal relationship with God. The evangelist demands them not only to believe in Jesus but also to do away with 'the Jewish world,' that opposes Jesus. As W. Meeks phrases it,
Now their becoming detached from the world, in the gospel, is identical with their being detached from Judaism. Those figures who want to believe in Jesus but to remain within Jewish community and the Jewish piety are damned with the most devastatingly dualistic epithets... Coming to faith in Jesus is for the Johannine group a social change in social location. Mere belief without the joining the Johannine community, without making the decisive break with "the world," particularly with the world of Judaism is a diabolic "lie.
To conclude, both approaches that we described above (from text to the community and from community to the text) presuppose that the fourth gospel primarily deals with the community (church) rather than the life of Jesus. However, it should not be disregarded that the evangelist never uses the term church (ἐκκλησία) in his gospel while he frequently uses the term disciples (μαθήτης), which means that he is primarily describing the situation of Jesus' lifetime and not of the church. Moreover, in these approaches the symbolic role of the disciples is esteemed over the historical role of the disciples during the lifetime of Jesus. The scholars who hold this literary-critical view allow little room for the events in the life of the historical Jesus. Besides, they pay little attention to the distinction in the understanding of the disciples before and after the resurrection. Therefore, we have to understand the Johannine notion of the disciples and community within the parameters of the text.
The Community or the Disciples?
The reasons for "the expulsion from the synagogue" are inconclusive. Scholars argue that the Johannine community's 'high' christology," their acceptance of the non-Jewish converts, differing attitudes regarding the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD,73 and their sacramental insistence74 may have played a considerable role in their expulsion from the synagogues. We notice that it is the specific christology of the fourth gospel that gave rise to the other suggested problems such as the Gentile mission, non-cooperation in the revolt and sacramental insistence.
Brown divides the christological titles in the fourth gospel into two classes: titles of "low christology" (title from Jewish scriptures -Messiah, prophet, servant, Lord, Son of Man) and of "high christology" (the Son, the Son of God, the One equal to God, exalted use of 'the Lord').75 According to him, the Synagogue officials had little objection to the low christology while they vehemently opposed the high christology. This argument is far from convincing because nowhere in the gospel do the Jewish leaders accept Jesus as the Messiah. They consistently refuted this claim (cf. 6:30-31; 7:26-27). Moreover, the evangelist uses both these titles together (20:31). The evangelist did not seem to grade the christological titles. John consistently argues that Jesus the Son of God is the Messiah whom the Jews expected.76 Therefore, the argument that the 'high christology' caused the division is not credible.
Many of the christological titles in the fourth gospel do not come under this classification. Johannine christological titles, as Dodd points out, represent the complex character of the Johannine community." The gospel indicates that people from all walks of life became the μαθηταί/believers of Jesus: The Jews, the Samaritans, the Greeks and so forth. In fact, it is reasonable to think that the various titles in the fourth gospel reflect the various soteriological notions of the different groups of believers. The Jewish titles such as the Messiah, the king of Israel, the Lamb of God, the Holy One of God, the Son of Man, etc., the Samaritan notion of the 'saviour of the world, the Hellenistic titles logos and the Sent One of God, are all part of Johannine christology. However, while maintaining the various christological titles, the evangelist tries to incorporate all these titles under one notion that Jesus is the Son of God. The title Messiah is redefined as the Son of God (20:31- ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). For John, these are not two separate titles but one title. The Messiah who came in the person of Jesus is the Son of God. All the other titles in John are presented as highlighting one or other aspects of this unique title, which meticulously unveils Jesus' exceptional relationship with God. This functions as the unifying title of all believers. 80 Therefore the Johannine christology is not an exclusive christology, it admits place for plurality of notions which are eventually incorporated into the fundamental notion, i.e., Jesus is the Son of God.
Therefore we prefer to argue that the different titles reflect the inclusive character of the believers/disciples intended in the gospel. It would be unwise to number the communities involved, on the basis of various christological titles. Hence we consider that the term disciples/believers would be a better choice than 'community' (school or circle) to designate the immediate audience of the gospel. It becomes evident from the seemingly contrasting use of the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί) and the Jews (oi ᾿Ιουδαῖοι) in the text. Though the evangelist presents the disciples and the Jews as antonyms to highlight the tension between 'the Jews' and 'the disciples' in the gospel, a deeper analysis of the text reveals the fact that, for John, the disciples are the true Jews.
Introduction
The intimate relationship between God and man is evident right from the beginning of creation, where man and woman are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27). This relationship is expressed through different imageries and literary expressions both in the OT and in the NT. The concept of "friend of God" is such an expression and it was already rooted in the ancient Greek Philosophy besides in the Sacred Scriptures. The Greek word used to express such a friendship is philos which is used by various Greek Philosophers and especially by Plato (cf. Leges, IV, 716 CD) and Aristotle (cf. Ethica Nicomachea, VIII, 7,4f.). The Greek OT (LXX) employs the term philos times in its various nuances in the context of depicting human friendship and divine-human friendship. In the OT there are certain texts which present the divine-human relationship in terms of friendship. Abraham and Moses are presented as the friends of God by employing the term philos (Gen 18:17; Ex 33:11; Num 12,8; Deut 34:10) where the reciprocity of friendship is verified by a total revelation on the part of God and an exemplary faith and obedience on the part of Abraham and Moses. The idea of "friends of God" is also expressly mentioned in the Wisdom Literature and in the Inter-Testamental Literature.
Coming to the NT usage of the term philos, except in the case of the Fourth Gospel, almost all texts speak about a natural human relationship rather than a divine-human relationship. In the context the Fourth Gospel the term philos has a deep theological connotation as a designation for the Jesus-disciple relationship in the sense of divine-human friendship. The present article is to expose the theological content of the term philos in the Fourth Gospel.
Reciprocal Dimension of the Term Philos
The term philos itself has a reciprocal connotation. The reciprocal aspect of the term can be understood in two levels, viz. the level of literary application and the level of theological content. The Fourth Evangelist never employs the term philos with reference to Jesus, rather he uses it as a designation for the Christian disciples in the context of their relationship with Jesus (cf. Jn 3:29; 11:11; 15:13-15). Hence, the reciprocity of philos in the Fourth Gospel must be traced in its theological content rather than in its literary application.
The reciprocity in the theological content of the term is more evident in the Fourth Evangelist's usage. In the context of the metaphor of "the friend of the bridegroom" the Evangelist clearly presents the reciprocal dimension of the term philos. The friendship between the bridegroom and his friend at the level of metaphor and between Jesus and John the Baptist at the level of its application involves an evident reciprocity in their interpersonal relationship. In the second occurrence of the term in Jn 11:11 the aspect of reciprocity is well depicted in the context of the entire pericope. The words and deeds of the main characters and the comments of the bystanders and of the Evangelist illustrate the different reciprocal expressions of the friendship between Jesus and the Bethany family. The reciprocal dimension of the term philos is highlighted in the pericope (Jn 15:1-17), where Jesus teaches on the theme of unity and friendship. In vv. 13.14.15 philos is repeatedly used in its double dimension. The reciprocal relationship is depicted through the imagery of the vine and branches. So also the relationship between the Father and the Son is presented as the model and source of the reciprocal relationship between Jesus and His disciples. The friendship between Jesus and the believer is illustrated as a reciprocal "remaining in" which involves Jesus' initiative in the friendship through revelation and self-sacrifice and the believer's response through obedience, love, faith and trust." Thus the term philos denotes a reciprocity in its theological content.
Philos: A Term for the Divine-Human Relationship
The terms philos and philein are generally understood as vocabulary depicting affectionate human relationship. 10 But their use in the course of history proves that they cannot be simply limited to explain affectionate love among human beings. From early time philos and its derivatives are used also to illustrate divine-human relationship.
Unlike Luke the Fourth Evangelist employs the term philos mainly to depict the divine-hman friendship. Out of the six occurrence of the term in the Gospel of John with the exception of a single instance (19:12) all the five usages illustrate the intimacy between Jesus and others. In all such cases philos is used to explicate a relationship which surpasses human friendship based on psychological aspects. Therefore, one can legitimately say that the Fourth Evangelist adopts the term to portray the friendship between the divine Jesus and the genuine Christian followers.
Philos: A Term for the Master-Disciple Relationship
In the Fourth Gospel philos is used not to illustrate a relationship between two equals, but it expresses a friendship between Jesus, who is superior and master and a believer, who is an authentic Christian disciple. The superiority of Jesus can be understood from the point of view of His divinity, i.e., His unique revelatory role and His divine Sonship. So also, the Christian discipleship of all those who enjoy a friendship with Jesus is stressed in all the texts where the Evangelist employs the term philos. As authentic Christian disciples, the friends of Jesus verify in their lives the essential characteristics of Christian discipleship such as faith, love, obedience and witnessing.
The Superiority of Jesus
Jesus: the Unique Revealer
In the context of the friendship between Jesus and others explicated through the term philos the Fourth Evangelist presents Jesus as the supreme revealer of the Father who gives testimony concerning the divine realities. The revelatory role of Jesus is one of the essential elements, which shows the nature of Jesus' friendship. Jesus' figure as Messiah and bridegroom presupposes His revelatory role in relation to the New Israel and the friend of the bridegroom. The term phonç in Jn 3:29 is interpreted as Jesus' authentic testimony including His Father's precepts." Moreover, within the context of the metaphor of the friend of the bridegroom St. John emphasizes Jesus' superiority in terms of His revelatory role (Jn 3:32.34).
The revelatory role of Jesus is an important element also in the friendship between Jesus and the Bethany family. The entire narrative of the Lazarus episode is a process of Jesus' divine revelation through words and deeds which culminates in the sign of Lazurus' raising. Accordingly the intimacy between Jesus and the Bethany family finds expression in Jesus' superiority as a unique revealer of His Father. Further, in the allegory of the vine and branches Jesus teaches about the fact and need of Jesus-disciple friendship. The Johannine Jesus presents His revelatory role as the fundamental reason for His calling the disciples "friends" (Jn 15:15). In the Context of John 15:15 the Evangelist presents Jesus as the master who shares His divine knowledge with His disciples in contrast with a master who does not share his plans with his servants. Hence, the friendship between Jesus and His disciples can be understood as a master-disciple relationship since Jesus' superiority as the unique revealer of the Father is highlighted.
Jesus: the Son of God
Jesus' divine origin is another element of His superiority emphasized by the Evangelist in the context of the friendship between Jesus and the believers as expressed through the term philos. The Father-Son relationship is well developed to express the nature of Jesus-disciple relationship which sheds light on the theological content of the term philos. By referring to Jesus' divine Sonship in the context of the friendship between Jesus and the believer St. John illustrates the nature of that friendship as a master-disciple relationship.
The pericope concerning the intimate relationship between Jesus and the Baptist expressed through the term philos stresses the divinity of Jesus as one who came from heaven (Jn 3:31) and as the beloved of the Father (Jn 3:35).14 So also, Jesus who is portrayed as the friend of the Bethany family appears as the Son of God with divine power. The expressions of Jesus' friendship with Martha, Mary and Lazarus have also divine characteristics. Throughout the narrative there are references to Jesus' divinity (cf. Jn 11: 4.40.41.42) which is more evident in the effective performance of the sign for the sake of Lazarus, Jesus' philos. Thus, the friendship between Jesus and the Bethany family has the divine characteristic which affirms Jesus' superiority as the Son of God.
Jesus' superiority based on His divine Sonship is more evident in the context of the mashal of the vine and branches (Jn 15:1-17). Jesus presents Himself as the vine cultivated by the Father (Jn 15:1). He portrays Himself as the beloved Son of the Father (vv.9-10). Jesus' continuous remaining in the love of the Father is an expression of a close interpersonal relationship between the Father and the Son. The answering of the disciples' prayer is also guaranteed on the basis of Jesus' divine Sonship (vv.7.16). It is the divine Sonship of Jesus which enables Him to hear everything fom His Father and to communicate the same to His disciples (v.15). Hence the genuine friendship which the Johannine Jesus establishes with His followers has the divine quality since it denotes a master-disciple relationship involving Jesus' divinity and the qualities of believers as disciples.
In short, one can say that the figure of Jesus which the Fourth Evangelists portrays in the context of Jesus' friendship with others is superior in nature. Such a superiority of Jesus is illustrated through His divine origin and His revelatory role. Thus, Jesus' intimacy with others depicted through the term philos surpasses human criteria for friendship since Jesus' superiority is well expressed in the Johannine presentation of Jesus-disciple friendship which is a master-disciple relationship.
The Characteristics of Jesus' Friends
The Fourth Evangelist presents the friendship between Jesus and believers in the context of certain pericopes where certain characters are portrayed as Jesus' friends. The friendship explicated through the term philos in the Fourth Gospel is a master-disciple relationship. Those who are presented as friends of Jesus fulfil in themselves the following characteristics of Christian discipleship.
Faith
The theme of friendship which John develops by using the term philos expresses one's relationship with Christ based on faith in His person and teaching. John the Baptist who presents himself as the friend of Jesus, the bridegroom, was in possession of a deep faith in and knowledge of Christ. It is his faith in Christ which makes him an authentic witness of Jesus who leads many towards Him.
So also, the characteristics of faith and trust in Jesus, the essential qualities of genuine Christian disciples, are clearly manifested in the lives of the members of the Bethany family. The words and deeds of Martha and Mary express their deep faith and trust in their divine Master, which is evident in the redactional level of the Gospel. The sending of the message (Jn 11:3), the words of grief uttered by Martha and Mary to Jesus (Jn 11:21.32), Martha's confession of her supreme faith in Jesus (Jn 11:27) etc. are specific and concrete expressions of their deep faith and trust in Jesus Christ through words. Considering their deeds, the action of Martha and Mary to meet Jesus on the way to Bethany, Mary's prostration at Jesus' feet etc. are manifestations of their faith in their master. Lazarus who was raised from the dead can be considered as a symbol of every believer to whom Jesus promises a life after death (Jn 11:25-27). Keeping of commandments, a necessary requirement to enter into a friendship with Jesus, presupposes deep faith in Him who commands. 20 Hence, the disciples' friendship with Jesus on their part, is a relationship based on a life of faith. In short, the term philos in the Fourth Gospel includes the aspects of faith when it is used to depict the friendship between Jesus and a Christian disciple.
Love
In the Johannine presentation love is another quality of Jesus' friends which is a characteristic of Christian discipleship. John the Baptist's supreme love towards Jesus helps him to understand the great success of Jesus as a divine gift (Jn 3:27) and to rejoice in the spiritual marriage of the new people of God with Jesus, the bridegroom (Jn 3:29). In the context of the metaphor love is the binding force of relationship between the bridegroom and the friend of the bridegroom. The love-relationship between Jesus and the Bethany family is expressly manifested throughout the dramatic presentation of the pericope. The Evangelist's description of Mary's anointing of Jesus is interpreted as her love and concern for Jesus. The reference to Jesus' love towards the members of the Bethany family (Jn 11:3.5.36) presupposes a genuine reciprocal love on their part. Moreover, the words and deeds of Martha and Mary are expressions of their genuine love towards Jesus besides their faith response.
In the context of the mashal of the vine and branches Jesus exhorts His disciples to remain in His love which has a double dimension, i.e. Jesus' love towards the disciples and the disciples' love towards Jesus. 22 The model and source of the love-relationship between Jesus and His disciples is nothing but the love between the Father and the Son. The keeping of Jesus' commandments is the means to remain in His love. It is possible by practicing mutual love which is the hallmark of Christian discipleship and the pre-requisite for the disciples' friendship with Jesus.
Obedience
Obedience is another quality of discipleship considered as an essential requirement for the disciples' friendship with Jesus in the context of the Johannine use of the term philos. John the Baptist, taking the role of the friend of the bridegroom, fulfilled the characteristic of complete submission and obedience to Jesus, the bridegroom. The Evangelist presents the Baptist as one who stands and hears Jesus' voice, which expresses the Baptist's obedient nature. Jesus' friendship with the Bethany family verified a response of obedience on the part of its members. Since faith and obedience are interrelated elements in the Fourth Gospel the faith of the Bethany family highlighted in the Johannine presentation includes their response of obedience to Christ's words. Lazurus' coming out of the tomb with bandage is considered as the symbolic expression of his obedience to Jesus' voice.
In the context of Jesus' teaching on the theme of friendship in the mashal of the vine and branches, obedience is characterized as the sole requirement to respond to Jesus' friendship (Jn 15:14).26 The disciples are asked to keep Jesus' commandment of fraternal mutual love to become Jesus' friends. Jesus presents His obedience to His Father as the model and source of the believers keeping of His commandments. Thus, the disciples become Jesus' friends only through a life of obedience. In short, the characteristic of obedience is essential to Christian discipleship and a necessary requirement for the friendship between Jesus and disciples.
Witnessing
Another characteristic of a Christian discipleship which we see in the lives of those who enter into friendship with Jesus is their witnessing role (marturia). John the Baptist who identifies himself with friend of the bridegroom, Jesus, fulfils the witnessing role in a profound manner. In the Johannine presentation John the Baptist is portrayed as Christ's authentic witness who was sent before Him to give testimony to many about Jesus. Giving testimony to one's own unique Christ-experience is the real mission of disciple. This mission is perfectly fulfilled already in the life of John the Baptist since he is the greatest witness to Christ, one whose testimony and confession of faith enable others to come to faith in the Johannine Christ.
In the episode of the raising of Lazurus, Jesus' friendship with the members of the Bethany family calls for a reciprocal response in terms of their witnessing role. The total dependence on Jesus' divine power which leads to the performance of the sign of raising Lazurus has a witnessing aspect since many believed in Jesus on account of Lazurus (Jn 11:45; 12:11).
The fraternal mutual love expected in the context of Jesus-disciple friendship has a witnessing quality since Jesus considers it as a distinguishing mark of Christian discipleship (cf Jn 13:35). Martyrdom is an effective means of witnessing and is considered as the greatest expression of friendship (Jn 15:13). Even the bearing of lasting fruits is the fulfilment of the disciples' witnessing of intimate union with Christ (Jn 15:16).
In short, one can conclude that the Fourth Evangelist's use of the term philos depicts a relationship between Jesus who enjoys superiority due to His revelatory role and divine Sonship, and a disciple who fulfils the essential characteristics of Christian discipleship. Accordingly philos designates a master-disciple relationship.
Philos: A Designation for the Jesus-Disciple Relationship
An exegetico-theological analysis of the term philos in the Fourth Gospel prompts us to arrive at the conclusion that the Evangelist reserves the term to explain the Jesus-disciple relationship. The Johannine originality in the use of philos however does not deny certain points of similarity with pre-Johannine use of the term. There are many points of convergence between the Fourth Evangelist and other biblical and non-biblical authors regarding the use of the term philos. The idea of revelation and sharing of knowledge is intrinsically connected with the theme of friendship from antiquity. The aspect of communication between the partners in friendship is already developed by the Greek Philosophers. In the OT, revelation and sharing of knowledge are considered as essential elements in human and divine-human friendship. John also develops revelation as a characteristic element in the context of Jesus-disciple relationship.
The reciprocal response on the part of the partners in friendship is another aspect of similarity one finds both in Johannine and non-Johannine use of the term philos. The divine initiative in friendship characterised by the term philos is a common element in the OT and in the Fourth Gospel. In the OT Abraham was called (εκλτη) the friend of God; in the Gospel of John Jesus addresses His disciples and Lazarus as His own friends (Jn 11:11; 15:15). The connection between friendship and self-sacrifice is evident in ancient Greek literature and in John (Jn 15:13).
In his conception of the term philos John has striking similarities with Luke. In the Fourth Gospel and in Luke one finds the correlation between friendship and joy (cf. Lk 15:6.9.29; Jn 3:29; 15:11). The connection between friendship and martyrdom can be seen as another point of similarity between Lucan and Johannine thought (cf. Lk 12:4; Jn 15:13; 21:18-19). Moreover, both the Lucan and Johannine Jesus calls His disciples friends (philoi) (cf. Lk 12:4; Jn 15:15).
