Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:51:59.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suggestion, Negative Response, and Positive Action in St John's Portrayal of Jesus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Charles H. Giblin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a number of episodes in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus appears to act inconsistently. That is, he proceeds to act positively after giving a negative response to a suggestion that has been presented to him in view of something considered to be an urgent human need. Four episodes that contain this repeated pattern prove to be the beginning of his signs (John 2. 1 ff.), the second, encore sign at Cana (4. 46 ff.), the discussion about going up to the feast of Tabernacles (7. 2 ff.), and the sign of the raising of Lazarus (11. 1 ff.). Some, like Bultmann, have noted elements of the pattern in one or other passage only to misconstrue the issue. Others, notably R. H. Lightfoot, R. E. Brown and C. K. Barrett, have singled out two or three instances of the pattern and have shed some helpful light on its function, albeit in a restricted literary context. Together, all four commentators prompt one's attention to these four related passages. Neither their inquiries nor those of others suggest that additional Johannine passages need directly be considered. Curiously, however, no one scholar has indicated that all four passages exemplify the same pattern. Not surprisingly, the various analyses of the pattern that scholars have offered prove to be inadequate. For they have not attempted to cover all the relevant instances. Nor, as will appear, have they explained in a way that does justice to the data in the text the instances that they have noted.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , January 1980 , pp. 197 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John. A Commentary, trans. Beasley-Murray, G. R. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 288 f.Google Scholar

2 Lightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel. A Commentary, ed. Evans, C. F. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 128 f., 175 f., 218.Google Scholar

3 Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to St. John, 1 [John 1–12] (Garden City, N.Y., 1964), p. 194.Google Scholar

4 Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John (London, 1960), pp. 255, 258.Google Scholar

5 R. Schnackenburg, for instance, does not compare or contrast any one of the four texts with any others on the score of the literary pattern discussed in this paper, nor does he compare or contrast all four texts considered here; Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg i. B.: I [John 1–4], 1965; II [John 5–12], 1971; III [John 13–21], 21976). The pattern examined in this paper should be distinguished from situations in which Jesus is requested simply to answer (not to act); e.g. John 8. 25; 10. 24; 9. 2b, 40. The limited scope of this study requires that it prescind from certain analogous situations that entail Jesus' subsequent action. The most striking are those in 2. 18 ff. and 6. 30 ff. The demand for a sign in 2. 18b is met indirectly by Jesus' prediction of his passion–resurrection, which surpasses the limited perspective of his auditors and appropriately indicates his transcendent concern (especially in the light of his foregoing action in what he calls ‘My Father's house’). The positive action, however, does not follow in the immediate narrative context. The demand for a sign in 6. 30 is answered by a discourse that offers an unexpected kind of sign, one of a personal, prophetic character that is not effected in the immediate narrative context, but looks forward to the scandal of a correlated mystery, the passion–resurrection (cf. 6. 60–3). In 5. 64 and 6. 5b, Jesus seems to be trying to elicit a request, even a suggestion that he himself act. But the response in both cases shows preoccupation with merely human obstacles and solutions and betrays discouragement, even complaint. Not surprisingly, no negative statement follows on Jesus' part. Significantly, even in these cases of actual requests or of attempts to elicit a request, the subsequent words and actions of Jesus underscore his own conscious purpose as transcending the horizons of those with whom he speaks.

6 Bultmann, John, pp. 288 f.

7 The evangelist is not numbering signs consecutively (‘first’, ‘second’, etc.). He begins with an inaugural sign in Cana of Galilee (‘This beginning…’, ταúτην… ρχη…2. 11), mentions other signs (2. 23; 3.2), and then returns to ‘this second’ sign (τοũτο…δεὐτερον) on his return to Galilee–omitting the definite article after τοũτο and interposing πλιν between τοũτο and δεὐτερον. If (explicative) δ is read between τοũτο and πλιν, the twofold emphasis (πλιν δεὐτερον) becomes more perceptible. The adverb πλιν helps convey the notion of a repeated, ‘back again’, i.e. ‘encore’ sign. Not infrequently in the Fourth Gospel, it proves difficult and probably unnecessary to distinguish between the spatial (‘back’) and temporal (‘again’) aspects of πλιν (cf. 4. 46; 6. 15; 10. 17, 18; 11. 7, 8; 18. 27, 33, 38; 19. 4, 9). If one reads 4. 54 in the light of 21. 16 (λγει…πλιν δεὐτερον), the temporal meaning may seem to be primary. One should not conclude from this ‘parallel’ in the appendix, however, that the anarthrous phrase either there or here must of itself mean ‘the second time’ or that it would necessarily suppose that the writer intends to continue a numbered series (‘the third’, and so on). In 21. 16 the πλιν before δεὑτερον serves simply to underscore insistence on the repeated, key words:‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’.Πλιν helps correlate the statements, especially the opening and following one; cf. πλιν before μικρóν in 16. 16 ff., correlating one ‘little time’ with the other. In 4. 54 as in 4. 46, πλιν helps correlate this Galilean sign with that Galilean sign that was already mentioned.

