By Alfred E. Garvie
Part XI - XIII
XI. THE SABBATH CURE AT
BETHESDA (v. and vii. 15-24).
(1) THE reason for transposing
chapters v. and vi. and for
adding vii. 15-24 to v. has been
given in the previous article;
and the suggestion has been
offered that the feast mentioned
in v. 1 was Pentecost. As no
disciples are mentioned, and
the man cured does not know his
benefactor, it is likely that
this visit too, like the next at
the Feast of Tabernacles, was
made "not publicly, but as it
were in secret" (vii. 10). The
explanation of the troubling of
the waters in verses 3 (last
clause) and 4, which might be
used to charge the evangelist
with so ready a credulity, is
absent from the best MSS. How
Jesus knew that "he had been now
a long time in that case" (verse
6) we are not told. We might
suppose that here again the
evangelist assumed supernatural
knowledge, but γνούς is the verb
used. It would seem that
compassion moved Jesus
spontaneously to offer the cure
in awakening the desire for it.
The warning in verse 14
indicates that Jesus had
knowledge of the man's past, but
how gained we are not told. That
the act of cure on the Sabbath
provoked hostility is entirely
in accord with the Synoptic
representations. Jesus'
justification in verse 17
carries us into another circle
of ideas than the defences of
Sabbath cures afford in the
Synoptic records; but in vii.
22-23 the defence offered is of
the same kind as was usual in
Galilee. That Jesus claimed His
Father's example, the constant
beneficent activity of God in
nature, as a justification of
His own act is, however, not
itself improbable, especially in
view of the probability
mentioned in the last article,
that He in Jerusalem, in face of
more violent embittered
opposition, asserted His claims
more openly and
persistently than He did in
Galilee, when these claims
being misunderstood might lead
to an undesired Messianic
movement. If the evangelist
accepts the interpretation of
the words which Jesus' opponents
put on them, that in claiming to
follow the Father's example
Jesus was claiming to be equal
with God (verse 18) the context
itself justifies our refusing to
follow him, for throughout the
discussion which follow it is
the Son's dependence on, and
submission to the Father which
is insisted on. If we find the
ὁμοούσιον here our exegesis is
dogmatic, and not historical.
That the saying aroused so
violent an outburst of hate
shows that there must have been
previous controversy, and that
there was gathered fuel of hate,
ready to kindle at the feeblest
spark.
(2) Can we accept the discourse
in verses 19 to 47 as an
accurate report? What at once
strikes us in reading the
passage is the twofold mode of
Jesus' reference to Himself. In
v. 30-47 and in vii. 15-24 He
speaks of Himself in the first
person, and in verses 19-29,
apart from the introductory
formula, "Verily, verily I say
unto you" (vers, 19, 25), He
refers to Himself in the third
person, except in verse 24,
which, as faith is set forth as
the condition of eternal life,
presents no difficulty, and may
be at once accepted as a saying
suitable on the occasion. But is
the exposition in these other
verses of the intimate and
absolute relation of the Father
and the Son, with its reference
to the future judgment and the
future resurrection, at all
likely to have been given by
Jesus to His opponents? Even if
less revered in Jerusalem than
in Galilee, is it credible that
at this stage He so entirely
cast off reserve, especially
when such language could provoke
only deeper misunderstanding and
keener hostility? So apposite is
Jesus' speech in the Synoptics,
that we must suspect in the
Fourth Gospel utterances which
do not seem necessary or
relevant to the occasion, Does
not the use of the third person
throughout
in the balancing of Father and
Son in their mutual relation
appear much more credible as a
later doctrinal development, in
reflexions of the evangelists,
or, possibly, some reminiscences
of intimate talk of Jesus with
His beloved disciple at a later
date than as a. speech in public
by Jesus Himself? Without
assuming that verses 30-47 are
a. verbatim report, it seems to
the writer we may accept them as
a substantially accurate account
of the controversy of Jesus with
His opponents. The same
assumption seems justified
as regards the sequel of the
controversy in vii. 15-24,
which, however, need not have
followed immediately, but after
a short interval of time.
XII. THE CONTROVERSY AT THE
FEAST OF TABERNACLES (John
vii.-viii.).
(1) It has already been
maintained that vii. I is the
sequel to vii. 24, and that vii.
I5-24 continues the story of v.