In spite of all the above mentioned similarities, one finds certain uniqueness in the Johannine understanding of the term philos in the Fourth Gospel. For John philos is a highly theological term since it is used to depict a master-disciple relationship. Only a genuine Christian disciple is eligible to be called Jesus' friend. Thus in the Fourth Gospel the term philos is a designation par excellence for the Jesus-disciple relationship.
Conclusion
Friendship is usually understood as a concept that is established among equals. However, we have already seen in our investigation that God enters in an intimate relationship with human beings in terms of friendship. The term used to depict such a relationship is philos or its linguistic equivalents. The term philos is used with its literary and theological nuances right from the time of Greek Philosophers. Its theological nuances are evolved in its later usage in the OT, Inter-testament and NT literature. Unlike in other locations, the Fourth Evangelist uses it with his own unique theological perspective. St. John uses the term philos six times in his Gospel and except in its usage in Jn 19:12 all other instances speak of a theological implication of the term, applied to indicate an intimate friendship between Jesus and the disciples. It is not a friendship visualized among equals, but a friendship between Jesus, who is superior with His divinity and the Christian believer, who is a disciple with his specific characteristics. It is reciprocal in its nature, in the sense of mutual obligations pertained to a master-disciple relationship. For John philos is a term reserved to depict a divine-human relationship verified in the relationship between Jesus and a believer. As a result it is an invitation opened to any Christian disciple to enter into a friendship with Jesus at any moment of his/her life.
'The way' is a significant usage in the biblical tradition, espe-cially in the New Testament. The use of the term 'the way' that we find in the Gospel of John deserves our special attention and careful analysis, as it stands the most significant one of Jesus' seven Ego Eimi statements. Johannine understanding of 'the way' brings out certain profound meaning and implications of the theme, 'the way' in the NT. Therefore, we try to explore the background, content and various observations of the Johannine usage of the term in the following lines to have deeper insights into the theme.
Jesus as "The Way" in the Gospel of John
The Synoptic tradition employs the term 'the Way' in various contexts, but Luke-Acts particularly develops it theologically and applies to the ministry of Jesus, in turn, to the infant Church. Now it is noteworthy that in the Gospel of John he hodos- 'the way', is applied to the person of Jesus in a special and absolute manner that is unique in the NT. The information on the departure of Jesus is not known to the disciples and therefore they do not know the way. Then Jesus reveals to them a great truth dispelling the ignorance expressed by Thomas, the disciple, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6). Hence, Jesus is presented here as 'the way' very clearly with a specific intention.
Background to the Johannine Presentation of Jesus as "The Way"
As the word hodos is used here in the absolute sense as a personification of Jesus himself, it is quite reasonable to raise the question: What must be the motivating factor for the evangelist to use this important metaphor "way"? There is difference of opinion regarding this issue among the biblical scholars. Bultmann and some others hold the view that John must have been influenced by the symbolic usage of the rich Gnostic materials. They believe that Gnostic ideas and images might have influenced John here, as in the case of the related metaphor of the door in the chapter-10, where almost the comparable material in other religion is similar. Rudolf Schnackenburg who holds almost this view suggests that John must have been also led by the inner logic from the theme of the goal and the image of the paternal house to which Jesus takes his disciples. These authors say that the OT expressions on the way are insuffi-cient to prepare the background which can influence the Johannine thought that presents Jesus as the way to the Father. But, at the same time, many other biblical scholars try to prove the Judaistic and OT influence on the Johannine concept of 'the Way'.
Biblical authorities like W. Michaelis and De la Potterie, Point out that John's concept of the way is not really spatial in the same way as the Gnostic concepts are spatial. So also the Gnostic concep-tion of the redeemer as leader and guide finds no echo in the vocabu-lary of John. Instead, the predominant thought here is that of an at-tachment to the person of Jesus in the sense of commitment to the faith. Raymond E. Brown, a great authority on John, makes a me-ticulous study of the Johannine concept of the Way and brings for-ward certain reasonable OT influence on this issue. According to him Judaism provides sufficient materials to interpret Jahannine in-fluence in presenting Jesus as the way; the truth and the life. "In OT passages (Ps. 119:30; Tob.1:3; Wis. 5:6) 'the way of truth' is a way of life in conformity with the law. Psalm 86:11, puts 'way' and 'truth' in parallelism: 'teach me your way, O Lord that I may walk in truth.'
We note that in these OT texts there is no question of a way to truth, as found in the Gnostic writings; rather the way is the way of truth and this seems closer to John's meaning."" We find some eschatological overtones also in certain OT passages just as a background reflec-tion of the revelatory and eschatological statement in Jn. 14:6. "The wise man's way leads upward to life that he may avoid sheol below" (Prov. 15:24). Ps. 16:11 says that the way of life is revealed by God to man and it comes close to combining John's three notions: way, truth and life."
Some say that there is no example of the absolute use of "the way" in the OT as an objection for finding the background of Johannine concept of the way in Judaism. But with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we can dispense with this objection, for the Qumran community designated itself absolutely as "the way" (ha derek). Sydney Temple is of the opinion that "the life situation for Jesus' life and words is just what the Qumran texts have provided in the case of the reports included in the forth Gospel."" We understand from the Qumran texts that those who became the members of the community were known as "those who have chosen the way" and those who apostatized were "those who turn aside from the way." The Christian community which has resembled the Qumran group in some basic practices and organizations seems to have taken for it-self the term "way" as a designation (acts 9:2; 19:9 etc.). Therefore, considering the above facts we can reasonably think that Jn.14:6 reflects this entire chain of usage of the imagery of "the way", origi-nating in the OT, modified by a sectarian Jewish thought illustrated at Qumran and finally adopted by the Christian community as a self-designation.
We must also take into consideration that it is not unusual for the Johannine Jesus to take terminology once applied to Israel and subsequently adopted by the Christian community and to apply it to himself. For example, if the Christian community is the temple in Paul (Eph. 2: 19-21; 1Pet. 2:5), for John Jesus himself is the temple (Jn.2:21). The imagery of the sheepfold and the vineyard, applied in the OT to Israel and in the synoptic Gospels to the kingdom of God, is applied in John to Jesus, the shepherd and wine. The same method seems to be applied by John in calling Jesus, "the way" rather than Christian Community. So too, if John the Baptist came to make straight "the way of the Lord", his mission in the Johannine view was reveal Jesus to Israel (Jn. 1:23, 31) for, Jesus is the only way given to all men by God himself.
Therefore, after having made a close observation and evalua-tion of the various facts and different opinions of the scholars, we come to the conclusion that the Johannine presentation of Jesus as "the way" must have been directly or at least indirectly influenced by Judaism or the OT usage of 'the way'.
Analysis of the Text: John 14:6
Context
In John Chapter 14, the change of narratives to the second person plural shows clearly that a discourse addressed by Jesus to all disciples, but it continuous as far as 14:13, the closing words in vv.25-3, indicating that it is a farewell discourse. Just as Jesus' 'soul' was disturbed in the hour on the Mount of Olives (12:27), so also must the announcement of his departure have been confused the disciples. Moreover, this feeling must have been doubled by the announcement of Peter's denial. Jesus tried to help the disciple to overcome their confusion and therefore, admonished them to be steadfast in their hearts. The revelatory statement in v.6 that dominates the whole beginning section should be read and analyzed in connection with the admonition to faith."
As a result of the statement about the "father's house" made by Jesus, the goal should be clear to the disciples, but there is still an aspect of warning: "Believe in me"! If they have to reach the goal the disciples should continue to cling to Jesus and remain united with him through faith, though they may outwardly be getting separated from him." This demand and idea of "believing" expressed at the beginning (vv.1-4) are confirmed in the following versus (vv.8-11). Therefore, the whole section is concerned with urging the disciples to believe in Jesus.
The statement about "the way" in Jn. 14:6 grows out of the context of the beginning of the parting discourse. Here Jesus speaks about the situation in which his will be left alone. After making a programmatic statement that the disciples will reach the same goal as he himself and be united with him (14:2-3), Jesus introduces a surprising change of direction into the discourse, which goes in terms with Johannine thought. He does this by directing attention away from the goal to 'the way' itself (14:4)
Textual Analysis
It is clear from the context and wording that in 14:2a Jesus is speaking about many dwellings, not because his return to God is to be interpreted as a homecoming to the father's house, but solely and simply because these many dwellings will be at the disposal of his disciples. The Father's house and Kingdom of God cannot be seen separated entities; the entry of the disciples into the Father's house takes place through Parosia. Therefore, no matter how we under-stand 14:2b in relation to 14:3, in 14:3 the emphasis is not on what the going away and the returning of Jesus will mean for himself, but on what they would mean for his disciples. Similarly, the way of Jesus in 14:6 also must refer not to his own way, but to the way of the disciples.
The answer, which Jesus gives to Thomas' uncertain question sounds like an extremely important revelation and unique statement that is valid at all times. "The question of Thomas refers to the sig-nificance of the way of Jesus for his followers, and the same time true of the answer of Jesus in v.6.15 The revelatory formula Ego Eimi is what gives the statement its majestic sound, and this expres-sion is strengthened by the three predicates. We note that there is a second predicate, joined to the first by kai in Jesus' answer to Martha in 11:25, but this (14:6) is the only text in which the third predicate also is linked with the other two.16 Here, despite the use of three predicates together the emphasis is placed entirely on the statement, "I am the way", because he hodos is repetition of the key word in v.4 and is confirmed as the only focal point by v.6b.
It is the most unusual thing to have a person described as "the way" and not as pointing people to the way or the like. But at the same time its meaning is made clearer by the additional statement that "the truth" and "the life" are also incorporated in the same per-son. When Jesus says "I am the way" he is not presenting himself as a moral guide, nor as a leader for his disciples to follow him as in Hebrews 2:10; 6:20. So also the emphasis here is differing from that of 16:13 where the Paraclete is said to guide the disciples along the way of all truth. But Jesus is presenting himself as the only avenue of salvation, in the manner of Jn. 10:9; "I am the Gate who ever enters by me will be saved." This is so because Jesus is the truth (aletheia), the only revelation of the Father who is the goal of the journey.
In calling himself the "truth" (aletheia) Jesus is not giving an ontological definition on terms of transcendentals but is describing himself in terms of his mission to men. Here "I am the truth" is to be understood in the light of 18:37: "The reason I have come into the world is to testify to truth." Truth becomes a meaningful reality only when it is revealed to people as the realization of Jesus' mission of salvation. In this context Brown writes rightly: "those who believe in Jesus as the incarnate revelation of the father, (and that is what "truth" means) receive the gift of life, so that the words of Jesus as the source of life. Therefore, it is clear that 'truth' is nothing other than believing that Jesus is the incarnate revelation of the Father.
If Jesus is the way in the sense that he is the truth and enables people to know and reach their goal, he is also the way in the sense that he is the life (zoe). Here also the description has to be under-stood in terms of his mission to men. In Jesus' mission, he is the source of eternal life for men (cf. 'vine', 'life', resurrection). Chapter 10:10 reads: "I came that they may have life and have it to the full." It shows that the destination of the way is life with the Father and this life the Father has given to the Son (v.26), and the Son alone can give it to men who believe in him (10:28).23 Complimenting to it 11:25-26 reads: "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and every one lives and believes in me will never die." Therefore, life is the eschatological existence with the Father and it is attained through Son who is the embodiment of the truth (i.e. the true way). At the same time it seems that the second clause of v. 6 onwards, especially 6b and 9b have in view Jesus' present significance for faith in the life of the disciples. This means, in a sense vv 6-11 lead us little beyond the purely eschatological goal of life. It can be considered as one of the many cases of the anticipation of eschatological events in the Johannine accounts.
Now in the light of the above analysis of v. 14:6 together with its context we realize that a sort of hendiadysis employed in the usage of the triple predicates, to explain the main concept, Jesus as "the way." Therefore, 'truth' becomes an adjective of 'the way' (i.e. the true way) and life becomes the goal of the journey (i.e. the eternal life). There are 'true ways' and 'wrong ways' before the disciples in the Johannine understanding just as the other Johannine terms light and darkness or life and death; and Jesus is now showing the dis-ciples 'the true way' during his parting discourse. It is only through believing in Jesus who is 'the true way' the believers (i.e. disciples) can reach the life. Therefore, I think it is quite right to put the state-ment (v.6) in a simple manner; namely, 'Jesus is the true way that leads to the life.'
So too, it is to be noted that when a person comes for knowing the true way, it is not simply a matter of learning and going away but one must belong to the truth (18:37). Thus Jesus remains the way always and not simply at the moment of first belief. Jesus is depicted as the true way by which men come to God; that is, the way which Jesus himself is now about to take, is the one which his followers must also tread. In short, Jesus himself goes to the Father by way of crucifixion and resurrection, and in future he is the means by which all believers die and rise. Here we note that the expression also re-minds us of the description regarding the Christian faith and life as 'the way' (Cf. Acts: 9:2; 22:4 etc.).
Walking on the Way Is 'Abiding in Jesus Christ'
In the analysis of John 14:6, it becomes very obvious that the disciples should have an intimate communion with Jesus through faith so that they can attain the ultimate goal. The disciples are expected to continue this deep communion even after his departure, though they may outwardly be compelled to be separated. The relevance and importance of faith in the person of Jesus Christ is very much emphasized and demanded in this context and thereby Jesus becomes 'the true way' leading to life. Therefore, walking on the way to-wards the eternal goal is equal to say that to have deep faith in Jesus Christ who is the incarnate revelation of the Father. A true faith in Jesus Christ invites every believer to keep up a deep communion with him or to abide in him.
Faith and Abiding in Christ according to John
In the Johannine perspective the word pisteuein - "to believe" is very important. In Jn. 20:27 two Greek words used, namely, pistos and apistos stand for believing and unbelieving respectively. Faith is basically understood as a movement, a progressing and transition according to the Johannine concept. Every demand "to believe" that we find in John has only one object and that is Jesus of Nazareth. In short, faith means a movement towards the person of Jesus Christ and this is the exclusive implication of the great reality of faith. We must understand it as an active movement towards Jesus who is the Lord and the Saviour. Therefore, coming to Jesus is the same as believing in Jesus and that is what we read in chapter 6: 35: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. "
We find again that "to see Jesus" also gives the same meaning as "to believe in Jesus." "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life"(6:40). Thus both these terms clearly emphasize experimental dimension of faith. To believe is to come to Jesus and see him and establish a personal relationship with him. In this context a disciple is understood as the one who lives a life of faith in Jesus and grows in an authentic experience of abiding in him." Thus faith and abiding in Christ are well-integrated in a person who walks on the way which is Christ himself.
The Gospel of John gives several sayings of Jesus which speak of a mystical association between believers and himself or believers and God. The most important one among them is the notion of "abid-ing in" or simply "being in" Jesus. 32 In John we find two immanent or abiding expressions, such as einai en- "to be in" and menein en- "to remain in". Both these expressions are practically synonymous ex-cept that menein en has the added note of permanence." By em-ploying these terms John explains the supernatural reality of Chris-tian life that Christ abides in us and we in him.
The term manein that we find in the Gospel of John is of great theological significance, especially for presenting the important theme of mutual abiding. The frequency of its use in Johannine writings is an indication of this fact. In NT out of the 118 occurrence of the term, John accounts for 68, while all the Synoptic together employ it only 12 times. Among the several possible meanings of the menein the two meaning that seem to be relevant to Johannine usage are 'to remain on some thing' and 'to be intimately united with someone.' But here our special interest is in the second meaning, because it clarifies further the very nature of this abiding mutual presence of God and man in which our ultimate salvation is realized on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. In Jn.15:1-17, we get the clear picture of divine immanence as a mutual abiding of Jesus and the believers which he illustrates with the help of the allegory of the vine and branches: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5). It is clear that the disciples cannot bear fruit on their own and that it is something that results, not from their merit, but from their abiding n Christ. The formula "you in me and I in you" goes beyond the metaphor of vine and branches and draws our at-tention to the disciples' special and intimate union with Christ in faith.
Conclusion
Our understanding of the Johannine concept, 'the Way' is an invitation for us to foster a deep faith in Jesus Christ. As the true way is Jesus himself we are urged to walk along this right path al-ways so that we may reach the ultimate goal of our journey. Walking on the way is properly understood as life in Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. It means the believer should keep an intimate and permanent communion with Jesus, the Risen Lord. According to John the usage, 'abiding in' (menein en), which is an expression of mutual immanence, gains a mystical nature of intimate communion with Jesus.
Coming to the Indian religious context we find men and women who commit themselves in an ongoing search for the true way that can lead them to the ultimate goal, that is, liberation or salvation. Hindu religious Scriptures teach us the tripple ways (Margas) of Moksha or liberation, Inanamarga, Karmamarga, and Bhaktimarga. Similarly, Buddhism also advocates Ashtangamarga for the attain-ment of liberation or enlightenment. It is very significant that Mar Thomma Nasranis of India who became part and parcel of the early Indian culture, have preferred to be called by the biblical name 'fol-lowers of the Way' or Margavasikal. But we need to keep in mind that the person of Jesus becomes the true way that leads to life eternal or salvation in the Gospel of John.
Human life is a pilgrimage on earth, gazing our eyes on heaven, which is our "permanent city" (Heb13:14). In this journey, we have great spiritual beacons who assist us to go forward with determination in spite of all the stress and strain of the travel and the inconceivabilities and uncertainties of the future. Very Reverend Father Mathew Vellanickal, for me (and of course, for many others), is such a 'Great Light' who guided me in innumerable ways. As a scriptural scholar and exegete, he is an unparalleled authority among the global biblical literary geniuses. In the area of Johannine scholarship, he had made some unique contributions. As a professor, he is characterized by his unassuming erudition, lucid presentation and attractive pedagogy. As a spiritual father, he is a patient listener, empathetic guide, illuminating counselor and illustrious pastor. But above all these, he is an authentic priest who configured his life perfectly to the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ. In Johannine theology, the word semeion (sign) has deep spiritual meanings and polyvalent dimensions. It means not merely some one or some thing that points out to some greater realities. Johannine sign leads us to the depth dimension of spirituality, which helps us to fathom the mystery of Jesus Christ and the soteriological implications of that mystery. It is the medium which not only carries the message, but itself becomes the message. Rev. Dr. Vellanickal stands as a sēmeion to all generations. This reflection on semeion in connection with my 'Spiritual Mentor' impels me to share some thoughts on Johannine sēmeion in this article.
John - the Gospel of Signs
Evangelist John uses the Greek word semeion which means, 'sign.' The Gospel of John is rightly called 'Gospel of Signs.' The chief concern of the evangelist in this gospel is to elucidate the signs of Jesus. For him 'sign' not only connotes the miracles of Jesus, but also any momentous actions of Jesus, which carry a penetrating spiritual reality for the life and mission of the disciples here on earth. Yet miracles have a unique place among the signs. John never calls the miracle, dynamis (wonder), which is the characteristic expression of the Synoptic gospels. John consistently calls the miracles of Jesus 'sēmeion' through out the gospel. He attaches some particular nuances to this word 'sign.'
What Is 'Sign'?
Literally 'sēmeion' (plural, 'sēmeia') means mark, sign, prodigy or portrait. The word always has to do with an object or circumstance, which makes possible or is designed to make possible a specific perception or insight. It is an object of sense perception. What is denoted can be perceived by the senses. It confirms the relevance of certain things. So it is a means of confirmation. It is an external reality, which points to some thing else. The Greek English Lexicon of the NT (BAGD) gives the following meanings to sēmeion (1) the sign or distinguishing mark by which some thing is known, token, indication (2) a sign consisting of a wonder or miracle, an event that is contrary to the usual course of nature. This may include miracle of divine origin or miracle of demonic nature (3) portents of the last days.2 C. Spicq explains 'sign' thus: "In the religious sphere, sēmeion has always meant a prodigy that is recognizable and provides proof of every one. In the NT, it is a category of miracle, together with mighty works (dynameis) and wonders (terata, Acts 2: 22; 2 Thess 2: 9; 2 Cor 12: 12; Heb 2: 4), but it retains its value as a sign or demonstration. This is how St John sees the miracles: they authenticate Jesus as the Messiah announced by the prophets."