8 Bultmann, , John, pp. 205 f.Google Scholar

9 Lightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel, p. 218.Google Scholar

10 Lightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel, p. 175.Google Scholar

11 Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 195Google Scholar, appealing to Delling, Th. W.B. III, 475 f. and 461 f., sees Jesus' καιρóς as the moment for Jesus decidedly to place himself under God's call. Schnackenburg regards the similarity between 7. 6 and a. 4 as merely ‘external’. But Jesus does not speak in 7. 6 (any more than in 2. 4) as one who is in the least bit undecided about the principal moment of his self-revelation, whether that be depicted as an ‘hour’ or as an ‘opportune time’. Furthermore, the exegete must bear in mind the trenchant criticisms of James Barr, Biblical Words for Time (Naperville, 1962), pp. 39, 49 n. 1, 62–3, apropos of the term καιρóς.

12 In the inaugural sign, an implicit reference to the Father may be discerned in the reference to Jesus' hour (cf. 13. 1) and perhaps even in the way his glory is manifested through dissociation from his mother (for his glory connotes a unique relationship to God, his Father, as the reader has been conditioned to understand from the prologue, esp. I. 14). In the encore sign, the ‘honour’ denied Jesus as a prophet may implicitly prepare for the statement about the ‘honour’ due him as the Son (5. 22–3); but, at best, the allusion to the Father is vague in 4. 44.

13 Brown, John I, p. 194.

14 The Samaritan woman does not even expect to see signs and wonders; the Messiah she looks for is one ‘who will tell (ναγγελεī) us all things’ (4. 25).

15 Barrett, C. K., John, p. 207.Google Scholar

16 Barrett, , John, p. 258 (re 7. 1–3).Google Scholar

17 Cf.I. 39b, where ‘that day’ is noted and the hour is marked. Schnackenburg, Johannes-evangelium, 1, p. 309Google Scholar; II, pp. 447–8; III, p. 323, goes on to discuss similar expressions: ‘from that hour’, 19. 27; ‘that (momentous) year’, II.49, 51; 18.13.

18 Brown, , John, I, p. 431Google Scholar, explains this motif of glorification only in connection with the passion. More accurately, Schnackenburg sees it verified within the account of the sign itself; Johannes-evangelium, 2, pp. 404–5, 424.Google Scholar

19 The sign in John 9. 1 ff., however, remains connected with Jesus' self-revelation during the feast (cf. 9. 5, 39 and 8. 12). Interestingly, the sign proves to be one in which Jesus associates the disciples with himself (reading μς in 9. 4; cf. Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, II, p. 304) rather than a work performed for self-ostentation, as suggested by Jesus' brethren in 7. 3 fF.

20 Thus, a progression may be noted in John's use of exaltation (ψον) texts: 3. 14–15 (to the Jewish leader, Nicodemus), 8. 28 (to the Jews generally), 12. 31–3 (to the crowd, but for the benefit of the Greeks and his disciples as well).

21 Cf. Olsson, Birger, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund, 1974), pp. 46 f.Google Scholar

22 Cf. the instances discussed by Brown, , John, I, p. 99.Google Scholar

23 Contra Vanhoye, A., ‘Interrogation johannique et exégèse de Cana (Jn 2, 4)’, Biblica 55 (1974), 157–67Google Scholar, whose view is accepted by Boismard, M.-E. and Lamouille, A., L'Evangile de Jean (Paris, 1977), p. 106Google Scholar. If taken interrogatively, οὒπω in 2. 4b would have to convey the sense ‘not already’. In effect, an interrogation (at least if taken with the affirmative connotation that the hour had indeed arrived) ill accords with the dissociation of particular concerns in υ. 4a. Furthermore, the sense of οὒπω (‘not yet’) here is better judged in line with its use elsewhere in John apropos of Jesus' hour (7. 30) or opportune time (7. 6).

24 Cf. Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs (Cambridge, 1970), p. 31Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., ‘The Johannine Trajectory’, in Trajectories through Early Christianity, ed. Robinson, J. M. and Koester, Helmut (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 232–68, esp. 245 f.Google Scholar

25 As occurs in the Synoptics; e.g. Mark 6. 34 ff.; Luke 5. 12–16; 9. 11; 13. 10–17.

26 The miraculous crossing of the lake (John 6. 16–;21) stands as the only exception, unless one finds the antecedent purpose of Jesus in earlier statements regarding the disciples' need of him for completion of their own work (cf. 4. 35–8). In John 6. 16–21, the remark about Jesus' not yet having come to the disciples (υ. 17c) is inserted not where it would suggest the reason for their departure, but between υυ. 17ab and 18, where it suggests the increasingly hazardous situation that they face once they have embarked (υυ. 16–17a) at a late hour and, seemingly, on their own initiative.

