John’s Gospel: Moses, Jesus, and Signs

Many scholars split John’s Gospel into two major parts: chapters 1-11 and 12-21.  Scholars differ on the main themes of these parts and the exact location of the “middle,” but generally speaking the first part is about Jesus’ public ministry and the second is his journey to the cross.  Narrative time goes rather quickly in the first part but slows down considerably in the second.  Signs are concentrated in the first part, but not in the second.  The division is a legitimate one to make.

Craig Keener has a great observation on the structure of the first part of John’s Gospel.  He notes that the signs in the first section begin in chapter 2 and end in chapter 11.  They contrast with Moses’ “signs” (the plagues) quite significantly:

“The opening sign (2.1-11) recounts Jesus’ benevolence at a wedding; the last involves a funeral [ch. 11]….  Whereas Moses’ first sign was transforming water to blood, Jesus benevolently transforms it into wine.  Likewise, whereas the final plague against Egypt was the death of the firstborn sons, the climax of Jesus’ signs is raising a dead brother-provider.”

This structure is witness to John’s earlier comment contrasting Moses and Christ – The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1.17).  Or, in other words, as the Pharisees thought Moses would do them well, Jesus used Moses as legal evidence against them: There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.   If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (4.45-6). 

If John used OT scriptures and OT events as witness for his main point (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God), John can structure his gospel in a way that strengthens his testimony.  The overall structure of the gospel, as noted in the last post here, is further testimony – legal evidence - that Jesus is whom he said: the I AM.  Here at the very center of John’s Gospel is the very center of his message – Jesus, the resurrection and the life.

Quote taken from Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume II (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 835.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Craig Keener: John 10.22-23 and Hanukkah

Craig Keener’s two volume commentary on John’s Gospel is a level-headed, well researched, and careful exposition of the Gospel.   In other words, its well worth the cash.  Here’s an example of Keener’s excellent discussion of background material from 10.22, where Jesus speaks to the Jews during the Feast of Dedication (a.k.a. Hanukkah).

“Most possible associations with Hanukkah are less clear than the clearest associations John provides with Sukkoth [see my earlier posts on the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths] and Passover elsewhere….  Nevertheless, John’s Jewish audience might well contemplate the narrative in the light of their own celebrations of Hanukkah.  When Jesus’ interlocutors demand to know whether he is the Messiah (10.24), the calendrical context is political, a celebration of national deliverance; Jesus instead defines his messianic identity in terms of oneness with the Father (10.30).”

“The Hanukkah context also may highlight the hypocrisy of Jesus’ enemies.  The feast honored the Maccabean heroes for their good works on behalf of Israel, whereas Jesus opponents seek to stonehim despite his good works (10.32).  During this season those gathered in Jerusalem also would have recalled with disdain the Hellenist Jewish apostates who sided with Antiochus Ephiphanes’ claim to be deity; Jesus’ opponents might well have in mind this history when they charge Jesus with making himself God (10.33).  Jesus argues the opposite; they reject him though he is God’s agent, ‘sent’ by God; he is ‘sanctified’ just as the new altar was (10.36).  Because they reject him as God’s agent, he would imply that they are the true apostates, no more from his sheep (10.26) than the Hellenists who preferred Antiochus to the Maccabees.  In such a context, it is not difficult to see that the charges and countercharges represent loaded language that invited an acceleration of conflict (10.39).”

Nice.  Keener is careful not to overstate the connections between the extra-canonical origin of Hanukkah, as John only hints at it in passing.  Yet Keener does take time to study the connection, because the text does clearly hint at it (10.22-3).  Also, with care, Keener notes the original readers of this gospel, who would no doubt know what Hanukkah was.  (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary vol. 1 [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003], 822).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Water from Jesus’ “belly/womb?” – John 7.38

John 7.38 is one of those passages in Scripture over which scholars go back and forth; for example both Craig Keener and D.A. Carson write that it is “difficult” and end up coming down on different “sides.”  Do the waters of life flow from the believer’s “belly” (“heart” in NIV, ESV, etc) or Jesus’ “belly?”  Where does the period belong, after “the one who believes in me” or before it?  Which OT text(s) is Jesus referring to in verse 38?

I think Keener, A.T. Lincoln, and Joel Marcus are right here (even though Carson in his commentary and Fee in a journal article give some very helpful remarks while disagreeing with Keener, Lincoln, and Marcus).  The water of life flows from Jesus’ “belly.”  Here are the discussions that convinced me.

Lincoln brings us back to Ezek. 47.1-12, where eschatological rivers of life flow from the new temple.  Furthermore, writes Lincoln, Zech. 14 has to do with the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkoth (which is happening during John 7-8) and the water and light of life symbols.  Still further back, Lincoln reminds us of Ex. 17 and Ps. 78, the OT recollections of water flowing from the rock during Israel’s wilderness years.  Finally, as extra-biblilcal (yet extremely helpful) proof, Lincoln notes that the Rabbinic descriptions of the Feast of Tabernacles associate the water from the rock in the wilderness to the water in the temple — water “rituals” that took place during the Feast of Tabernacles.  In summary and in Lincoln’s own words, “Jesus is now the rock, from whose womb come the waters of new life, the waters of the Spirit, the agent of new birth” (A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel of Saint John, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], 256-7).

Joel Marcus links John 7.38 to Is. 12.3, discusses the Hebrew, LXX, and Greek text a bit, as well as Rabbinic “midrash,” then concludes, “Do not read, ‘from the wells of salvation,’ but ‘from the belly of Jesus,’ for rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” (see Joel Marcus, “Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly” Journal of Biblical Literature, 117 [1998]: 330).

Finally, Craig Keener: “From this center [Jerusalem/temple] would flow the rivers of life to water the whole world; and in John, where Jesus’ body becomes the new temple (2.19-21), he becomes the shattered cornerstone from which flows the water of the river of life” (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 730).

See also G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), who agrees that “the ‘innermost being’ from which ‘flow rivers of living water’ is Jesus himself as the new ‘holy of holies’ and not the one who believes in Jesus” (p. 197).

shane

sunnyside wa

Keener on John 4.31-38

 

While Jesus was at the well in Samaria speaking to the woman, his disciples urged him to eat (John 4).  Craig Keener’s comments here are helpful.

“This picture does not deny the Johannine Jesus’ full humanity.  Jesus here does not strictly refuse physical food, and an ancient audience, aware of the demands of hospitality, would recognize that Jesus ends up with not only lodging but physical food (4.40).  The issue is not docetism (cf. 1.14), but priorities; his mission takes precedence over his comfort, foreshadowing his thirst at the cross (19.28).”

“Jesus’ mission involved not just one meal, but an entire harvest of spiritual food that was on the way (4.34-38).  In context, the narrative probably contrasts Jesus’ commitment with that of the disciples.  The disciples had gone into a Samaritan town with apparently little effect on the populace; Jesus had ministered to one woman and brought the entire town to himself.”

Keener is right-on; he nicely draws out John’s repeated emphasis on Jesus’ mission/task as well as the apostle’s use of metaphor and irony.

See Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A CommentaryVol 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 623-4.  Note: Above emphasis mine.

shane lems

sunnyside wa