The OT Background
The word semeion occurs in the LXX some 125 times. The main usage is in the Pentateuch and the Prophetical books. The word is mostly the translation of the Hebrew original, 'oth. In a series of instances, 'oth is closely connected with mophet (which is translated in Greek as teras, wonder). Together with 'oth, moph't is found 9 times in the book of Deuteronomy. The expression 'othoth wumophtim means God's signs and wonders (Deut 26: 8). Interestingly this phrase 'signs and wonders' appears in Jn 4: 48.
Scholars think that miracles of Exodus and prophetic symbolic actions explain the background of the semeia in the NT, especially the Johannine signs. Exodus miracles are called signs and wonders (Exod 3: 12; 4: 8-9; 7: 3; 8: 23; 10: 1-2). The book of Wisdom gives us a midrashic re-lecture of the events of Exodus (Wis chaps. 11-19). Scholars have seen some close parallels between Yahweh's signs in Exodus/Wisdom and Johannine signs.
Israel's prophets performed signs, which have deep symbolic spiritual significance (Isa 8: 1ff; 20: 3; Ezek 4: 1-3 etc). If we put Johannine signs in this comprehensive OT background, we get their judicial, prophetical, messianic and eschatological message.
Usage of Sēmeion in the NT
In the NT the term semeion occurs 73 times. John in his gospel uses the term 17 times. Mainly John refers to the miracles of Jesus by this term. He never uses dynamis, the favoured word of the Synoptic Gospels for the miracles. Omitting the word, dynamis, John uses two words, sēmeion (sign) and ergon (work) for the miracles of Jesus. Synoptics also use the word semeion but not for the miracles of Christ. They use it chiefly in two contexts: (1) unbelievers requesting a sign from Christ (Matt 12: 38-39; Mk 8: 11-12; Lk 11: 16, 29, 30); (2) the signs pertaining to the end of age (Matt 24: 3, 24, 30; Mk 13: 4, 22; Lk 21: 7,11, 25).
The Usage of Sēmeion in John
The term semeion is one of the key concepts of the Fourth Gospel. W. Nicol divides the 17 occurrences of this term in John into 4 groups: 10 (1) 7 times from the lips of Jews (2:18; 3: 2; 6: 30; 7:31; 9: 16; 10:41; 11:47); (2) 5 times as object of Jesus' perception (2:18, 23; 4: 48; 6: 2, 14); (3) 4 times in the commentary of the narrator (2:11; 4: 54; 12: 37; 20: 30); (4) once in the mouth of Jesus (6: 26)." In all these references, the context shows that semeion refers to the miracles of Christ. According to R. Schnackenburg, "The signs are important works of Jesus, performed in the sight of his disciples, miracles in fact, which of their nature should lead to faith in Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God." R. E. Brown comments: "The most characteristic Johannine use of sign is as a favourable designation for a miracle." G. Mlakuzhiyil opines: "Johannine signs are miracles, which manifest the Messianic mission of Jesus, symbolize his gift of eternal life, and thus reveal his soteriological significance." According to Cadman, "A 'sign' in St John is a sensible act of a miraculous character, which is held to be a conveying medium of a self-revelation of Jesus."
There are some other scholars who consider not only miracles, but also all significant actions of Jesus as signs. P. Riga takes Johannine signs in a wide canvas. According to him, signs are present not only in the miracles but also in the discourses and other actions of Jesus. He connects the Johannine signs with the parables of the Synoptic Gospels. Wherever we see a parabolic expression or event leading to miscomprehension and further explanation, there is a sign. We cannot agree with such a wide explanation of the semeion. Often scholars like Riga identify sēmeia and symbolic narratives of the Gospel. This is not the correct way of looking at the signs. John uses technique of misunderstanding, irony and symbolism in his Gospel. They are not to be taken as the characteristic usage of semeia of the Fourth Gospel.
The approach of C. H. Dodd to Johannine signs illumines the complex situation. According to him, "For John, a 'sign' is some thing that actually happens, but carries out a meaning deeper than actual meaning."1" He calls the first part of the Gospel as book of signs (chaps. 2-12). He divides this part into 7 sections and each section contains many signs. For example, he counts cleansing of the temple (2:13-22) and Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-16) as signs. For him, "the works of Christ are all signs of his finished work. The signs are all true, provided that he who works them is the Son of Man who was exalted and glorified through the cross. P. S. Minear considers the resurrection apparitions and the incidents narrated in connection with the resurrection of Jesus as signs. According to him, 'signs' in 20: 30 refer to the apparitions of the risen Lord to the disciples. He says that the earlier signs are wrought in the presence of the crowd (chaps. 1-12), rather than in the presence of the disciples, but signs in chap. are displayed exclusively in the presence of the disciples. C. H. Giblin thinks that signs in John include the resurrection-appearances and probably that of the vacated tomb.23 For S. M. Schneiders, even the burial cloth of Jesus, soudarion (the face veil), in Jn 20: 7 function as a sign. R. Schnackenburg opposes the counting of the resurrection appearances of Jesus as signs. For him, they are Christophanies, not 'signs' in the strict sense. For R. E. Brown, signs come only in the first part of the gospel, i.e., chaps. 1: 19-12: 50, which he calls, book of signs. The rest of the chapters (chaps. 13-20, except the epilogue, chap. 21) are called book of glory. According to Brown, signs are performed only in the public ministry of Jesus and they are contained in the book of signs. A. J. Köstenberger delineates four criteria for determining a Johannine sign: (1) it must be a symbolic work of Jesus, but need not be a miracle; (2) It must be in the arena of public revelation to the whole people and must not be a private revelation to the disciples; (3) it must point to God's glory displayed in Jesus, thus revealing Jesus as God's representative; (4) the evangelist must implicitly or explicitly identify it as a sign. He defines sign thus: "A sign is a symbol-laden, but not necessarily 'miraculous,' public work of Jesus selected and explicitly identified as such by John for the reason that it displays God's glory in Jesus, who is thus shown to be God's true representative.
Among these various views among the scholars, it is very difficult to opt for any particular opinion, since we do not find any clear cut criteria of determining the signs in the Johannine gospel. However taking into account of the polyvalent language of the Fourth Gospel and the multifaceted theological perspective of the evangelist, it is better to take all the symbolic and significant actions of Jesus as signs. Jesus performed many signs in his public ministry. He performed them before the crowd, the supplicants, the adversaries and the disciples. Some of them were worked only for the disciples (e.g., walking on the water, Jn 6: 16-21). All the signs are not necessarily miracles, though miracles have a special place among the signs. For example, cleansing of the temple (Jn 2: 13-22) is not a miracle, but definitely a sign. Signs of Jesus are not limited to his public ministry. After narrating the resurrection appearances, John writes: "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book" (Jn 20: 30). This clearly shows that appearances of the risen Jesus and his wonderful works like the miraculous catch of fish (Jn 21: 1-14) are signs. Thus signs are spread through out the gospel. They are the great symbolic works that Jesus did during his public ministry, his passion, glorification and his post-resurrectional appearances. It is incorrect to divide the Gospel into book of signs and book of glory, as we find in some commentaries. The whole Gospel is a book of signs and book of glory. Perhaps we may call it 'book of the signs of glory.' Yet the miracles that Jesus performed during his public life in front of the crowd and the adversaries have particular importance among all the signs.
The Meaning of the Johannine Signs
When John narrates a sign, be it a miracle or non-miracle, he intends a deeper spiritual meaning, far beyond the material aspect of that great work. On the whole, there are four meanings embedded in each sign:
i. John gives a Christological perspective to each sign. So the signs are indissolubly linked to the person of Christ. They awaken faith in Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God.
ii. Each sign has a soteriological significance. It manifests the significance of the person of Jesus for the salvation of humanity, in each concrete situation. It imparts life (eternal life) to the beneficiaries.
iii. Each sign is a revelation. It brings out the revelation of Jesus' glory and the glory of his Father. It reveals the supreme love of God, the Father to humankind.
iv. Each sign sheds light on the realized eschatology of the evangelist. It reminds the believer that he/she possesses eternal life here and now.
At the same time, in spite of the symbolic character, signs have a solidly material aspect, involving very definite corporeal realities and firmly anchored in time and space. Sign may lead to faith, but also to rejection, imperfect understanding, according to the responses of the people. The intention of the evangelist in describing signs is to generate and nurture faith. As L. Morris writes, "The signs were not meant to cause people to recognize that Jesus was a wonderful person; they were meant to teach them about God, to cause them to see that God was active in what Jesus was doing; to challenge them to respond to faith to divine initiative.
Miracles as Particular Signs for the World
As we have stated earlier, miracles have a unique place among Johannine signs. Traditionally all scholars accept the six obvious miracles of Jesus as signs: (1) water in to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing of the noble man's son (4: 46-54); (3) healing of the crippled man (5: 1-18); (4) feeding the multitude (6: 1-14); (5) healing of the blind man (9: 1-7) and (6) rising of Lazarus (11: 1-44). They are wonderful and miraculous actions of Jesus. They are performed as public revelations to the whole people. They manifest his glory and the glory of his Father. The evangelist himself calls them semeia (2: 11; 4: 54; 6: 2, 14, 26, 30; 7: 21, 31; 9: 16; 11: 37, 47; 12: 18). Walking on the water also is a miracle.32 But it is not a public revelation, only a private revelation and a private sign to the disciples. Hence we do not count it as a characteristic public miracle and a sign for the world. Perhaps we may consider it together with the bread miracle, constituting a single unit and a single sign.
Thus we count six miracles in the public ministry of Jesus as signs for the world (chaps. 1-12). Can we not think of a seventh sign, taking into account of John's predilection for numerology? Yes. John has a seventh sign and that is Jesus' exaltation on the cross, which supremely culminates all the other signs. This sign par-excellence meets all the criteria for a genuine Johannine sign. It is a miracle in the sense that crucifixion is not the tragic death of the Redeemer, but his glorification and exaltation. It is a miracle beyond all miracles. It is the miracle of the miracles. Crucifixion is intimately linked to resurrection and for John they are not two events, which happen one after the other in time, but they are one and the same, the exaltation of the Saviour. Only a person who has faith can perceive this, just as it is the case with all other signs. As J. Marsh says, "All that is seen at the moment of crucifixion is a man being put to death, but what is really going on is the final victory of God over all the sin and evil of he world." In the words of C. R. Koester, "The crucifixion of Jesus is the central symbolic action in the Fourth Gospel, fusing and converging several levels of meaning simultaneously: it was of an innocent man who sacrificed his life in accordance with the will of God; it was the enthronement of Jesus as the Messiah; the glorification of the Son of Man and the inception of the community of faith.
Crucifixion is a sign and a sign of all signs. Here the sign and the thing signified coalesce. Yet it points to the glory of the Father and the ultimate victory over Satan. It signifies and effects the salvation of the whole humanity. It is the manifestation of the maximum love of the Father. Though the executioners crucified him (19:18), it is the Johannine Jesus himself voluntarily performs this act. "No one takes it (life) from me, but I lay it down on my own accord" (10:18). Jesus himself calls this a sign, though implicitly, at the time of his confrontation with the Jewish authorities, immediately after the incident of the cleansing of the temple. They asked for a sign and Jesus' words ('destroy this temple... I will raise it up...' 2:19) point to this supreme sign of his exaltation on the cross. While he did not immediately work the sign asked for, he promised a future sign- the greatest one- namely his glorification on the cross. The crucifixion is described by John as 'lifting up' and so is prefigured in Moses' sign of the serpent in the wilderness (3: 14). Though the previous six signs manifest the glory of the Son partially and retrospectively, crucifixion is his glorification in the fullest sense. Crucifixion was not a private revelation to the disciples. It was a revelation to the whole world, and it happened through the hands of his adversaries and in the midst of his enemies.
Many Johannine scholars accept Jesus' exaltation on the cross as the supreme sign. According to R. T. Fortna, "For John, the chief sign is Jesus' death, perceived as glorification, by which he gives life. G. R. Beasley-Murray writes: "the lifting up of the Son of Man is the ultimate sign of Christ for man."3" According to C. K. Barrett, the 'cross event' in John is both a sign and a supra sign. In fact the death-resurrection is the supreme semeion. Like other signs in the Gospel, this complex event is explained in discourse material (chaps. 13-17) and the event is then narrated in quite simple language. Like the other signs, it is a declaration of the character of God, and of the salvation he brings to men. 38 J. Marsh believes that there are seven signs in John, "six being acts performed by Jesus before the crucifixion, the seventh being the crucifixion itself, which is the mystery of the Word-made-flesh, both sign and thing signified together, and which is both something which Jesus 'suffered' (there they crucified him, 19:18) and some thing which he did ('No one takes it - my life - from me, but I lay it down of my own accord, 10:18).39 J. A. Grassi comments thus: "The seventh sign consists of Jesus' death and the accompanying issue of water and blood from Jesus' side (19: 35). The first six signs are incomplete and look forward to the seventh sign at Jesus' great hour of death and glorification."40 G. H. Ostenstad observes: "That there may be seven signs therefore is no far-fetched idea, especially in view of the fact that Jesus mother appears only in 2: 1-12 and here (19: 25-27), which suggests that the death and resurrection of Jesus should be counted as a climactic seventh 'sign of signs' that gives meaning and perspective to them all." D. A. Carson and J. N. Sanders are among the other scholars who consider death and resurrection of Jesus as the greatest sign. Some scholars like R. E. Brown and R. Schnackenburg do not consider crucifixion as a sign. But the more convincing arguments of many scholars who uphold crucifixion as the greatest of the signs, force us to reject the contrary view. We envisage that according to the theological perspective of John, crucifixion is the climactic seventh sign.
Interpretation of the Seven Signs
Detailed and comprehensive exposition of the interpretations of the seven signs is beyond the scope of this paper. We shall deal with some primary aspects of the interpretations of these signs, especially their Christological and soteriological messages. Let us begin with the first Cana sign of converting the water into delicious wine (Jn 2: 1-11). Jesus, the Messianic Bridegroom, replaces the old Jewish dispensation, based on ceremonial washing and ablutions represented by the six water pots, with the new dispensation based on abundance of grace, represented by the abundant new good wine. Jesus abolishes the obsolete old order of Judaism and inaugurates the new order of the new covenant characterized by "grace upon grace" (Jn 1:16). This new covenant gives maximum love of God and fullness of life to humanity. The good wine of Cana symbolizes all the messianic blessings, especially abundance of love, life and truth. The first sign reveals the messianic identity of Jesus. It is a revelation of the glory of Jesus and it leads the disciples to faith (Jn 2:11).
In the second Cana sign, a Gentile royal official encounters Jesus and becomes a believer (Jn 4: 46-54). Even though Jesus refuses to go down with him but assures him that his son lives, he believes his word and goes home. He finds that his child was cured at that moment when Jesus told him, "your son lives" and so he, together with his household, believes in him. The sign of curing the dying child confirms the Gentile official's faith in Jesus. The main message of the sign is that Jesus is the life-giver. This sign challenges us to believe in the life-giving word of the Lord and become true believers.
The third sign is the healing of the crippled man on a Sabbath day at the bank of the pool of Bethseida (Jn 5: 1-47). The chief message of this sign is that Jesus is the life-giver and judge. He gives integral well-being to the crippled man on the Sabbath day, thereby showing that he is the unique Son of God who participates in the very work of God. When the Jews set up a trial against Jesus accusing him of Sabbath breaking and blasphemy, he defends himself in the Jewish court, producing reliable witnesses. At the end, tables are turned against the Jews, who had put up the unjust trial. Jesus, the plaintiff becomes the Universal Judge and he judges the Jews because of their inhumane and unjust actions.
The fourth sign is multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6: 1-15). This multiplication miracle in John has Eucharistic associations. This meal of the 5000 prefigures the sacrament of Eucharist. John transposes the institution of the Eucharist and the theological implications of the Eucharist (Jn 6: 51-59) from the last supper scene to the bread miracle scene in the Galilean mountain-side and the ensuing bread of life discourse. The meaning of this sign is that Jesus is the bread of life. He appears as 'bread' in two forms to the believers the living bread as the Word and the living bread as sacramental communion of the Eucharist. Jesus categorically says that acceptance of Jesus as the Word, i.e., fullness of revelation and the sacramental reception of Jesus through the Eucharistic species are absolutely necessary for gaining eternal life (Jn 6: 53-54).
The fifth sign is healing of the man born blind (Jn 9: 1-41). The main message is that Jesus is the light of humankind groping in darkness. The blind man gets not only physical sight, but also spiritual insight. Jesus, the light gives life to a blind man; at the same time Jesus, the light exposes the sin of the adversaries and causes discrimination. He judges them and blinds them because of their hard-hearted opposition and obstinate rejection of salvation. They arrogantly claim to see and persecute the believers, but in fact they are blind and groping in thick darkness. The sixth sign is resuscitation of the dead Lazarus. The meaning of this sign is that Jesus is the resurrection and life (Jn 11:25). He is the loving life-giver. He loved Lazarus affectionately as a friend (Jn 11: 3, 5, 11, 36). The raising of Lazarus from the dead is the immediate reason for the Sanhedrin's decision to kill Jesus (11: 45-53). In other words, Jesus is ready and willing to risk his life and sacrifice it for the sake of his loved ones. (11: 7-16; 15: 13). The seventh sign is the exaltation on the cross. The lifting up of the cross is the supreme manifestation of the love of God, the Father. "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...' (Jn 3:16). It also manifests the prefect love of Jesus to mankind as the good shepherd (Jn 13:1; 10: 11). At the same time it shows the glory of Jesus and his Father. "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified (Jn 12: 23).
On the whole the seven signs have Christological and soteriological meanings. They exhibit the glory of Jesus and his Father. They reveal the identity of Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. They give life, light, and love to humanity.
Signs and the Discourses
The whole gospel of John is structured on the basis of these seven great signs. First six signs are in the first part of the gospel (chap. 2-12) and the seventh sign is in the second part of the gospel (chap. 13-21). In most cases, after or preceding or simultaneous to the signs there will be long discourse, dialogue or diatribe, except in the case of the first two signs. These discourses interpret the meaning of the signs. After the third sign (healing of the crippled man), there is discourse on life and judgment (5: 19-47). The fourth sign of the feeding of the 5000 is followed by the discourse on the bread of life (6: 22-59). The fifth sign of the healing of the blind man is preceded by the tabernacle discourses in chaps. 7 and 8. Simultaneous to the sign there are dialogues and trial scenes (9: 1-41). Following the sign, there is the discourse on good shepherd and the bad shepherds, indicting the bad leaders of Israel (10: 1-21). The sixth sign of the rising of Lazarus is preceded by small discourses and dialogues (11: 1-44). The seventh sign of exaltation on the cross (chaps. 18-20) is preceded by the famous farewell discourses in chapters 13-17.
Signs and Works
Another term that is similar to the word semeion is ergon (plural form is erga). It is usually translated as work (works). John uses this term 27 times in the Gospel. The important meanings of this term in John are the following: (1) Work is used to refer to the overall mission of Jesus (4: 34; 17: 4). (2) Work is used to refer to the work done by the Father (4: 34; 17: 4; 5:17). Jesus' work is intrinsically related to the work of the Father. (3) Work is used to refer to the miracles of Jesus. The plural form erga is most often used in this meaning (5: 20, 36, twice; 7: 3, 21; 9: 3; 10: 25, 32, twice, 33, 37, 38; 14: 10,11; 15: 24). (4) There is one instance in which the term refers to 'works,' which the disciples of Jesus will do (14:12). (5) Work is used to denote human actions. These actions have an ethical dimension. Humans will be rewarded or punished according to the works, which are done either in accepting or rejecting Jesus, i.e., either they are on the side of light or on the side of darkness (3:19, 20, 21; 7: 7 etc). (6) The term 'works' occurs in the idiomatic expression, ergazesthai ta erga or the alternate poiein ta erga, which would be literally translated "to work / do the works" of some one. They do not refer to the miracles but simply to human acts or deeds. It is synonymous with doing the will of some one (6: 28-29; 8: 39, 41). The first four usages are important (work as the overall ministry of Jesus, the activity of the Father, miracles of Jesus, future activity of the disciples), since they designate the characteristic Johannine usage of the term. The last two usages denote purely human actions and they reflect a dualistic framework.