27 The wine apparently represents the messianic blessings, particularly wisdom, communicated by Jesus. A generic explanation like that proposed by Michaud, , Le Signe de Cana dans son contexte Johannique (Montreal, 1963), pp. 81–5, is not unlikely, given the inaugural character of the sign.Google Scholar

28 Robinson, J. M., ‘The Johannine Trajectory’, 246.Google Scholar

29 Jesus uses the second plural in addressing Nathanael; cp. the mixture of singular and plural in the discourse with Nicodemus, where the two teachers represent two ‘schools of thought’ (3.1–13, esp. υυ11–12). The implicit movement to a wider audience in and through an individual may be perceived also in 15. 8–11.

30 If the fourth evangelist did know and rework the account of the cure of the centurion's servant, he would have had reason to avoid characterizing the man in a way that would clearly have implied he was a gentile. Cf. Neirynck, F. et al. , ‘L'Evangile de Jean. Examen critique du commentaire de Boismard et, M.-E.Lamouille, A.’, E.T.L. LIII (1977), 363–478, esp. 469 f.Google Scholar

31 Cf. Meeks, Wayne, ‘Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. 85 (1966), 159–69, 165Google Scholar. In the Johannine perspective, however, Jesus' ‘fatherland’ (πατρỉς), ‘origin’, ‘relations’, etc. must be considered metahistorically as well; Jesus is not ‘defined’ in terms of this world's viewpoint. Furthermore, the only earthly place in which he is clearly honoured by the inhabitants is Samaria – a land with a people clearly not his own (4. 9, 22) – where he is recognized not only as a prophet-Messiah (4. 25, 29; cp. υυ. 39, 42a) but also as the Saviour of the World (4. 42b).

32 In the Synoptics, Capernaum is not only the place where Jesus' first miraculous activity occurs (Mark I. 22 ff.; 2. I ff.; Matt. 4. 13; cf. the supposition required by Luke 4. 23, even before the narrative in Luke 4. 31 ff.), but can even stand as a type of cities in which Jesus has performed miracles (Matt. II. 23 ff.).

33 ‘Not many days’ is anticlimactic after the build-up of a series of days of John's testimony (1. 29, 35) interlocking with the day on which Jesus decided to go to Galilee (1. 43), which, in turn, marks the point of departure for mention of his being at Cana of Galilee on the third day (2. 1). The anticlimactic interlude in the narrative at 2. 12 (κα κεī ἔμειναν) may be paralleled by 10. 40 and 11. 54.

34 The ascent-descent motif in John I. 51 may serve only to bring out the role of the Son of Man as the heavenly (‘skyscraper’) gateway. There may be evidence of a metaspatial, theological geography in a number of adverbial plays on the ‘up–down’ motif; cf. ὢνωθεν in 3. 3, 7,31; 19.11; κτω/νω in 8. 23.

35 The order is either ABA′ (υ. 3abcd, υ. 4ab, υυ.4cd, 5) or ABCB′A′ (υυ. 3a, 3bcd, 4ab, 4cd, 5); either way, the focal point of the suggestion is the same (υ. 4ab) and lies at the centre.

36 No pun on ‘Passover’ is intended. Nevertheless, in view of the distinctively Johannine theological exploitation of ναβαíνειν and καταβαíνειν, μεταβαíνειν merits some attention, at least when it is used of Jesus himself (cf. 13. 1) or of what personal association with him implies (5. 24). Admittedly, another compound, μβαíνειν, does not have the same import (6. 17, 24; 21. 3).

37 The evangelist does not introduce abruptly Jesus' final words to his disciples (13. I ff.); he prepares for them as early as II. 54.

38 Cf. Porsch, Felix, Pneuma und Wort. Ein Exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannes-evangeliums (Frankfurt a.M., 1974), p. 356Google Scholar, citing I. de la Potterie.

39 As in II. 2 in relation to II. I, and in 12. 6 in relation to 12. 4.

40 Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 399Google Scholar, notes the exception to Johannine usage. Although he remarks that the use of μν without a following δ is not unusual in classical Greek, he admits that, on the score of Johannine usage, one might doubt that υ. 6 pertains to the source. He considers it as a possible insertion to prepare for υ. 15 or υ. 17, but not as involving a correlative displacement with υ. 5.

41 Cf. Blass–Debrunner–Funk, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago, 1961), § 447.Google Scholar

42 Cf. Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 406 n. 2. This pleonasm occurs in John only here. There may be a reason for the fuller expression, namely, to accentuate the break occasioned by the placement of υ. 5 (δ clause) before υ. 6.Google Scholar

43 Cf. his comments on Keller's, C. A. dissertation, Das Wort OTH als ‘Offenbarungszeichen’ Gottes (Basel, 1946)Google Scholar; Johannesevangelium, 1, p. 356.Google Scholar