The Differences between Signs and Works
Here we discuss only two important differences between the usage of signs and works in the Gospel of John:
Conclusion
This study of signs in the Gospel of John proves that the whole Gospel is focused and centred on 'signs.' The Johannine signs have deep meanings, which reveal the mystery of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work for humankind. All the signs are intrinsically related with the impartation of eternal life to humans. The signs not only points out to higher realities, but they themselves bestow salvation to people, if they encounter them in faith. As W. Nicol has rightly observed, "The word semeion was chosen for the final characterization of the revelation brought by Jesus. An important reason for this is probably that the way in which John interpreted the miracles was also the way in which he interpreted the whole life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, in Johannine perspective, the whole life of Jesus is a Sign. Jesus, the supreme 'Sign' manifests and imparts the maximum love of God, the Father to the world. The life-bearing and love-sharing signs of Jesus (Zoe and agape) are the solutions to all the problems that humanity faces today. The challenge of Johannine Jesus to the believers is to become such signs in the modern world.
Introduction
The text and interpretation of John 7:37-39 is a notorious crux that has vexed authors. This has more to do with the textual variant and punctuation of the text than with any problematic syntax. Through simple metaphors and symbols in theses verses, John takes the readers to deeper truths. The uncertainty over the punctuation of the text and its grammatical construction make it possible to understand the text in different ways.
The Text of John 7: 37-39
Before we explore the meaning of this text, we have to examine the critical apparatus and variant readings and, through textual criticism, determine the position accepted for the present study.
John 7:37
Variant Readings Involving πρός με
Πρόί με is included by the great majority of Mss, and it is geographically widespread, but omitted by a few. It is attested by the best Alexandrian witnesses, P66, and the second hand of Codex Sinaiticus 2. It is also supported by a number of uncials and minuscules such as L (Codex Regius, 8th cent), T (Codex Borgianus, 5th cent), W (Codex Washingtonianus, 5th cent), (Codex Koridethianus, 9th cent), Koine Ä (Codex Sangallensis, 9th cent), (Codex Athous Laurae, ca. 89th cent), Old Latin (ita.aur.c.f.f12.1.p.4), Byzantine Text Byz (EGHN), and has strong Patristic support.
However, πρός με is omitted in Sinaiticus (4th cent) and in P66", one of the oldest which contain considerable portions of the Greek New Testament. And only the second hand of & and of the corrected P66c attest πρός με. Therefore, probably πρός με is an addition made to give clarity to the text.
Both P66 (ca. 200) and P75 (3rd cent), respectable for their antiquity among the witnesses of the text, have put a full stop after πινέτω, so that ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ would be the subject of the next sentence in conformity with Johannine theology. This reading of P66 and P75 is taken over by Origen and a great number of the Fathers.
John 7:38
οἱ πιστεύσαντες
Some manuscripts have a reading with the aorist participle πιστεύσαντες. It has the support of the best and earliest Alexandri Ms P66 (ca. 200) and B (Codex Vaticanus, 4th cent). It has the suppo also of the old Latin versions. Though it is attested in the earliest manuscripts, the Byzantine attestation is nil and the patristic support is not much. Geographically it is not much widespread. Also it lacks testimony from the Greek manuscripts.
οἱ πιστεύοντες
Another variant οἱ πιστεύοντες is the reading in the majority of manuscripts. It is widely attested by the best and early Alexandrian אבא ness cent), the Queen of minuscules, uncials, minuscules and versions. This reading is attested in the patristic citations of both early Greek and Latin Fathers. The support of the usually differing syr here is of special importance.
The tendency among the copyists should have been to replace the more difficult reading of the aorist participle οἱ πιστεύσαντες
(read by P66 BLTW syr geo' al) with the easier reading of the present participle οι πιστεύοντες (read by & DKXDOPY f'f13 28 33 565 700 al). By this change, those believing and receiving the Spirit include not only the apostles but it also those who would believe through them."
οἱ πιστεύσοντες
There is a third variant reading, which has support from a few old Latin versions and a few Fathers such as Ambrose (4th cent) and Augustine (4th cent), and this indicates that οἱ πιστεύσοντες is of later origin. This variant which is the future active participle, includes those who would believe later in future as the fruit of the apostolic ministry.
Of all the above mentioned variants, the aorist participle οι πιστεύσαντες is to be preferred because it is very much in conformity with the Johannine theology. Jesus passes on his Spirit to his disciples who believed him. The Spirit can come only when Jesus' mission is accomplished. Hence it is appropriate that Jesus would send the Spirit to the disciples after his departure (John 15:26).
John 7:39
Variant Readings Involving πνεῦμα
πνεῦμα
This variant is rated as {A} in GNT and supported by P66, 75 N* TOY vg" copbopt arm eth geo¹ Origengr.lat/6 Ps-Dionysius Cyril Hesychius and Rebaptism.
πνεῦμα ἅγιον
This variant has additional ἅγιον το πνεῦμα. It is supported by P66 LWD 01050141 13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [EGHN] Lect eth Origenla14/6 Marcellus Didymusdub Chrysostom Cyril 6/9 Theodoret and Tyconius. The laconic οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνευμα, "the Spirit was not yet," caused trouble for copyists. Many added the familiar ἄγιον, "holy" here.
πνεῦμα δεδομένον
Another variant here is πνεῦμα δεδομένον, and has the following witnesses: Ita.aur, b. c. ff2, 1. rl ygel, ww syr. Eusebius; Victorinus-Rome, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Gaudentius, Jerome and Augustine. The Greek participle δεδομένον was added for a better understanding of the phrase Spirit not yet, and to avoid any misconceptions regarding the preexistence of the Holy Spirit. Thus some copyists extended it with either πνευμα οι πνευμα ἄγιον (Bit-vgms [syr δεδομένον] syrpal geo slav Origen, lav6) with δεδομένον ("given"), to avoid the idea that the Holy Spirit did not yet exist; D (followed by it. d) achieved the same end with τὸ πνευμα ἄγιον ἐπ' αὐτομ ("the Holy Spirit was not yet upon them"), while Ethiopic adds "came" (upon them)." Of all the three variants in v., πνεῦμα is likely to be the original one as it is the shorter reading.
The Problem of Punctuating John 7: 37b-38a
There is endless discussion as whether grammatically the phrase the one believing in me (ο πιστεύων εἰς έμε/) goes with v. or with v. A choice between these two possibilities determines whether one understands the believer in Jesus, or Jesus as the source of the living waters here. The two possible punctuations of th Greek text would be as follows:
α ) Ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω.
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, καθὼς εἶπεν ή γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ της κοιλίας
αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.
b) Ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ. καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας
αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.
The translation of the above Greek text into English can be rendered as,
a) If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water shall flow from within him (the believer).
b) If any one thirsts, let him come to me, and let him drink the one who believes in me.
As the scripture had said, streams of living water shall flow from within him (Christ).
P66 supports punctuation a, and Codex D and E support punctuation b. The punctuation of these two verses has always been disputed, and always remained a challenge for its interpreters." Moreover, it is also disputed as to where the words of Jesus end and that of the evangelist's begin.
Three significant questions are involved in the solution of this problem: (1) Do we have to take the phrase ο πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ with what precedes, placing a full stop after it? Or do we have to take this phrase with what follows, placing a full stop before it? (2) Closely related to the problem of punctuation is another question: what is the antecedent of αὐτοῦ in v? Does it refer to Jesus or to the believer? Who is the source of the living water? (3) When the author identifies a scriptural passage with a καθώς clause in v., what passage or passages of Scripture does the evangelist have in mind?
Church Fathers, translations and commentaries are divided on the question of punctuation mentioned above, and appear in both sides of the option. We shall have a closer look at both the believer interpretation and the Christological interpretation.
The Believer Interpretation
According to this understanding of the present text, a full stop is placed after πινέτω in v.b, and grammatically the phrase "the one believing in me" (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) belongs to v., and is the antecedent of αὐτοῦ (his) in v. The understanding in this case is that the Scriptures referring to the activity of the Holy Spirit (v.38b) are fulfilled in the one believing in Jesus. "When the believer comes to Christ and drinks he not only slakes his thirst but receives such an abundant supply that veritable rivers flow from him." According to this view, v. would mean, "Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water" (NRSV).
This is the traditional understanding of the text under discussion, often called the "Eastern interpretation" following Origen, Athanasius, and the Greek Fathers. It is the view held by such modern scholars as Schweizer, C. H. Turner, Barrett, Behm, Bernard, Morris, Cadman, Carson, R. H. Lightfoot, Lindars, Michaelis, Odeberg, Schlatter, M. M. B. Turner, Westcott and Zahn. Moreover, it is represented by the following Greek texts and translations: UBS4, NA27, AV, RSV, NRSV and NASB.
Those who favor the view that the rivers of the livings waters flow from the believer's heart put forward several arguments in support of such an understanding of the text. We shall have an over view of their arguments.
M.J. J. Menken holds that if one should read John 7:37-38 with a full stop after πινέτω, then ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ serves as a pendent nominative for the v 38. As a result αὐτοῦ refers to the believer, and not to Jesus. That the believer is the source of the living waters in the present text is argued also on the basis of comparing it with, and finding parallelism with the image in John 4:14. According to B. A. Mastin, αὐτοῦ can be applied to the believer as in John 4:14, and it cannot be applied to Jesus because in a statement about himself, he would have referred to himself in the first person instead of third person (αὐτοῦ).
Perhaps the strongest point in support of this understanding of the text is the punctuation in the oldest punctuated manuscripts, reflecting a wide spread patristic tradition of interpretation favoring this understanding:
Alexandria: Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria,
Ammonius of Alexandria.
Palestine: Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem.
Syria: Eusebius of Emesa, a pupil of Eusebius of Caesarea
Jesus: the Source of Living Waters
Cappadocia: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen
Antiochene School: Theodore of Mopusuestia, Chrysostom
In the West: Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine.
Once the above mentioned punctuation of putting a full stop before the phrase "the one believing in me" (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) is accepted, it is grammatically convincing to argue that the αὐτοῦ in v. refers to the believer, and that the text would then mean that the believer is the source of the living water as the above mentioned authors and traditions understood it.
There is little doubt, however, in view of the Evangelist's interpretative comment in v., relating the living water to the Spirit bestowed by the Lord on the thirsty, that he did not understand the antecedent of αὐτοῦ (his) as referring to the believer. Otherwise, it would then signify that one who believes in Jesus would become a source of it to others. Since the living waters symbolize the Spirit, it would be an impossible interpretation to say that the believer is the source of the living waters here.
The Christological Interpretation
There is an increasing support among the more recent authors for a Christological interpretation of the passage under consider-ation. Accordingly, the antecedent of αὐτοῦ (his) is Christ; and the source of the living waters is Christ. According to this understanding either a full stop is placed after the phrase the one believing in me (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ), and grammatically it belongs to v., or if the full stop is place before the phrase "the one believing in me" and considers it as a nominativus pendens. We shall have an over view of the arguments of those who understand that the living waters of John 7:37-38 flow from Christ.
The Christological understanding of the text has been-argued on the basis of the context and content of the John 7:37-38. Accordingly, the probable connection between the present text and John 19:34, and elsewhere in John, the clear presentation of Jesus as the giver of the Spirit support a Christological understanding of the text.23
Those who support the Christological understanding of the passage argue that the antecedent of αὐτοῦ is Christ on the basis of the imagery in John 4:10, 14a; 6:35. In these texts, the source is Christ, and not the believer. So also, against the background of John's Wisdom Christology, the invitation to come to Jesus and drink (from him) finds its strongest parallels in the Wisdom literature (Prov 9,5; sir 24, 19-21; 51,23-24). The imagery is used by the prophets to describe the time of salvation (Isa 12,3; 43,20; 44,3;55,1 et al.) and appears in the same sense in Rev 7:16-17; 21,6; 22.1.17.
Bultmann holds that the phrase ο πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ is the subject of the imperative πινέτω, and that the full stop should be placed after it. He gives three reasons for his argument: '(1) It is impossible to find any suitable Scriptural quotation, if ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ is taken with what follows. (2) The rhythm of the sentence demands this should be taken in this way; otherwise it would result in a not so good image of streams of water flowing out of a man who is drinking to quench his thirst. (3) An alternative punctuation would produce a grotesque picture of water flowing out of the body of the believer who in fact drinks to quench his thirst.
Bauer suggests that if a full stop is placed after πινέτω then ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμε is to be understood as a nominativus pendens, beginning a fresh sentence, and meaning for the one who believes in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water will flow from his (= the Lord's) heart. According to R. E. Brown, the participle ὁ πιστεύων is to be understood as parenthetical.
From among the Fathers, Christological interpretation is supported by Hippolytus, Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ephraem, Theodre of Heraclea, etc. Exegetical traditions in North Africa and Syria also favored this Christological interpretation.
To conclude, the two possible understandings of the text depend on the way one understands the antecedent of αὐτοῦ. Since it is evident that the antecedent of αὐτόν in v. is Jesus, the same must be true for the preceding pronoun αὐτοῦ in v. This interpretation fits into the Johannine context where Jesus is the source of the Spirit (15:26; 16:7; 20:22). We read in John 19:34 that blood and water30 flowed from Jesus' side. Only John 7:38 and 19:34 speak about the flowing of water from someone's body. Then, John 19:34 fulfils the promise made in v. 3831. Taken all these into consideration, we can reasonably be sure that the author of the Fourth Gospel intended the text under consideration to be understood Christologically.
The Meaning of John 7:37-39
In the context of the public ministry of Jesus, chapter seven continues to focus on Jesus' self-revelation and its resonance in the world. Two important themes emerge in chapter 7: Jesus' messianic secret and the Spirit as living water. This chapter consists of a series of separate units, all grouped round the feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem: 7:1-13 precedes Jesus' going to the feast; 7:14-36 presents Jesus in the middle of the festal week, and 7:37-52 is on the last day of the feast. On the last day of the feast the ceremony of libation of water was performed with great solemnity. This provides the occasion for the word of revelation in 7:37-38. The voices of the people are polarized.
In 7:37, the words the last day of the festival, the great day are ambiguous. The last day of the feast of Tabernacles could mean either the seventh or the eighth day of the feast. This feast lasted seven days (Deut 16:13, 15; Ezech 45:25). The following eighth day was a Sabbath (Lev 23:34) and special sacrifices were offered on that day (Num 29:36-38).34 For the rabbis, the last day (τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρα) of the festival was the eighth day but they never called it as the great day (τῇ μεγάλη) because water-drawing ceremony was not conducted on the eighth day. 35 On the other hand, the seventh day was called as the great Hosanna. 36 Probably, it is the seventh day, that of the עצרת or closing festival that John mentions here. On that day the Tabernacle was taken down and ה ל was recited with rejoicing. On the same day, the priests go around the altar with the water from Siloah. Probably because of this great solemn occasion, John termed this as the great feast (τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς εὁρτης).
The phrase Jesus stood up (εἰστήκει ὁ Ἰησους) also adds to the solemnity and importance of his proclamation. 38 The verb cried (ἔκραξεν) also indicates the importance attached to this saying. This Greek verb was used earlier in relation to John the Baptist (John 1:15). In chapter seven, it is used twice of Jesus (John 7:28, 37) in the context of the solemn proclamation of a truth concerning his person and mission. This cry of Jesus echoes his cry on the cross (John 19:28-30), which is also on yet another last day, on the last day of his earthly life.
The content of his cry is an invitation to come to him and drink (v. 37): If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink (Εάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω). These words echoe Is 55:1.40 This invitation of Jesus to come and drink finds its strongest parallels in the Wisdom literature (Prov 9:5; Sir 24:19-21). The content of the cry of Jesus presents himself as the bringer of salvation. It is probable that Jesus said these words in the context of the ceremony of the libation of water during the feast day. 43 The deep religious yearning of humans is directly expressed by the image of thirst in the Old Testament (Is 41:18; 43:20). In the New Testament, Jesus used the same figures water and thirst as the Jews were familiar with these terms.
E.A. Abbots compares two passages in John, where Jesus spoke of his thirst: the words to the Samaritan woman Give me a drink (John 4:7) and the words from the cross I thirst (John 19:34-37). Abbots remarks:
The Son in bearing thirst bears it for others, calling forth faith from the woman of Samaria, and kindness from the soldiers round the Cross. In the former case there follows the gift of the living water to Samaria; in the latter, the vision of the mingled blood and water that are to satisfy the thirst of all mankind.
The invitation in v.37 is extended to all as is indicated by th words if any one. When Jesus offered the invitation to come ana drink (v 37), some in the crowd said that he was a prophet. John is alluding to the Exodus event of Moses providing water from the rock in the desert. Paul also alludes to the same event, when he identifies Christ as the rock, in his first letter to the Corinthians, saying: "Passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank from the supernatural rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ" (I Cor 10:1-4).
So also, Cyprian quotes Is 48:21 in his Epistle 63:8 and says, Christ, the rock was opened by the thrust of the spear. According to Grelot, the libation of water during the feast of Tabernacles pointed not only to the eschatological and paradisal streams but also to the water from the rock in the desert. Now, in the context of the ceremony of the libation of water, Jesus is presented as God's answer to Israel's hopes." Through Jesus, a universal and saving act of God would extend the life-giving waters of salvation to all peoples because he is not a dry and empty cistern but fountain supplying drink to all (Jer 2:13; Ps 36:9).51 In John, the two phrases to come and to believe are almost interchangeable. The only way to obtain that living water is to come to Jesus and drink (John 7:37).
The verb drink (πίνω) occurs 73 times in the New Testament and of these 11 times in the gospel of John. In the Old Testament to drink (πινέτω) at sacrificial meals was symbolic of fellowship with God (Ex 24:9-11; Ps 36:8) and it was looked upon as a means of establishing redemptive communion with God. But in the New Testament, salvation is depicted as eating and drinking in the Kingdom of God (Lk 22:30);54 and to come to Jesus and to drink signifies believing in Jesus and to have the gift of Spirt as v.39 indicates.
In John, to drinks is often used in figurative sense meaning to believe in Jesus as the embodiment of all Messianic blessings, be it Word, Spirit or eternal life. To believe in Jesus is to accept him. Drinking of living water is viewed as parallel to eating the bread of life in John 6:35.
Some grammarians suggest that the phrase he who believes in me (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) is to be understood as a nominative absolute. 57 It has been suggested that this kind of sentence construction is Semitic and is more common in John compared to the Synoptic gospels.58 As we shall see below, the context does not allow us to understand the phrase as nominative absolute.
The participle ὁπιστεύων is often used as a substantive. Blenkinsopp suggests that the phrase he who believes in me (o πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ) is merely a parenthetical explanation of believers in v 39 and has no grammatical connection with what preceds or follows. In the present context, the one who comes (v 37) and the one who believes (v 38) are the same.
The scriptural quotation, introduced by καθώς in v 38, cannot be found anywhere in the same form. Several scriptural passages have been suggested as the text behind John 7:38b which John identifies as scriptural quotation: Ps 78:15;63 Zech 14:86 and Ez 47:1-1165) yet none of these suggestions are convincing." Here we do not have any verbatim quotation of any particular scriptural passage. It is also possible that in this verse, there is an underling Haggadic tradition, involving Midrashic interpretation of certain passages as we have in John 6:31. It is likely that John blends midrashically various texts67 to form this "scriptural quotation."
In the scriptural quotation of v. 38b, "Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water," the use of the noun ποταμοί (rivers) probably alludes to the water libation ceremony during the feast of Tabernacles. The verb ῥεύσουσιν alludes to Ps 77:20 as well. The Septuagint has the aorist ἐρρύησαν. Here John uses the future tense because he has in mind the glorification of Jesus that will take place in the future. This change of tense could also be due to the influence of Is 48:21 (LXX), or because of another vocalization of the Hebrew word behind the text: and they will flow (זו177:8 זובו)
The source of this eschatological living water is Jesus himself: out of his belly (ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ). This phrase could mean out of his belly or from his innermost being or from within him. Even Septuagint uses κοιλία referring to the belly of a man and in the metaphorical sense, it means inward part or the heart (καρδία). Schnackenburg sees in κολία a rendering of the Aramaic term מנופא which means "from him." Beasley-Murray suggests "that the term נוף, cavity, self,' may provide a link between the remembrance of water from the rock in the wilderness and the expectation of water from the temple in the new age, and Jesus as its source, if it is assumed that the living waters are to flow from a cavity in the rock in the temple (of which rock the Jews were ever aware).
In the Old Testament, living water (ὕδατος ζῶντος)" is closely associated with God. In Jer 2:13; 17:13, God is portrayed as the spring of living water (πηγὴ ὕδατος ζωῆς) and in Ps 36:9, as the fountain of life (πηγὴ ζωῆς)." It was also used as a metaphor to indicate divine activity in leading humans to life as in Jer 2:13: They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters (πηγὴ ὕδατος ζωῆς). Prophets anticipated a time in the eschaton when God would bless his people with an abundance of living waters, creating a paradise full of living fruit and life (cf. Ezech 47). Prophets also expected streams of living waters flowing from Jerusalem dispensing life for the Israel of the last time (Ezech 47:1ff; Zech 14:8; cf. 13:1; Joel 3,18; cf. Gen 2,: 10ff.).50 In John 7:37-38 Jesus is proclaiming himself as the source of the living waters that the Early Jewish literature and the Old Testament were anticipating.
V.39 is very important to the understanding of the preceding verses. The phrase τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν in v.39 is a typically Johannine stylistic feature. Here it indicates that v.38 is not of the evangelist but of Jesus himself because τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν naturally refers to the words of Jesus. 85 V.39 explicates that the water in v.38 signifies Holy Spirit. John also makes clear that what Jesus meant by the metaphor of living water and what the Old Testament texts were anticipating really was the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is quite evident that in the Old Testament, the living water is used as a symbol of the Spirit of God (Is 44:3; Joel 2:28; Neh 9:2088). In fact the water drawing ceremony during the feast of Tabernacles is being interpreted as the drawing of the Holy Spirit. So also, the outpouring of the same Spirit upon people of Israel was referred by the water imagery and the verbs that could be applied to the water, like pour forth (Is 44:3) are used to refer to the gift of the Spirit." The Qumran community also viewed water as the best symbol to signify the Spirit of God (I QS.IV.21).
The glorification is the final phase of all salvation events both for Jesus and for the believer as well. John 7:39 elucidates that Spirit will be made available only through Jesus' glorification" and that Jesus is the dispenser of the Spirit. Glorification is necessary to begin the work of the Spirit (John 16:7). This is symbolically illustrated on Calvary when Jesus' side was pierced. By his crucifixion on the cross, Jesus would become the smitten rock in the true sense. After being smitten, he let the living waters flow. Jesus' giving of the Spirit is conditional upon Jesus' glorification."
Conclusion
To sum up, John 7: 37-39 has a distinct place in the gospel of John. These verses with its theological depth are challenging and fascinating for the exegetes. From patristic time onwards, there has been no consensus regarding the text and its interpretation of John 7:37-39. We have argued that in spite of all the variant readings and different understandings of this passage, the Johannine theology and the context of John 7:37-39, especially the comment in v.39 demands a Christological understanding of the text, that is, understanding Jesus as the antecedent of the pronoun αὐτοῦ in v.38. And Jesus is the source of the living waters. In these verses Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah and the Spirit-giver to those who believe in him. Jesus invites all who thirst for him and this invitation has a universal character.
Against the background of the Jewish feast of Tabernacles, the expectations underlying the ceremonies of this feast are fulfilled in Jesus, and he replaces this feast. Moses quenched the thirst of the people by smiting the rock (Ex 17:1-6). On the contrary Jesus was struck on the cross and quenches the thirst of the believers by proving the Holy Spirit. The prophesies of living streams, which the prophets anticipated in the eschaton are realized in Jesus' gift of the Spirit. Jesus is declaring that the eschatological promises are going to be realized in everyone who believes in him.
Introduction
God's plan of salvation for the humankind springs from the Trinitarian communion. The initiative unto salvation is from the Father, manifested in his gift to the world of his only Son and brought to its fulfillment by the Holy Spirit. Those who believe in the Son by receiving him and his revelation are given the power to become the children of God (Jn 1,12). This sharing in the very life of God himself is possible only through the Holy Spirit. Here we dwell at some length on the role played by the Holy Spirit - the Paraclete - as the Exegete of the Son of God in the formation and growth of this Community of Communion as is seen in the Gospel of John.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament appears in close connection with the Son of God incarnate. The Fourth Gospel is no exception to this. Though John does not describe the event of the baptism of Jesus as do the Synoptics (Matt 3,13-17; Mk 1,9-11; Lk 3,21-22), he records the report of John the Baptist that the Spirit descended as a dove from heaven and remained on Jesus (Jn 1,32-33). It is an indication that Jesus later on is to baptize with the Holy Spirit (ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) The permanence of the Spirit in Jesus empowers him for this mission. According to John Chrysostom, this was the sign of Jesus' divine Sonship. Spirit manifests and makes known who Jesus is. In the opinion of Cyril of Alexandria, it is as the representative of the whole humanity that Jesus received the Spirit at baptism, so that it may regain the original Spirit of God given at creation (Gen 2,7) but lost through sin. If the first Adam had lost this Spirit and with him the whole humanity, the last Adam restored it for all. But for its restoration the humankind had to wait until the glorification of the Son of God.
Paraclete Promised
Jesus in his discourses during the last supper, knowing that the hour of his glorification had come in his going back to the Father, said to his disciples: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete [ἄλλο παράκλητος], to be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth [τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας], whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him for he dwells with you and will be in you" (Jn14,15-17). The Holy Spirit whom Jesus promises is qualified "another Paraclete" (ἄλλο παράκλητος) who will dwell with the disciples. The noun παράκλητος comes from the verb παράκαλεω meaning "called to the side of." Somebody is called to our side to comfort, to console, to help, to intercede or to plead for us. This is the forensic meaning of the term. Thus the verbal adjective παράκλητος used as a noun could be translated as "the comforter, counselor, advocate or helper". However, there is also a kerygmatic meaning to the term, as evidenced by an analysis of its closest Hebrew ב שלquivalent. This word is usually translated "translator, interpreter, teacher" (Gen 42,23; Job 16,20; 33,23). In the Qumran literature, it is used for the right teacher and true revealer of God's secrets concealed in the Scriptures. This Hebrew term is used in Targum of Job 33,23 in both kerygmatic and forensic aspects. Characteristically, John employs this term in both senses.
What is being promised is "another" Paraclete. The adjective "another" pre- supposes a "first" one. We have a clue as to who this "first one" is, in the First Letter of John: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate [παράκλητον ἔχομεν] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2,1-2). Jesus Christ is the Paraclete (παράκλητος) who intercedes for us with the Father. As the "righteous" one (δίκαιος) of Isa 53,11, he makes right the relationship of the humankind with God, being himself an expiation for our sins. Through his once-for-all sacrifice, Jesus has become the Advocate who pleads for his people with the Father. The use of the very same title "Paraclele" also for the Third Person of Trinity implies the identity of function of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Promised Paraclete will continue the mission of the Son of God. There exists an intimate relationship between the Paraclete and Jesus. Whatever is said about the Paraclete is said elsewhere in the Gospel about Jesus. The parallelism between the ministry of the Paraclete and that of Jesus explains the expression "another Paraclete".
The Paraclete is further named "the Spirit of truth" (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας). Jesus himself is "the Truth" - ἡ ἀλήθεια (Jn 14,6). Being the Logos of the Father, abiding in his bosom, Jesus has made known the Father to us (Jn 1,18) and thus became the Revealer par excellence of God. The eternal Son by manifesting the Father in the most perfect manner becomes the Truth of God. The Paraclete becomes the Spirit of Truth in that he mediates this Truth or the revelation brought by the Son. Thus the Paraclete is the true Interpreter or Exegete of Jesus Christ.
The Glorified Messiah Hands over the Spirit
The Johannine Jesus has always associated the coming of the Holy Spirit with his departure from the world (Jn 7,38-39; 16,7). It was necessary that Jesus depart from this world so that the Spirit could come. In the opinion of John Chrysostom, the sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of sins was necessary for the coming of the Spirit. The peculiar expression of John in describing the death of Jesus in contrast to the quite ordinary style of the Synoptics is quite revealing. Matthew has Jesus 'yielded up his spirit' (27,50: ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμ), Mark (15,37) and Luke (23,46) 'breathed his last' or 'expired' (ἐξέπνευσεν). John's statement is symbolic: Jesus 'bowed his head and handed over the Spirit' (19,30: κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμ). From the cross Jesus bowed down his head towards Mary and John, the representatives of the believers, in order 'to breathe out' over them the Spirit. The Church Father Irenaeus found in this expression a very close connection between the self-sacrifice of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. As elsewhere in the Gospel, here too John has a phrase with double meaning." "Jesus breathes his last breath and, through his death, which he willingly accepts, hands over the Spirit to his disciples."
This interpretation is quite possible in the light of Jn 7,39 and 16,5-7. On the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus solemnly proclaimed in the temple: "If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water" (Jn 7,37-38). The Evangelist then adds: "Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn 7,39). According to John, it is on the cross that Jesus is glorified. Thus at his death, he can impart the Spirit. During his Farewell discourse, Jesus had said: "it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (Jn 16,7). Through his death on the cross, Jesus was returning to his Father and making the advent of the Holy Spirit possible.
This handing over of the Spirit from the cross is to be seen in close connection with the blood and water that came out of the pierced side of Jesus (Jn 19,34). The water and blood from the pierced side of the Crucified Christ symbolize two fundamental sacraments out of which the Church is born: baptism and the Eucharist respectively. The role of the Holy Spirit in both these sacraments is self-evident. Thus a marriage was taking place on the cross: the marriage between the New Adam and the New Eve¹³ prophetically announced at the creation of humankind (Gen 1,1.26-27; 2,18.21-24). It is from the side of the New Adam, Jesus Christ, fallen into deep sleep of death, that the New Eve, the Church, came out symbolically in the water and blood (1 Jn 5,6-8). Jesus had already spoken of the need of being born from above/anew (ἄνωθεν), of water and of the Spirit (Jn 3,3-6). Origen in his homily on the book of Exodus, while commenting on the episode of people's thirst in the desert miraculously satiated with water from the rock (Ex 17,5-6) finds the symbol of Christ (1 Cor 10,3-4), who on the cross becomes the source of water, the spiritual drink. The Spirit is handed over to the disciples during the whole process of Jesus being lifted up to his Father. Through his passion Jesus effused the springs of living water upon human beings.
Blood from the side of Jesus is the symbol of the mystery of Eucharist. Those born of the water are nurtured by the blood of the Eucharist. Chrysostom once said: "When you approach this awesome chalice, you are approaching as if to drink from his side."1" It is because of this close association of the Spirit with baptism and Eucharist that in the Eastern Churches the sacraments of Initiaion baptism, anointing with the holy oil and the Eucharist - are administered together. By the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit at baptism and by the nourishing through the Eucharist, Jesus is purifying his bride. The real wedding celebrations will take place in the eschaton in the marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19,6-8; 22,2.17).
Holy Spirit: the Easter Gift of the Glorified Messiah
On the evening of the day of resurrection the risen Jesus made himself present to the group of disciples who were hiding themselves from the Jews behind closed doors. After greeting them peace, he said: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you". When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (Jn 20,21-23). Jesus came to the world sent by the Father with a special mission. At the completion of his mission on earth, Jesus, in his turn, sends his disciples into the world with the very same mission. It is to equip them for the mission that he now gives them the Spirit. As he was empowered by the Spirit at baptism before embarking upon his mission, so also the disciples are equipped with the Holy Spirit. This is known as the Johannine Pentecost in contrast to the Lucan Pentecost described in Acts 2. The way in which he imparts the Spirit ("he breathed on them": ἐνεφύσησεν) reminds us of the creation scene. We read in the book of Genesis: "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Gen 2,7: ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωή). The verb used in both contexts is same (ἐνεφύσησεν). Breathing has to do with Ruha-"wind" or the Spirit. If God's Ruha made the first man a living being, the same Ruha makes the disciple "living" to the mission entrusted. Man created in God's image, now is united with the same God.
The identity of Jesus revealed at his baptism as the One who will baptize with the Spirit (Jn 1,33), is now being actualized as the risen Lord imparts the Spirit." The promise of the gift of 'another Counselor' is fulfilled only when the risen Lord breathes the indwelling Spirit upon his disciples in the new act of creation. In the presence of the Spirit with the disciples Jesus fulfills his promise to come back (16,18) and to dwell with them (14,23).
After imparting the Spirit to the disciples, the risen Lord continued: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (Jn 20,23). Certainly, Jesus was giving them the authority to forgive sins. 20 In the forgiveness of sins is summed up the total effect of the whole Christ-event. For, he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1,29). Through his incarnation, ministry and the sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus was taking away the sin of the world It was this very same mission that he was entrusting his disciples after resurrection. The anointing with the Spirit in this context is not only to forgive sins, but also to represent and re-enact the whole mystery of the Christ-event. This is exactly what the apostles did when they baptized people in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and "broke bread" as an anamnesis of the redemptive mystery of Christ (Acts 2,37-42). Thus the ministry of priesthood was gradually evolving in the Church. In other words, the disciples understood that the risen Lord was constituting them priests through the effusion of the Spirit.
Paraclete: the Exegete of the Son of God
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and the Messiah is the Revealer of the Father and in that capacity he is the Truth. He can reveal or unveil the Father because he is in His bosom (Jn 1,18). The verb John uses to describe the activity of the incarnate Son is ἐξηγέομαι. This compound verb (έχ + ηγέομαι) means "to lead out of" or "to interpret." Thus, in John's language, Jesus is "the Interpreter" or "the Exegete" of the Father. We saw above that the Paraclete as the Spirit of Truth continues the revealing function of Jesus in his physical absence. He thus becomes the Exegete of the Son. This he does in different ways.
By Unveiling the Whole Truth
Jesus in his Farewell discourse, after having promised the Paraclete to his disciples, continued: "These things I have spoken to you, while I was with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (Jn 14,25-26: ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν). Jesus is the Teacher par excellence. Almost always he appeared teaching either in the synagogues (Jn 6,59) or in the temple of Jerusalem (Jn 7,14.28; 8,2.20.28; 18,20). Now towards the end of his earthly existence he promises that the Paraclete will take over his mission of teaching: "he will teach you all things" (Jn 14,26). It does not mean that something was lacking in the teaching of Jesus. For all that he had heard from his Father, Jesus had made known to the disciples whom he called even friends (Jn 15,15). He communicated to them the whole and entire truth, the total and definitive revelation. Only that the disciples were not capable of grasping neither the person nor his teaching. The Paraclete with his enlightenment will bring to the minds of the disciples all that Jesus revealed.
The Paraclete will teach the disciples "all things" by calling to their mind (ὑπομιμνήσκω) everything taught by Jesus. This reminding is not just recalling but enlightening, revealing the inner meaning of the words and events. For example, Jesus' saying in the Jerusalem temple about "the temple" which is his own body is really understood by the disciples only after resurrection when they had received the gift of Paraclete (Jn 2,21-22). In the same way, the significance of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in fulfillment of Zech 9,9 was understood by them only after the glorification of Jesus (Jn 12,16). It is worth noting that in both Jn 2,22 and 12,16 the verb used to describe the "remembering" activity of the disciples is aorist form of μιμνήσκομαι (ἐμνήσθησαν). The Paraclete interprets the teachings of Jesus in their situation giving rise to new insights, deeper and better understanding in the light of the whole Christ-event.
The real significance of the doctrine of Jesus and the meaning of his words and deeds can be comprehended only with the help of the illumination given by the Holy Spirit. So Jesus added: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and declare to you the things that are to come" (Jn 16,13). Being the Truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια) or the true Revealer of the Father, Jesus is the Way (ἡ ὁδὸς) leading to Life eternal (Jn 14,6). The Paraclete being the Spirit of this Truth will guide the disciples into all the truth: ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ. The verb ὁδηγέω meaning "to guide" or "to lead" has to do with the noun ὁδὸς meaning "the way". The Spirit who is the Guide (ὁ ὁδηγὸς) enables the believer to proceed on the Way i.e., Jesus Christ. The Paraclete is the divine Guide (ὁδηγός) who guides (ὁδηγήσει) the disciples into all the truth (Jn 16,13), i.e., to the person of Christ. During the earthly life, Jesus alone was the Guide of the disciples. Now when he is no more physically present with them, the Spirit exercises this function, in recollecting the words and deeds of Jesus and in making them present in faith and in the liturgical anamnesis. He helps to interiorize the revelation of Jesus. Paraclete is the power through which the ministry of Jesus is completed and his divine presence continued on earth. In short, he is the exegete of Jesus Christ, as the Son is the exegete of the Father (Jn 1,18).
Jesus' statement that "he will glorify me" (Jn 16,14) is to be understood in this connection. The Paraclete will glorify Jesus by receiving what is of Christ and declaring it to the disciples. What is of Christ is of God as well (Jn 16,15). This also means that the Spirit will attest to the glory which Jesus already has with his Father. This, in fact, is the greatest truth about Jesus. Moreover, the Paraclete will not be speaking on his own; he will speak whatever he hears the Son speaking, which in fact, is the speech of the Father. Equality and unity of the Son and the Spirit is seen in the divine dignity, in the common knowledge and in the communication of the same salvific truth.
The Paraclete will declare even things that are to come: καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν (Jn 16,13). What is intended here is not foretelling the future. The expression "he will declare to you the things that are to come" in Jn 16,13 is to be seen together with "he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν) in Jn 16,15. According to Ignace de la Potterie, the verb translated here as "declare" - ἀναγγελεῖν has a wide range of meaning in the Jewish apocalyptic literature, such as "to announce, make manifest, unveil or interpret". This verb is generally used to the unveiling the truth of a vision or dream by a divine messenger as in the book of Daniel. The dream of the king Nebuchadnezar was interpreted by Daniel who confesses his interpretation to be from God, the revealer of mysteries (Dan 2,4.6.9.28-30). The task of the Spirit of Truth is not to provide some revelation that is totally new. He will reveal the profound sense of the mystery of Christ and what he has said in figures (Jn 16,25). The Spirit enables the disciples to interpret the words and deeds of Jesus in concrete situations. He realizes "the work of actualizing and inculturating" the message of Jesus to the ears and heats of people of our own time." It is the Spirit who guides the Magisterium of the Church in discovering what the Scripture has to say to the present time (Dei Verbum, 10).
By Bearing Witness to Jesus
Jesus revealed his Father through his words and deeds. Through this revelation he was bearing witness to the Father. But the hostile world was not willing to accept his witness. Therein consisted the sin of the world. Jesus said: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin... If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father" (Jn 15,22.24). The world will have a further chance to listen to this divine witness even after the departure of Jesus from this world. "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me" (Jn 15,26). The mention of the title "the Spirit of truth" throws light into the nature of witness the Paraclete will bear to Jesus. His witness has essentially to do with Jesus' revelation of the Father which itself was a witness. The Paraclete will continue this witnessing mission of Jesus in his physical absence. 28 This will essentially have to do with convincing the world of its sin in rejecting the Messiah (Jn 16,8-11).
Jesus associated the witnessing mission of the Spirit of Truth with that of the disciples. He said: "And you also are my witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning" (Jn 15,27). Being with Jesus all throughout his public life, being an eye-witness to his words and deeds, is generally considered to be the sine qua non condition for becoming an authentic witness of Christ (Acts 1,21). The disciples who have become the children of God by accepting Jesus' revelation and believing in him, will become his witnesses. Jesus bore witness to the Father by revealing God's love for the humankind through his life, death and resurrection. Disciples have to be witnesses of this love (Jn 13,34-35; 15,12-13). The love for one another will be the distinguishing mark of a Christian disciple. In this witnessing mission they are enabled by the Paraclete.
In the power of the Paraclete the apostles bore witness to the effects of the salvific death of Jesus (Acts 1,8). Following the foot-steps of the risen Lord who interpreted the whole Old Testament Christocentrically, the apostles found out specific texts from the Old Testament to substantiate the different aspects of the Christ-event especially the resurrection. For example, on the day of Pentecost, St. Peter, standing with the eleven, courageously proclaimed that Jesus is the promised Messiah and Son of God (Acts 2,22-36). He began his speech by saying that he was speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (Acts 2,16-21). With great power they were testifying to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 3,15; 4,33; 5,32; 10,41;13,31). Always they were fully conscious that they were not alone. "And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him" (Acts 5,32).
Those who accepted the apostolic kerygma and witness believed in Jesus, got baptized in his name and formed themselves into communities around the apostle (Acts 2,37-42). In fact, this koinonia of the believers with the apostles was the purpose of the apostolic testimony (1 Jn 1,3). The apostles were already in fellowship with Jesus Christ and his Father. Thus the believer is incorporated into the Trinitarian communion through the mediation of the apostles. Thus the Church becomes the Community of Communion. Holy Spirit who is the principle of communion in the Holy Trinity is the force behind this ecclesial communion as well.
The evangelist understands his writing of the Gospel as part of this witnessing to Jesus. Since he was at the foot of the cross he could authentically testify to the handing over of the Spirit at the time of Jesus' death. "He who saw it has borne witness to - his testimony is true; and he knows that he tells the truth that you also may believe" (Jn 19,28-35). He brings the Gospel narrative to a close thus: "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things; and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" (Jn 21,24). Gospel writing too had the same purpose as that of apostolic kerygma: that people may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they may have life in his name (Jn 20,31).
Concluding Remarks
The Church, as the Community of Communion, is guided by the Holy Spirit in all its life and activities, especially in the interpretation of the Scripture and sacramental life. The first disciples of Jesus experienced an ever-deepening and progressive clarification of the revelation through "the Spirit of truth". Directed by the Holy Spirit and in the light of the living Tradition, the Church has discerned the Scripture of the Jewish people as "sacred" (Rom 1,2) and "inspired" by the Spirit of God (2 Tm 3,16; 2 Pt. 1,20-21). To these sacred texts, which form "the Old Testament" (2 Cor 3,14), the Church has closely associated the writings of the authentic witnesses, coming from the apostles (Lk 1,2; 1 Jn 1,1-3) and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1,12). They are the four Gospels. The teachings given by the apostles themselves and other disciples for the building up of the community of believers also were included in the canon of the New Testament. The Church understood them also to be "sacred" in the sense that they are "inspired" by the Spirit of God (2 Pet 3,16).
This same Holy Spirit, who moved the authors of the New Testament, provided the Church with continual assistance for the interpretation of its inspired writings. The activity of the Spirit was particularly seen in the Fathers of the Church who have a foundational role in relation to the living Tradition which unceasingly accompanies and guides the Church's interpretation of the Scripture. The patristic exegesis has drawn out from the totality of Scripture the basic orientations which shaped the doctrinal tradition of the. The Fathers of the Church teach us to read the Bible in the Church, within the heart of its living tradition and in the course of the liturgy.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God..." St. Paul commands the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to and to pass on the Traditions taught by the Apostles, both oral and written (2 Thess 2,15; see also 2 Tim 2,2; 3,14). The identity of the oral Tradition with the original revelation of Jesus is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of Spirit-endowed bishops going back lineally to the apostles. The apostles left bishops as their successors, giving them their own position of teaching authority. Sacred Tradition is this living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit in the apostolic succession and their teaching.
The Paraclete is the Spirit of sanctification (Ruha d'kudsha). The Spirit sanctifies or deifies the human beings through the sacraments in the Church. The sacraments accomplish the divine indwelling in us through the "inviting and welcoming of the Holy Spirit." Thus the promise given by the Lord that "We will come to Him and make our abode with Him" (Jn 14,23) is fulfilled through the Holy Spirit. Newman refers to the sacraments as "the embodied forms of the Spirit of Christ," which "persuade" by their "tenderness and mysteriousness"." And among the sacraments, the Eucharist holds central position. In the words of Pope John II "Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church from the beginning expressed and confirmed her identity through the Eucharist... Through the Eucharist, individuals and communities, by the action of the Paraclete-Counselor, learn to discover the divine sense of human life". When this is achieved, God's plan of salvation for humankind is fulfilled.
Introduction
The Book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament as well as of the entire Bible. It is different from most other books of the Bible because of its literary style and content. This book belongs to a special literary genre known as 'apocalypse.' This is the only apocalyptic book in the NT while Daniel is the only apocalyptic book in the OT.
“Αποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“Revelation of Jesus Christ") -It is with these words that the Book of Revelation begins. Here Jesus Christ is both the author and the subject of this revelation. The next words τοῖς δούλοις αὐτου ("to his servants") would mean 'to the prophets in the early Church (cf. Rev 10: 7; 11: 18; 22: 6; Acts 11: 27; Amos 3: 7). The revelations are not primarily about Jesus Christ but about what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. God sends his angel or messenger (cf. Rev 22: 16; Gen 16: 7; Ezek 40: 3) who probably represents Christ himself (cf. Rev 1: 13; 14: 14-15). The revelation is made to his servant John; this was probably not apostle John, but an early Christian prophet. He has borne witness to everything he saw by writing this book of apocalypse.
The author of the Book of Revelation asks his readers to consider this book as a valuable prophecy from God and to treasure it as canonical and authoritative together with the OT books. The prologue ends with a warning that the content of the book is important to them because the "time is near." The time alludes to Jesus' return or second coming (cf. 1: 7; 3: 11; 22: 10, 12, 20), to the establishment of the Kingdom of God, to the elimination of evil in the world, and to the final judgment.
Use of Number 'Seven' in the Book of Revelation
The number 'seven' is prominently used in the entire Book of Revelation. In addition to the particular words which occur seven times in the book, there are also other uses of the number seven. It is widely observed that 'seven' in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere is a number which signifies completeness or perfection and this is rightly associated with the fact that three is a number associated with God and four a number associated with the created order. The two combine in God's creative activity of the seven days in the Book of Genesis. Let us have a brief look at the main usages of 'seven' in the Book of Apocalypse.
Usages of 'seven''
Seven churches 1:11
Seven spirits 1:4
Seven features of the Son of Man 1:14-16
Seven golden lamp-stands 1:12
Seven stars 1: 16, 20.
Seven letters 2:1-3:22
Seven seals 5: 1; 6:1-8:5
Seven trumpets 8:2.6-11:19
Seven angels 8:6
Seven characters in the vision 12:1-14:20
Seven angels with seven plagues 15:1-6
Seven bowls 15:7-16:21
Seven things of the universe affected after the opening of the sixth seal 6: 12-14
Seven groups of humanity affected by the repercussions after the opening of the sixth seal. 6:15-17
Seven main characters in the symbolic visions. 12:1-15:4
Seven headsto s of the beast from the sea. 12:18-13:10
Seven subsections" in the punishment of Babylon. 17:1-19:10
The word "Christ" is used seven times. 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 11: 15, 12: 10, 20:4, 20:6
Christ announces his coming seven times. 2:5, 2: 16, 3:21, 16: 15, 22: 6, 22: 12, 22:20
The expression "the Lord God Almighty" appears seven times. 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15: 3, 16: 7, 19: 6,21:22
The word "amen" appears seven times in the book. 1:6, 1: 7, 3: 14, 5: 14, 7: 12b, 19: 4,22:20
|"Prophets" are referred to seven times. 10: 7, 11: 18, 16: 6, 18:20, 18:24, 22:6, 22:9
The expression "the one who sits on the throne" is used seven times. 4:9, 5: 1, 5: 7, 5: 13, 6: 16, 7: 15, 21:5
Seven Symbolic Visions (12:1 - 15:4)
Usages of the multiples of 'seven'
The Spirit is referred to 'two times seven,' i.e. 14 times.
References First seven:
1: 10, 4: 2,
14: 13, 17: 3, 19: 10,21:
10, 22: 17
Second seven: at the conclusion of each of the seven letters.
The name of Jesus occurs fourteen times, 'two times seven.
1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:9, 12: 17, 14: 12, 17: 6, 19: 10, 20: 4, 22: 16, 22: 20, 22:21.
The "Lamb" is mentioned twenty-eight times, i.e. 'four times seven.'
5:6, 5:8, 5: 12, 5: 13, 6:1, 6: 16, 7:9, 7: 10, 7: 14, 7: 17, 12: 11, 13: 8, 14: 1, 14: 4, 14: 10, 15: 3, 17: 14, 19: 7, 19: 9,21:9, 21:14, 21: 22, 21:23, 21:27, 22: 1, 22: 3 (also 13: 11).
The list of Babylon's cargo contains twenty-eight products. 18.11-13
Seven Beatitudes
There must be some purpose for the order of the seven beatitudes in the Book of Revelation. The number 'seven' of the beatitudes is hardly accidental and this number is symbolic of completeness according to most commentators; the seven beatitudes comprise a kind of summary message of the Book of Revelation.
The first of the seven beatitudes in the Book of Revelation is found at 1: 3 (cf. 1: 3; 14: 13; 16: 15; 19: 9; 20: 6; 22: 7; 22: 14). When this book would be read in public and people would listen to it, they are described as "blessed".
1:3 "Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near."
14: 13b "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth; Blessed indeed that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!"
16: 15b "Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that he may not go naked and be seen exposed!"
19:9b "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."
20: 6a "Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection!"
22:7b "Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."
22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."
'Six Plus one' Pattern in the Book of Revelation
According to commentators, there is a chiastic arrangement of seven beatitudes involving a 'six plus one' structure. Sometimes 'seven' is actually 'six plus one.' This is not surprising in the light of the creation account in the Book of Genesis. After six days of creation God rested on the seventh day, i.e. seven is actually six plus one. In the first event of opening the seven seals of the scroll there was an interlude after opening the sixth seal (Rev 7: 1-17). We see another interlude between the sixth and seventh trumpets (Rev 10: 111: 14). Commentators discern a chiastic arrangement of seven beatitudes involving a 'six plus one' structure. We can see how the seven beatitudes combine the two patterns of chiasm and of 'six plus one.'
The First and the Sixth Beatitudes (1: 3; 22: 7)
The first beatitude would match the sixth. This first pair of beatitudes is about reading, hearing and keeping the words of the prophecy. Several commentators point out a possible relationship of these with Luke 11: 28 "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near" (Rev 1: 3).
"And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book" (Rev 22: 7).
"This is the only book in the New Testament to which a special blessing is attached to the ones who read it and to those who hear it, although all the books of the Bible implicitly attach a blessing to the reading of them."
The Book of Revelation was meant to be read publicly in an assembly so that all those who were gathered there could hear it. The first beatitude says that the book contains words of prophecy; but here prophecy means God's message to those who believe in Him and in His Son Jesus Christ. In the OT, prophecy was the mediation and interpretation of the mind and will of God by those who were specially called and commissioned by God. What the Oт prophets proclaimed in the name of Yahweh was the word of God.
The Second and the Fifth Beatitudes (14: 13; 20: 6)
The second beatitude would match the fifth and are closely related through the common themes of death and resurrection, resting and reigning. Thus we see that the second pair of beatitudes is about the death and rest, the martyrdom and resurrection of the faithful.
And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!" "Yes," says the Spirit, "so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them" (14: 13).
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years (20: 6).
The second beatitude is announced immediately after a call has been issued for the saints, in contrast with worshippers of the beast, to endure, to keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
In the second beatitude those who die in the Lord are declared blessed because they will enter into eternal rest that the Lord would provide. The same promise is given in the letter to the Hebrews: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (Heb 4: 9). The author of the Hebrews exhorts his readers to be careful not to fall short of God's promise of entering his rest (Heb 4: 1). According to the author, Israelites could not enter the rest promised by God because of their unbelief (Heb 3: 19).
The Christians who face persecution and martyrdom are called "blessed." Death is not the end for them, but it is a rest from all sufferings. According to this beatitude, all the good deeds done during one's life will not go in vain at death; rather, they will be heavenly assets for a person.
Parallel to the second beatitude, the fifth beatitude is announced over those who came to life and reigned with Christ: they are those who had been faithful to death for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image. They will be like priests of God and of Christ, becoming heirs to God's gifts and promises. The relationship between God and the elect will be like that of God and His son. Eight groups of wicked people are excluded from the relationship with God (cf. 21: 8); they will face a second death in the burning lake of sulfur, i.e. eternal death. They are the fearful, unbelievers, the wicked, murderers, adulterers, magicians, idolaters and hypocrites.
The Third and Fourth Beatitudes (16: 15; 19:9)
The third beatitude would match the fourth and the relationship between them is strong. The third pair of beatitudes is about the naked city-harlot and the finely-robed city-bride. Those invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb parallel the blessed of 16: 15 in two ways. Firstly, those invited to the Lamb's supper are precisely those who "keep their clothes" (cf. 19: 7-8). Secondly, they are the city-bride of Jesus in contrast to the city-harlot of Babylon who has stripped naked and exposed her shame (17: 16; 18: 16-17).
"Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame" (16: 15).
Then he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.' "And he said to me, 'These are true words of God' (19:9).
The third beatitude begins with Jesus' own words: "Behold, I am coming like a thief." This gives the clear hint that it refers to Jesus' second coming (cf. Mt 24: 43-44; Lk 12: 39-40; 1 Thess 5: 2, 4; 2 Pet 3: 10).
The fourth beatitude declares that those invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb are blessed. But they have to listen to and obey the words of Revelation; they have to do so even unto death and then they will come to the rest-reign of the faithful. They are contrasted with and separated from the naked harlot and they are promised seats at the marriage supper of the Lamb in the fine robes of the city-bride.
The Seventh Beatitude (22: 14)
The first six beatitudes are so arranged that the readers will become thirsty for more detail and then the seventh beatitude comes to quench that thirst.
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city" (22: 14).
This seventh beatitude would be in some special relationship with all the others, either as a summary or as the centre or as a leap ahead and beyond them. It has a Sabbath dimension as well as a climactic element. Thus we see that the seven beatitudes follow a 'six plus one' sequence in which the first six elements are arranged chiastically. The seventh beatitude goes beyond the six and constitutes a sabbath statement of what lies at the end of all things for recipients of the other six blessings.
Conclusion
Readers of the NT are familiar with beatitudes since the very first book of the NT presents a number of beatitudes at the beginning of its 'Sermon on the Mount' (Mt 5: 3-12). While there are nine beatitudes in the Gospel of Matthew, Luke has only four in his Gospel (Lk 6: 20-22). In the last book of the NT we have seen seven beatitudes spread out all over the book. Although they remain scattered, sometimes standing alone in the midst of narratives, they are put there purposefully by the author. We have seen how they follow a chiastic structure as well as a 'six plus one' style. They were meant to be words of encouragement to Christians who were being persecuted for their faith. The author assured them that their sacrifice and suffering would not be in vain; they would enjoy their reward in heaven with the victorious Messiah, the Son of God, for their faithfulness unto death. Today when Christians face persecutions and rejections in their lives, these beatitudes should strengthen them. Some persecuted Christians from Orissa have taken refuge in Kerala and it is our duty to extend to them all possible help and encourage them to stay strong in their Christian faith in spite of the adversities and persecutions that they have undergone. We know that their sufferings will not go unrewarded when the slain Lamb comes back victorious and glorious to judge the entire world.
The Book of Revelation has been considered as the sealed book of the NT whose keys are not to be found easily. One of the keys of course is the historical context in which it was written. As a matter of fact the historical context is a master key which can open not only the main door but many of the entrances within the edifice that is called the Book of Revelation.
It is almost unanimously held that the Book of Revelation was composed towards the end of the reign of emperor Domitian (81-96) and the historical circumstances discernible from Rev correspond to his period. Domitian has the notoriety of a cruel persecutor of the emerging church in Rome. Though not as harsh as Nero (54-68) Domitian had persecuted the church on various grounds. He was distrustful of any new trend and he dealt mercilessly with those who have abandoned the traditional faith of Romans and experimented new religions from the Orient. Especially objectionable to him were the claims of exclusivity of their alien gods. Some such new adherents were executed by him fearing that their religious movements would pose a threat to his power. These were persecutions not directly responsible to their religious beliefs.
Persecutions of a religious nature also have taken place during Domitian's reign. He was one of those Roman emperors who claimed divinity. He had named himself 'Lord and God' (dominus et deus) and had arranged for public worship in his empire. 'One territory, one God' was a dictum very dear to the emperors. They advocated national gods, in this case emperor himself, in order to consolidate the unity of the empire and its boundaries. During the period of Domitian anti-imperial tendencies were reported from throughout the provinces, while such reports were collected from Rome alone during Nero's time. Overzealous provincial officers have dealt with offences in far away provinces most ruthlessly. Those who have refused to offer worship to the emperor were executed and hence he came to be known as a persecutor of Christians. According to some scholars Jews and their sympathisers were more persecuted than the Christians. The actions against Christians might have been exaggerated by Melito of Sardis who places Domitian only second to Nero in cruelty and whose descriptions formed the basis for later Christian elaboration of persecution of Christianity under Domitian.
Christianity was a very insignificant movement in the first century of our era. Besides the followers of the new movement were from the lower strata of the society. It was easy to single out them in cities. Their absence in the public worship was so conspicuous that they were considered as hostile to the empire and its policies. We have only a few evidences of actual persecution in Rev (cf. 1,9; 2,10-13) and many allusions to persecutions in the book as scenes are unfolded before the seer. They need not represent actual persecutions but may be later reflections of persecutions in the past or expectations of imminent persecution in future.
Rev 17, 1-19, 10 in the Structure of the Book
Though various proposals have been made as to the structure of the Book of Revelation it is not so complicated as it appears in the first sight. The body of the book is divided into two cycles of visions (1,10b-11,9 and 12,1-22,5). Both these cycles comprise three series of seven units. In the first cycle there are seven messages to seven churches (1,10b-3,22), the scroll with seven seals (4,1-8,5) and the seven trumpets (8,2-11,19). The second cycle has seven visions (12,1-15,4), the seven plagues and the seven bowls (15,1-16,21), judgement of Babylon and the great harlot (17,1-19,10) and vision of last things (19,11-22,5). Though there are minor disagreements regarding the subdivisions most commentators agree on the general outline.
The section 17,1-19,10 follows he pouring of the seven bowls (15,1-16,21) and the seven bowls are like a prelude to the judgement of the great harlot which is Babylon. The bowls prepare the judgement. They themselves contain the wrath of God and as they are poured punishment of various types had been realised on all those who followed the beast. In the ensuing section particular judgement on the harlot is detailed.
The Woman on a Scarlet Beast (17,1-18)
The harlot is introduced as sitting on a beast. It had already appeared in 11,7 and ch. 13. The angel introduces the woman as seated upon many waters and many kings of the earth have entered into fornication with her. She made many of the dwellers of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication (17,1-2). The "metaphor (harlot) condemns not only the physical and historical city, but also what it stood for in the author's point of view: the goddess Roma, the claim of the Roman Empire to dominion over the earth, the inequities of the Roman economic system, and the violence involved in imposing Roman sovereignty". She had been clothed with garments of royal colours and adorned with precious jewels. In describing the grandeur of Babylon John uses Ezekiel's description of Tyre that has hoarded wealth through trade with other nations (Ezek 28,5). The contents of her cup were abominations and fornications. Her name is "Babylon the Great" (v. 5). The name Babylon stands for 'sin' and immorality (Jer 51). She is also drunk with the blood of saints and martyrs. From the naming of the woman one may gather that the woman stands for a city. Such personifications are not rare in the OT (Is 1,21; 66,7-16; Jer 15,9; Ezek 16; Nahum 3,4; Is 23,16-17). Tyre, Babylon and Nineveh were cities known for their idolatry and sinful practices and are rightly called harlots, accumulated much wealth through their unrighteous commerce. With unmistakeable terms the city is named Rome (17,9.18). The customary pasting of labels with the name of the prostitutes on their foreheads is alluded to in v.5.
The beast on which the harlot sits is identical to the dragon in ch. 12. Both have seven heads and ten horns. It is conceived as the "eschatological adversary" of God, modelled after Nero, unsurpassed in cruelty and immorality. According to popular belief, though dead, he may reappear from the underworld for the eschatological battle, imbued with demonic powers (17,8). People had a legendary notion of his return to gain power over Rome, with the Parthians; for he is not dead. He has to engage in a battle to gain power; Nero and his allies on the one side and the divine power on the other (17,14). In this final battle the Lamb will defeat the beast.
Divine Judgement on Babylon (18,1-24)
In this subsection the realisation of the judgement on Babylon, which was pre-announced in 17,1 and 17,17 is narrated. Another angel appears and he makes a proclamation about the reality of the punishment of Rome and its accomplices (18,2-3). The faithful who indwell the city are advised to come out of her in order not to share in her sins. The punishment will be on the same measure as her sins. All her partners will be amazed and dumbfounded at the fate of the city. The judgement and its immediate realisation will leave them desperate.
All the wealth and pomp of the city have been proved futile and the merchants weep over her fate. They had amassed wealth through business in the city. Now the city is desolate and there are no customers and the business is totally ruined. In no time all their wealth is lost (18,17a). And the seafarer merchants also mourn with them. In the midst of such wailing and mourning the faithful are called to rejoice at the defeat of Rome (18,20). Saints, apostles and prophets are asked to rejoice "for God has given judgement for you against her." It is clear that these people have suffered evil at the hands of the powerful and the wealthy in the city.
In the final vision of the subsection (18,21-24) the seer witnesses a symbolic action of throwing a great milestone into the sea (as Babylon was to be thrown into the Euphrates - Jer 51,63-64). The angel performing this action describes the destiny of the city too. The city will be no more. It will be bereft of any celebration and enjoyment. It will be utterly desolated and a famine will befall it. The city will have no future. Because the city has persecuted the faithful witnesses of the Lamb, its judgement also will be harsh.
Rejoicing in Heaven (19,1-10)
This subsection expresses the joy in heaven over the judgement on the evil city of Rome. The rejoicing in Rome expresses two factors: ultimate victory belongs to God and the salvation of the faithful is accomplished. Both these themes are recurring in the Book of Revelation. As in ancient mythical pattern, the events follow a sequence: god wins the battle, acquires kingship and enters into a marriage contract. Marriage symbolises the consummation of salvation history. It is the eschatological union between the exalted Christ and the faithful who were steadfast in persecution. The marriage between God and his people is a recurring theme in the OT (Hos 2,1-25; Is 54,4-8 etc.) and this imagery has been found also in the NT (Jn 3,29; 2 Cor 11,2; Eph 5,23-32).
Empire and Its Challenges in Revelation
The overall historical context of Rev shows that the book unfolds the church as a small herd, insignificant and not influential, forced to struggle for its survival. Roman empire had its clutches felt everywhere and the imperial agencies were efficient in extracting the taxes and dues. Besides, emperor worship was promoted and every spur of revolt was suppressed, paving the way for persecution. Promotion of state religion and emperor worship, collection of taxes and tariffs, organised system of military service, uniformity of lifestyle and habits, development of infrastructure like roads and services, common festivals and public gatherings and many more devices were promoted for keeping the empire intact. That means the empire/state became an idol which demanded wholehearted and undivided devotion from the citizens. In order to keep the empire intact political power had to be exercised absolutely and ruthlessly. Power was concentrated in the hands of a few at the apex of the social ladder, on top of which stood the emperor. The power was exercised discriminatively. The rich and the influential, the manipulators and the power brokers became the real source and seat of power.
The empire being the basis of a power structure naturally finds means to perpetuate its hegemony. All the citizens of the state are made dependent on it and the success of the empire is to create in them a sense of indispensability of the empire in them. In the process of making the empire an institution of oppression human rights are trampled upon and values are ignored. New values are installed which are in fact against the divine values. According to M.E. Boring, there are four characteristics of to the imperial Rome, clear from the Book of Revelation. They are: idolatrous and blasphemous worship offered and encouraged by Rome, violence perpetrated by Rome especially against Jews and Christians, Rome's blasphemous self-glorification and Roman wealth.
According to Rev 17 Rome is the source of great idolatry and other evils. It is the mother of whores. In the OT worship of other gods is named as idolatry (the sin of Jeroboam). The empire itself commits evil and tempts all other institutions to take part in the same. All the other states that engage in trade and commerce with the empire also succumb to the imperial invasion in all those fields. Rome is seated upon many waters (17,1) i.e. it controlled the Mediterranean world and had a formidable naval force. The sea was like a private lake of the empire. In 17,5 it is explained as "the peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." So vast is the area of its influence. The empire committed fornication with the kings of the earth (17,2; 18,3.9). The transgressions of the empire are narrated in sexual imagery and it stands not only for excesses in carnal pleasures but also for all kinds of extravagances. "What the author has in mind is not urban sexual perversion but rather the generalised corruption and the absolutising of power that turns into idolatry. The present text is a strong political accusation".
The empire as it becomes powerful, marvels in its own power and might and its name acquires a mythical status (17,5). To die for the empire is considered as a heroic act. Slogans like "Roma caputmundi" are consciously propagated. What sustains it in its evil structure is its impurities and abominations and persecutions from which it drinks. Stories of all the empires in human history have been replete with such evil but all those godless empires could not withstand the devastation of time. The seer has been informed that the Lamb will conquer them (17,14). All the empires in history till the Soviet empire have been no exception to this fate. Punishment of God and total failure of the system to uphold human dignity simultaneously contributed to their decay.
Empire hoards money and merchants of the earth come there, do their business and grow rich (18,4.11). The military, bureaucrats and other officials have a purchasing capacity and they want to lead a life of luxury. The merchants through their trade satiate the licentiousness of the rich and grow rich in the process. All the goods from all over the world are stored up in the imperial cities. What all goods have been sold in the markets of Rome and its imperial cities! (18,12-13). It is shocking that the empire had involved in human trafficking too. Human beings were reduced to commodities and auctioned in the markets (18,13). "Drunkenness and prostitution are powerful images to speak of the sin of all imperialism: insensitivity to the sufferings of the victims (because of its lust for power or pleasure) and giddiness with dominion to the point of considering itself the master of men and women. Everything had to be sacrificed before this cult, including people's lives". The security founded on trade and money are no longer a guarantee of security. As the ancient city of Babylon has fallen (Jer 50,39; 51,37.45) so Rome will also share the same fate. Pax romana will be reduced to a dream. Because the empire was founded on corruption, bloodshed and crime. That is why the faithful are called to abandon the city and come out of it (18,14).
Merchants along with shipmasters and seafarers are mentioned a few times (18,11.15.17.23). They brought the commodities from faraway lands to the capital and made a fortune out of them. Now it is their turn to weep over the loss of their market. All the injustices and exploitations have cried against them to the heavens and the blood of the poor have sought vengeance from God. Hence the lamentations of the merchants over the destruction of the city. They were corrupted to the core and had served only the promiscuity of the empire. They had flourished in the business even that of human beings. The seer qualifies the slaves as human souls (18,13) because he alone is aware of the dignity and worth of a human person. Through the spread of alien commodities and lifestyles idolatry too was exported to the nook and corner of the empire and thereby the values of the market like greed and promiscuity. Idolatry and worship of market values thrive due to economic forces and a kind of cultural domination is the result which showed itself in the loss of local culture and traditions. A false sense of superiority is accorded to the alien/imperial values which are not compatible with the values of God and his kingdom.
Empires are ruthless in suppressing even the least opposition to the power structure. Those who serve the empire are keen to find out those enemies of the empire who exercise freedom in worship, matters of justice or other affairs. They threaten the stability of the empire, as it is often accused. Rome is intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus, and of all who have been slain on earth (17,6, 18,24).
Empire Strikes back through Globalisation
Today the empire with its characteristic vices is as real as the Roman empire at the turn of the era. The difference is that this new empire knows no fixed geographical boundaries and it exists wherever people acts with the mindset of Roman imperialists. "Babylon is the prevailing economic-religious system in alliance with the state and its related authorities existing throughout the ages"." In today's unipolar world, some find it easy to identify the empire with the only remaining superpower. The fact is that the empire is not co-extensive with that super power. With the eclipse of the Soviet empire we do not have a totalitarian system which could be easily identified with the empire. The present day totalitarian system is the global economic system which strives after generating more growth and more money. Its injustice and lack of solidarity, its blasphemous self-glorification and contempt for the have-nots, its destruction of the environment etc have parallels only with the empires of gone days, of which an exemplar is the one in Rev 17-18. The global economic system degrades the human being to a consumer and producer. Who is unable to buy and produce are nuisance to the society, they are at the most to be tolerated. As in the empire of Hitler, the old, the sick, the mentally or otherwise challenged are useless garbage to be disposed of. It has already begun, one need to note only the increasing number of old age homes, institutions that help to terminate life or perform euthanasia.
The most important characteristic of globalisation is the idolatry of money. To generate maximum profit is the aim of a globalised economy. In this pursuit freedom of the individual and his dignity get only the last priority. The poor are forgotten and they are not taken to be existing. Least developed, developing and poor nations are at the mercy of the rich countries and the almighty multi-national corporates. These unequal groups are called to play in a game where same rules apply which is unjust. Lobbyists could buy legislators in the third world countries who sell their countries for monetary and other benefits, thus partaking in the fornication with the empire (18,3). The rich, the landowners, and the business conglomerates indulge in the abuse of wealth. This idolatrous and blasphemous worship of wealth results in the brutal and intolerable exploitation of the resources of the earth which belong to the whole of humanity. "In our day there is concert that the first world owns or controls the great bulk of our earth's resources. A minority of the earth's inhabitants enjoy a lifestyle denied to the rest"." In the new empire the rich gets richer and the poor becomes poorer.
The agreements made in the globalised economy are sacrosanct and one cannot but wonder what and where is the place of human being in this system. In order to perpetuate the system the powerful has to resort o unlawful means. The poor are evicted from their homeland and forced to migrate to lands not of their choice. They become displaced persons. Instead of traditional crops in many lands plants for bio-fuel or genetically manipulated crops or other products for the consumption in the first world are cultivated. These farmers are forced to import food materials from the first world for exorbitant prices. Those merchants have grown rich with the wealth of her wantonness (18,3). Though commodities are imported and exported easily, mobility for humans from a poor country to an affluent country is made difficult, if not impossible.
The seer at Patmos knows exactly how Rome has accumulated its massive wealth. It is through trade. One wonders at the luxurious goods that were transacted in the Roman empire (18,12-13). In the globalised world, the rich in a least developed country afford a lifestyle envious even to the poor in a developed country. The shelves in super markets are filled with exotic fruits and nuts and other products produced in the far corners of the world. Costly fish caught by the poor fisher folk in the southern coast of Kerala are sold in Berlin the next morning. The poor work for the rich and what the poor get in return is abysmally minimum. The producers of coffee or tea wonder why they get such low prices for their row products but once packed thy cost a disproportionate high price. Archbishop Reinhard Marx of Munich asks why there is no 'justice seal' even though there is a campaign for 'bio-seal' over products. The empire of globalisation perpetrates inequality. It is inhuman and the rules of the market are heartless.
Slave trade was an accepted social reality in the first century Roman empire. It continued in many ways and forms in all the empires. In spite of the many charters and declarations human trafficking is on the increase. The promiscuous lifestyle and cultural domination degrade human dignity and end up with the loss of the respect for institutions like marriage and family. Migrants are treated degradingly though their miseries originate in the greed for money and power of the rich and powerful. Sex tourism and sexual exploitation of the of minors, child prostitution etc. thrive and the victims have no other choice other than succumbing to the demands of the market. Human beings are exported for sex industry. "History involves selling one's body". The situation has not changed much from the time of the seer. Today it has become more efficient and cheaper thanks to the technological progress. Selling human body has spread to other areas like advertisements, arts and the like. New sects and new age groups also market human beings.
In various parts of the world indigenous people are persecuted and violence and bloodshed have become normal. The hands of multi-nationals and the ruling class are smeared with the blood of the innocent (18,24), "all those assassinated by the idolatry of power and money." The muscle power of the underground mafia are used for eviction, extraction and torture. According to a study of Amnesty International in 2007 there are some 20 crores of daily wage earners in China who move from place to place, making the economic wonder in that country possible. The harsh reality is that these wandering workers are denied not only rights of workers but also fundamental rights. The number of those wandering workers will grow up to 30 crores in 2015. There are millions of divided families where one partner has to live away from the family for work. The cries of the just seem to be heard by nobody. But the seer at Patmos is hopeful. He is consoled by the angel that God will mete out justice in the near future, leading to the collapse and destruction of the unjust and oppressive system.
Self-glorification of the rich economies of the world is so tasteless that the state/market becomes an idol. Such self-glorification is on the other hand a disdainful reminder of the poverty of the less wealthy. It glorifies possessions and not the person. The dignity of the person is defined on the basis of what one possesses and not by who one is. This becomes more shameful in the face of self-evident factors: One third of the total world population live in utter poverty. They have only less than two dollars pro day. Among them 100 crores of people have only less than one dollar at their disposal. It is estimated that almost 24000 people, majority among them being children, die daily due to under nourishment. The decisions of the Millennium Summit in September 2000 are being implemented half-heartedly or not at all. For example, the decision to reduce poverty by half until 2015 has not reached nowhere. Such goals could be reached only if the rich nations contributed 0.7 percent of their gross income towards developmental aid. A decision to that effect had been first reached in 1970 and renewed in 2002. Only five nations have done that Denmark, Luxemburg, Holland, Norway and Sweden.
Conclusion
Rev is a political book. It interprets history in the light of eschatological hope. As a canonical book it has to be interpreted in the present context. The prophetic accusation of the idolatry of imperial power made by the seer is still valid (Kuckerlkorn et al, 1942). The book challenges the reader to work for the deliverance of the people of God from the clutches of the empire. It is at the same time an engagement for justice and solidarity within the human family. It is the mission of Jesus and God. It is the mission of all the believers in Jesus and his kingdom to work for the realisation of a new Jerusalem, a new Earth and a new Heaven. Even before the eschatological consummation of the whole creation one has the right to enjoy freedom in this world. God who hears the cry of his people and breaks the bars of their yoke and make them walk erect (Lev 26,13) will help them in realising this goal.
The Book of Revelation ends with the vision of the New Jerusalem which stands in continuation with the Old Testament eschatological and apocalyptic perspectives on the new creation. The author of Revelation takes up the primeval Paradise and the eschatological Jerusalem motifs to weave a picture of the new world for his Christian community in crisis. This eschatological vision of the presence of God and Christ among wo/men in the symbol of th New Jerusalem ends with an awe inspiring promise "and they w reign for ever" (22,5). What significance does this great vision ha in the world of the community and why does the author end th narrative with it? Revelation was written in the context of the atrocities of the Roman Empire and the claims to absolute sovereign power by the Emperor. We shall analyze the concluding vision in Revelation (22,1-5), drawing out its significance for the worlds of the author and the readers.
Concluding Vision in 22,1-5
Rev 22,1-5 is generally considered in most commentaries as the final and distinct section of the New Jerusalem vision. Though there is repetition of ideas in this section from the previous section, the author intensifies them by introducing new nuances and adding new elements. Within the theological arc of the New Jerusalem, the seer presents 22,1-5 as the "summary and culmination of his description of the city of God." To understand the vision of the New Jerusalem in 22,1-5, we need to situate the text within the whole narrative of the book of Revelation. After situating this pericope in the narrative world of Revelation we shall analyse its structure.
Context of Rev 22,1-5
The introductory verse in Revelation "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place" (1,1) is repeated in the epilogue (22,6) soon after the New Jerusalem section. The author thereby affirms that revelation comes to its completion with the New Jerusalem vision which is the last phase of his vision. This New Jerusalem is the culmination of his vision on the encompassing history. The expression "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in 1,8 is repeated in the New Jerusalem section: "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" (21,6). The repetition of this phrase after the perfect gegonan (it is done) is meant to turn the readers' attention back to the promises to ho nikon (one who conquers) in the letters to the seven churches (2,7.11.17.26; 3,5.12.21). By repeating ho nikon in 21,7 John presents the New Jerusalem section as the eschatological realization of these promises to the seven churches who conquers the powers of evil.
The New Jerusalem vision is presented as a contrast to Babylon. Babylon that concretises abominations and impurities (17,4) and is the dwelling place of demons and unclean spirits is doomed to destruction (18,2.8). The final subsection 21,1-22,5 on the New Jerusalem concludes the progressively intensifying tension of war between the Lamb and the demonic powers, resulting in the final judgement and condemnation of the evil one and the final reward of the faithful. The remarkable presence of parallels and antitheses between the Jerusalem section (21,1-22,5) and the Babylon section (Chapters 17-18) suggests that the seer has presented them as "a single, two fold moment of judgement". Thus the whole narrative of Revelation turns the attention of the hearers to the prophetic hope in God's final victory in history over the powers of evil.
The seer begins the New Jerusalem section with the declaration of the appearance of a new world and the ultimate annihilation of the old creation (21,1). Then he goes on to describe the New Jerusalem in all its splendour (21,2-22,5). The term kainos (new: 21, 1a) introduces the absolute separation of the New Jerusalem from its past which is designated as protos (first: 21,1b). "The first heaven and the first earth" refers back to the creation scene in the book of Genesis. Sea, the abode of the beast (13,1-10) and the dead (20,13), does not exist any more in the new creation. Here the seer emphasizes the ultimate goodness that will prevail in this eschatological world.
In Revelation's presentation of the New Jerusalem, the nuptial imagery gives it an unparalleled evocation. Obviously, the city here stands for the eschatological redeemed community. Presenting this new city as Bride, the seer emphasises the aspects of purity, intimacy, love and faithfulness. The New Jerusalem coming down from God' prepared as a bride also brings with it an assurance of His eternal presence: "He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people" (21,3b). God's presence transforms all its inhabitants to His people. The New Jerusalem ushers in the eschatological age where tears, pain and death will be no more (21,4). The one who is "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" will give the water of life to those who are thirsty (21,6). God proclaims an all-encompassing renewal of all things (21,5). All those who conquer evil will inherit this new city (21,7).
The following section in 21,9-27 is a description of the New Jerusalem. One of the seven angels shows the seer "the Bride, the wife of the lamb" (21,9-10), emphasising the New Jerusalem, the new people of God, as the centre of the culminating vision. The architectural description (21,12-21) of the city is inserted between the references to 'the glory of God' that encompasses the New Jerusalem (21,11.23). The "holiness and glory" of the New Jerusalem reflects God's presence in its fullness (Isa 40,5; 60,1; 62,2). The twelve gates of the city, representing "abundant access"," have the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on it (21,12). The twelve names of the apostles are ingrained on the twelve foundation stones (21,14). By mentioning these groups of tribes and apostles, the seer points to the continuity and discontinuity present in the dynamic relationship between the old and the new order in the New Jerusalem.
The arithmetic description of the New Jerusalem as a perfect cube (21,16)12 equals the Holy of Holies (1Kgs 6,20; 2Chr 3, 8f), the place of God's tabernacling presence. The author then describes the adornment of the bride (21,18-21).13 The reference to the absence of temple in the city (21,22) is explicitly based on Jewish expectations of the New Jerusalem, where a temple is its essential component. 15 Temple in this new city is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb (21,22b), i.e., the symbolic presence of God is replaced by his definitive and absolute indwelling among people. "The glory of God is its light and its lamp is the Lamb" (21,23). All nations and kings will come to it (21,24)16 and the city will be open to all (21,25-26). God's chosen ones will partake in this eschatological kingdom (21,27).
The final unit (22,1-5) deals with the contours of the eschatological realization of the promise to the mankind. This section which intensifies the imagery of the new creation presents the culmination of the vision of the New Jerusalem.
Structure of 22,1-517
The seer presents in 22,1-5 the presence of God in the new city, the life that He gives to the inhabitants of this city and its effects in the life of those who live in it. The first part (vv.1-2) presents two new elements, the water of life and the tree of life, which represent the ultimate presence of God among wo/men and by which one participates in the life communicated by Him. The divine presence is now defined as "the throne of God and the Lamb." The next part (vv. 3-5) explains further God as the only dispenser of light. The throne of God and the Lamb in the transcendent heaven now becomes immanent and definitive in the new city. God is the ultimate and the only source of life and light to those who accept His sovereignty in this New Jerusalem. The inhabitants of the New Jerusalem will not only see God's face but, as a crowning manifestation of their new status in this city, rule with him for ever.
Sources of Life in the New Jerusalem (22,1-2)
A Then he showed me the river of the water of life bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city
B also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
God's Sovereignty in the New Jerusalem (22,3-5)
A
a (Negative) There shall no more be anything accursed.
b (Positive) but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it,
c (Result) and his servants shall worship him they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads.
B
a(Negative) And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun,
b (Positive) for the Lord God will be their light,
c. (Result) and they shall reign for ever and ever.
These sections are separated by the use of two different aspects of time: the first has aorist (edeixen) and the second future (estai, latreusousin...). While the agent of showing in the first section is certainly the angel, it is less evident the second section, as it could be the same angel or the seer himself. In section I, the description of the river, "flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb" underscores the importance of this river as the source of life, and in the following section B the phrase "for the healing of the nations" brings out the functional characteristic of the tree of life. These two important elements are presented from two complementary perspectives: the river as flowing from "the throne of God and the Lamb", which emphasises its source from the sphere of transcendence, and the leaves of tree as healing the nations, which presents its efficacy in this world. In the second section, a negative element (v.3a, v.5ab) is balanced by a positive element (v.3b, v.5c). This positive element in both subsections A and B is explicitly attributed to God and the Lamb, who is the subject of the verbs here. The following phrases in the text (v.3c-4, v.5d) are about the inhabitants, who are presented as the subjects of the verbs mentioned here, and their transformed status in the New Jerusalem as a result of the afore-mentioned positive elements.
We see a confluence of the triple moments of time in vv. 3-5. The accursed and night will be a past which exist no more, God will be an assured presence and the reign of the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem will be the awaited future. Here the presence of God and the Lamb is the overcoming of the sinful past and the assurance of the promised future.
Participation in God's Life and Reign
Our analysis of the structure of the pericope in 22,1-5 has shown the division of the text into two sections: the first on two symbols of the river of the water of life and the tree of life within the great symbol of the New Jerusalem, and the second on the presence of God and the Lamb in the city, and the new status of its members as the eschatological culmination of the grandiose vision of the seer.
Eschatological Life in the New Jerusalem
Rev 22,1-2 presents esents the sources of life in the New Jerusalem: the river of the water of life and the tree of life. Both these symbols which stand for the eschatological life have rich Old Testament allusions and, therefore, our analysis will take them into consideration, as well as the overall eschatological vision of Revelation.
The River of the Water of Life
The symbol of the river of water of life has its roots in different Old Testament passages. In fact every word in this phrase seems to have different sources. Its close references are Gen 2,10, Ezek 47,1-12 and Zech 14,8. River in the paradise imagery represents the fruitfulness of the garden and this physical imagery of the river in Genesis has parallels in the traditions of the Near Eastern religions. 18 In Ezekiel's vision 47,1-12, the prophet speaks of water issuing forth from the temple. But the seer in Revelation intensifies this imagery by replacing "out of the temple" with "from the throne of God and the Lamb". The significant difference here is the addition of living to water, which gives an explicit and distinct function to water in Revelation. 19 As the epexegetical genitive in water of life identifies both terms, water here stands for life itself. As in the letters to the churches, this life is given to those who conquers evil and stand steadfast till the end (2,10). Life here is the "existence in fellowship with God,"21 and the water of life represents the abundance of eschatological life.22 The eschatological gift of salvation in its fullness is experienced as communion of life between wo/man and God and the Lamb.
The river of water of life is further qualified by three phrases as shown in the structure above. The phrase "clear as crystal" expresses the quality of this life.23 "To shine like crystal" (21,11) refers to the radiance of the glory of God, qualifying the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. As the river of water as "flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb" clearly signifies, God himself is the source of this life. The river of water of life flowing out of the throne of God and the Lamb now refers to the life one encounters in the risen Lord. The Lamb will guide those who have come out of the tribulation to the springs of living water (7,17; also 21,6; 22,17). The river in Revelation flows neither round the city nor out of it to an outer destination, rather it "wells up within the city", representing the New Jerusalem as the realization of the eschatological hopes of the faithful. With the masterful stroke of an ingenious artist, with just three words river, water and life he evokes the Paradise and the new Jerusalem imagery of the whole Old Testament tradition.
The Tree of Life
In addition to the water of life, the seer adds here the tree of life on either side of the river. The tree of life in Genesis (2,9; 3,22.24) is reflected in this image in Revelation. Though Ezekiel does not speak of tree of life, the description of the tree of life in Revelation has many parallels in the imagery of trees in Ezek 47,12. In Ezekel's eschatological vision, the trees have two functions: as a source of food throughout the year and a source of healing. Though the author does not explicitly mention that the fruits are for food, it is implied in the letter to Ephesus: "To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (2,7). The author of Revelation takes up the Ezekel's imagery of leaves for healing but adds to it "of the nations", which, in the words of Beasley-Murray, is the seer's "provocative modification". " The witness of the Church is meant to effect the conversion of the nations. This conversion of the nations is presented as the healing of the nations. Here healing is identical with salvation offered to the faithful, which is the realization of the Old Testament promises about the eschatological salvation, in which all peoples, including the nations, are invited to participate. The nations will experience here the eschatological life, fulfilling the prophecies about nations worshiping God in 15,4. In the New Jerusalem, all are assured of life that can never be lost.
The imagery of the tree of life stands in contrast to its counterpart in Genesis where the tree was forbidden to man after he disobeyed God (Gen 3,24). The tree which stands for the eschatological life in Revelation is accessible to all. This brings to completion the vision of the seer regarding the redemption of the whole world. Alluding to the twelve tribes and twelve apostles, the old and new people of God, in the description of the New Jerusalem (21,12-14), he includes them in the saving plan of God. By referring to "the healing of the nations" the seer incorporates also the nations in the eschatological realization of salvation. The seer here emphasises once again the assurance of life for whole humanity.
The symbols of the river of the water of life and the tree of life are complementary. The emphasis in the water of life is its provenience from the throne of God and the Lamb, and therefore the transcendence of life. The tree of life, on the other hand, which grows on either side of the river points to the immanence of the life offered to the people. The life symbolized in water and tree is meant for the humanity.
God's Sovereignty in the New Jerusalem
As our analysis of the structure of the text has shown, Rev 22, 3-5 has two parallel sections with three elements. First, it describes the new reality as the absence of negative elements, and then as the presence of God and union with God.
The Absence of Evil in the New Jerusalem
The seer of Revelation affirms that there will not be anymore curse in the New Jerusalem. Though M. Rissi understands the phrase "the curse shall be no more" as highlighting the universal salvation, the text here rather emphasises the absolute supremacy of God as the ruler of the world and His eschatological reign over the whole world and its acceptance by all. There shall not be anything that invites curse and that is opposed to God in this new Paradise. This is in fact the result of their participation in the eschatological lif mentioned in 22,1-2.
In "there shall not be night anymore", night takes on a metaphorical meaning within an eschatological setting (21,25; 22,5). Here night stands for evil, encompassing everything that is opposed to God. The seer prophesies about the total absence of night and emphasises the disappearance of all traces of evil powers in this Paradise. When the seer says "they need no light of lamp or sun" (22,5b), he again affirms that the community needs only God's presence. Isaiah says: "The sun shall be no more your light by day nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night; but the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory"(Isa 60,19). In this prophecy of Isaiah, God takes over the central stage of wo/man's existence. Similarly, for the seer of Revelation there shall not be any other power other than God who rules or guides wo/man in the New Jerusalem.
The Presence of God
The absolute presence of God is the hallmark of the New Jerusalem in the eschatological vision in Revelation. Any trace of negativity is eliminated in this new city, and the reign of evil powers is replaced by the divine powers, represented by "the throne of God and the Lamb" and "God shining upon man". The new reality is characterized by the presence of the "throne of God and of the Lamb" (22,3b). The symbol of throne is the "central image" in Revelation, and it is rooted in the Old Testament imagery. The presence of God among the people was symbolized in the ark, and with the development of the concept of the kingship of Yahweh, ark was identified as his throne. This association of throne with ark makes throne for the seer a powerful symbol of God's presence among his people.
God is often referred to as the one who sits on the throne in Revelation, which is an indirect way of speaking of God without naming him. For the seer this sovereignty of God is the starting point and the central aspect of the redemption of humanity, as evident from the structure of Revelation. After the section on seven letters to the churches, which functions as the context of the seer's vision,3" he comes to the description of the throne in all its majesty in chapter 4. The life-giving divine presence is mentioned in ,1 as "the river of the water of life, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", and in 22,3 as "the throne of God and the Lamb" dwelling in the new city. In the New Jerusalem, throne signifies God's kingly reign and his eternal presence among the people. The throne of God and of the Lamb as the new centre of the reality in the eschatological realization of the New Jerusalem is presented in 21,9-22,5. This section, interestingly, has seven occurrences of theos (21,10.11.22.23; 22, 1.3.5) and arnion (21,9.14.22. 23. 27; 22,1.3), emphasizing the role of both God and the Lamb in this final vision. As a result of the redemptive role, Christ reigns together with God in the new Jerusalem.
The age-long blessing promised to the people of God (Num 6,25) is now fully realized in 22,5. The definitive presence of God and the Lamb in the New Jerusalem is here presented in its relational terms as "shining upon the people". The absolute place of God as light in the new creation is in contrast to the light of lamp or sun which can never be eternal. Light as the fulfilment of the eschatological hope appears in II Baruch: "In that world to which there is no end, ye shall receive great light." (48,50). In the new creation God himself will be the light, thus assuring an irreversible eschatological victory over darkness.
The presentation of God as the light is an expression of God's eternal and absolute reign. It has the essentials of the Isaian prophecy in 60,19-20, emphasising God as the eternal light of the new city. The seer presents Jerusalem in 21,23 as a contrast to "the light of a lamp shall shine in thee (Babylon) no more" (18,23), and it is taken up further in 22,5bc. The people of God will experience salvation, as represented in God as their light. The seer mentions in the concluding section of the vision that God will be the only and eternal light of the eschatological New Jerusalem. Here the creation story which begins with light overcoming the primeval darkness (Gen 1,2-3) comes to its completion.
People's Participation in God's Sovereignty
In the concluding section of the eschatological vision in 22, 1-5, the members of the new city are called his servants. Servants here stand for the community of the redeemed. He who conquers shall be the heir and son of God (21,7). "They shall be his peoples (laoi)" in 21,3 opens up the boundaries of this covenant people.39 However, as the repeated warnings in the New Jerusalem section (21,8.27; 22,3a) and the conclusion (22,15) show, the servants are only those who persevere in their witness to God and the Lamb.
The seer states that those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb serve God day and night in the temple (7,15). Future aspect of the verb is used in 22,3 (will worship) to emphasise the realization of this vision as a future reality. However, here the future is "initial present"4", thereby showing that this vision is already inaugurated in the redemption brought by Jesus. In the concluding vision latreusousin and opsontai are the only verbs describing the activity of the faithful. They shall serve him, i.e., God and the Lamb, and they shall see His face. Now the people of the new city have only one object for their whole existence. The centre of the eschatological life promised to the faithful and realized in the New Jerusalem is God and the Lamb.
To see the face of God is the ultimate, sometimes considered as impossible, hope of the people of God in the Old Testament (Isa 52,8; 60,2; Zech 9,14)." "Seeing the face of God" is presented in the New Testament in an eschatological context (Matt 5,8; 1Cor 13,12; Heb 12,14; 1John 3,2). "Seeing God's face" in Revelation is an eschatological reward of the people of God. While the evil powers seek to hide "from the face of Him who is seated on the throne" (6,16), the people of God see Him directly. To bear one's name or mark is to belong to that person. The mark of the beast on the forehead (14,9) reveals one's allegiance to the beast, whereas the name of God and the Lamb characterises the faithful of God (14,1). Those who conquer evil shall receive a new name (2,17), designating their new existence and identity, and their names are written in "the book of life" (3,5; 13,8).
The promise of ultimate belongingness to God is expressed in 3,12: "He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem which come down from my God out of heaven, and my own name". This absolute belongingness of the people to God is more explicitly expressed in 14,1, "Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." In this vision of the end times, only the elect of God accompany the Lamb to the Mount Zion. Here the name on the forehead is the ultimate proof of the eschatological realization of the promise that the people belong to God.
The promise that the servants of God shall reign for ever and ever "brings to a fitting conclusion God's vision of the city of God and the Lamb, leaving the reader dazzled, not to say dazed, with the glory of the prospect before him."42 This is the eschatological realization of the promise to the churches: "he who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron" (2,26-27) and "He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (3,21). In the vision of the Son of Man, the prophet Daniel speaks of the eschatological time when the saints will inherit the kingdom for ever (Dan 7,18.27). Though this vision has many parallels in Revelation, there are also certain differences. In Revelation the verbal form to reign is used in place of kingdom in Daniel, which introduces a different perspective in the eschatological city. The verb basileuo in Revelation is used only for God, God or people of God. (5,10; 11,15.17; 19,6; 20,4.6; 22,5). It points to the specific nuance that the seer gives to this verb to reign: God is the only one who truly reigns over the world. In 5,10 as well as in 1,6 the faithful are the kingdom for God. This means that God will have complete power and control over them, and they will obey him, instead of turning over to the beast and earthly kings who represent evil powers. The people of God participate in the sovereignty of God (5,10) and of the Lamb (20,4.6). In the eschatological realization of the ultimate bliss, they will reign with him for eternity (22,5). This participation in the sovereignty of God and the Lamb is an expression of their fellowship which can never be lost. But interestingly, there is no mention of any object for the reign of the new kings of the eschatological kingdom. Here we have a different metaphor of kingdom in contrast to the earthly kingdoms. In the eschatological times the children of God do not rule over others.
The seer presents the people of God as the kingdom and the kings at the same time: "(He has) made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth" (5,10). They are God's kingdom because they completely belong to God, and they are kings because they participate in the reign of God and the Lamb. Thus they return to the primeval fellowship which wo/man enjoyed in the Paradise of Genesis (Gen 1,28). The dream of becoming like God in Genesis, for which they were expelled from the Paradise, now becomes a reality in their sharing of the sovereignty of God which is the only act of God in his kingdom according to Revelation. The eschatological fellowship with God is promised for eternity to the followers of the Lamb.
In this climactic section of the vision of the New Jerusalem, the servants participate in the sovereignty of God and the Lamb (22,5d). This ultimate reward of the people, offered in the letters to the Churches, is at the same time a radical rewriting of the perception of power. While the evil powers subjugate the people, in the eschatological kingdom people participate in the life and sovereignty of God.
A Revolutionary Vision
Firmly footed on the Old Testament prophetic promises on the New Jerusalem and its re-definition by the Christ-event, the seer of Revelation presents his visions to the Church in crisis for transforming their present tribulation within the ambit of the assured realization of salvation. The vision of the seer revolves around the axis of God as the sovereign ruler of this world. God is the only source of life for humanity, and the life that He offers is accessible to everyone. The seer meticulously builds on the hopes of the Old Testament people, as shown in the pervasive and persuasive use of the Old Testament texts, and reaffirms the redemption through Christ, the King of kings, who is present in the believing community. In contrast to the worldly powers that can only deceive humanity about the true life, God and the Lamb lead them to the true life. The throne of God and the Lamb is the very source of life. In the vision of the seer, everyone subject to the sovereignty of God and the Lamb will partake the eschatological life.
The New Jerusalem in Revelation is also a metaphor for the people of God, who belong to Him in the eschatological times. Those who come to the true life are God's kingdom. The concluding vision in 22,1-5 presents the servants sharing in the reign of God and, therefore, their oneness with God. They are not only God's kingdom, but also co-rulers with Him. In this eschatological world, they too are kings, along with the sovereign God and the Lamb, the King of kings. The people of God are kingdom and kings at the same time.
Kingship is the prerogative of the only sovereign God, and in John's vision God's servants participate in the divine kingship. This identification of the divine and the human, expressed in "they shall reign for ever", can be seen as the climax of the mystical vision of the seer. This mystical vision about the ultimate union of believers with God affirms their true identity as divine. We find here a continuation of the Fourth Gospel's vision on the union of Jesus with the Father, and of the believers with God and Jesus.
This union of God and man leaves no room for dualism. Dualism in Revelation is an expression of one's "dwelling on the earth" and of the presence of evil. The seer presents the world in the grips of various powers of evil in a dualistic framework. This dualism is present in his description of the divine trinity (the one who sits on the throne, the Lamb and the seven Spirits) and the evil trinity (serpent, beast and false prophets). There are those who have the mark of the beast and those who are sealed by God. While those who dwell on earth are forced to worship the beast, the followers of the Lamb worship the true God. The progressive vision of the New Jerusalem presents the elimination of every shadow of evil represented in this duality and the illumination of the world by the divine light. God as the light of the universe resolves this duality and establishes unity.
In the climactic vision on mystical union of God and the believers, the seer takes up the metaphors of worldly powers and redefines them. He offers a counter ideology to those who are disheartened by the worldly powers that persecute and oppress them on account of their allegiance to Jesus." The book of Revelation is a challenge to take a firm stance against these earthly powers. The believers, who partake the glory of God, are strengthened to oppose the earthly evil powers. The so-called glory of these powers is as momentary as the glory of Babylon which was annihilated in a moment without leaving any trace. In a divine perspective, any power that divides and oppresses humanity is based on false understanding. One can speak of rulers and the ruled, the unjust rule of the powers and oppression of the people only in a dualistic world. The seer's mystical vision of the oneness of the king and the ruled is meant to sabotage the very basis of the evil power structures of this world.
The mystical vision of union with God and the Lamb gives the Christian community a revolutionary perspective on this world and a revolutionary spirit in their life. In this revolutionary vision, the only sovereign power is God and the Lamb and all other powers are subordinate to this ultimate power. Any opposition to these worldly powers certainly results in tribulation and death. But allegiance to the divine power, in spite of these tribulations, leads to true life that God offers. The revolutionary spirit strengthens them to challenge every evil power in this world, however powerful it might appear. This revolutionary vision, at the same time, is a proclamation of their great faith in God's salvation inaugurated in Jesus Christ which will transform the whole universe in the end.
The New Jerusalem functions as the future glory and future realization of the hopes of the Christian community, torn apart by diverse crises generated by the Empire. God is the only true sovereign King of the universe even amidst the apparent sway of this world by the powers of evil. John's mystical vision of man and God as one in the New Jerusalem is an affirmation of the ultimate powerlessness of evil and, therefore, a source of great strength for the followers of the Lamb against these powers of evil.
Lamb of God Uniqueness of the Johannine Writings Gos-pel and an original disciple of Jesus. Bible Theology Church Teachings
Everything Catholic - in spirit, in truth, and in content.
FEDAR FOUNDATION
3rd Floor, Room No.704, Olive Arcade, Near St. Joseph’s Hospital, Mananthavady – 670645
Email : info@fedarfoundation.com
Phone : 04935 293101, 97446 67206