I-4:7. It was the attempt made
on His life at the Feast of
Pentecost in Jerusalem which led
Jesus, not only to withdraw to
Galilee (vii. l), but also to
abandon what seems to have been
the usual practice of going up
to the feast with the Galilean
pilgrims (ver. 10); and the
precaution was wisely taken, as
His opponents were on the
outlook for Him (ver. 11). The
attitude of His brethren here
described (vv. 3-8) is also
attested by Mark iii. 31-35; and
His refusal to be guided by
their advice is exactly
paralleled by His reply to His
mother at the marriage in Cana
(ii. 4), in which also His sole
and entire dependence on God is
asserted. An intimation of the
divine will that He should go to
the festival, accompanied
doubtless by an assurance of the
divine protection if He went,
is probably the explanation of
the change of plan. We cannot
conjecture what change of
conditions made it safer for Him
to appear publicly at the middle
of the Feast than at the
beginning. Possibly the presence of
larger numbers of friendly
pilgrims may have offered some
security, and His non-appearance
at the commencement may have for
a time thrown His enemies off
their guard, so that He gained
His brief opportunity of
appealing to the people before
steps were taken to seize Him
(see vv. 43-46).
(2) We seem in these chapters to
be in the region of historical
probability, and only a few
matters claim closer scrutiny.
We may note how carefully the
writer distinguishes the
different currents of opinion.
In vii. 12 the phrase "among the
multitudes" is used to describe
"the different groups of
strangers who had come up to the
festival, and such as consorted
with them" (Westcott's
St. John,
p. 117), and a conflict of
opinion is here recorded. The
Jews (vv. 11 and 13) are the
openly and bitterly hostile
party, described in verse 26 as
the rulers, and composed,
according to verse 32, of the
chief priests and the Pharisees.
"The combination occurs also in
St. Matthew (Matt. xxi. 45;
xxvii. 62). The phrase probably
describes the Sanhedrin under
the form of its constituent
classes" (ibid., p. 121). The
Pharisees were the democratic
party in close contact with the
people, and so kept well
informed of the popular opinions
(vii. 32; viii. 13); and through
them the aristocratic party of
the priesthood was moved to
action. In
vii. 25 another group is
mentioned, distinguished on the
one hand from the multitudes,
the pilgrims, and on the other
from the members of the
Sanhedrin, and described in the
phrase τινὲς ἐκ τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμειτων, citizens of
Jerusalem "who were acquainted
with the designs of the
hierarchy, and yet not committed
to them " (ibid., p. 120).
Probably the evangelist himself
was in close contact with this
group; and may even have been
seeking to influence it to a
favourable judgment. The
opinions ascribed here would not
be spoken openly; and how could
one of the Galilean disciples
become aware of what wail being
thus
privately discussed? While the
term Jews is usually applied to
the hostile party of priests and
Pharisees, in
viii. 31 it is used of a group,
whose hostility, if it had
existed, had been so far
overcome that they had believed
Him (τοὺς πεπιστευκότας
ὰὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους). But their belief is
distinguished from the faith of
" the number " who " believed in
Him" (ver. 30), πολλοὶ
ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν, if we
may assume that " the change in
the construction of the verb "
has some significance. According
to Westcott, this group "
acknowledged His claims to
Messiahship as true, were
convinced by what He said, but
still interpreted His promise
and words by their own
prepossessions" (p. 133). In the
warning Jesus recognises the
imperfection of their faith;
and their quick resentment at
His speech shows the
superficiality of the impression
made on them (vel. 33). To the
writer it seems incredible that
if the evangelist was not an
eyewitness, and had no concern
for historical reality, he
should so carefully have
distinguished the varied and
varying attitudes assumed
towards Jesus, and have
presented them with such
striking verisimilitude.
(3) A second indication of
trustworthiness is surely to be
found in the figures in which
Jesus made His appeal to the
multitude. In vii. 37 He offers
Himself as the living water;
and in viii. 12 as the light of
the world. The appropriateness
of the first may be indicated in
the words of Dods. " On each of
the seven feast days water was
drawn in a golden pitcher from
the pool of Siloam, and carried
in procession to the Temple, in
commemoration of the water from
the rock with which their
fathers in the desert had been
provided. On the eighth day,
which commemorated their
entrance into a ' land of
springs of water ' this ceremony
was discontinued. But the deeper
spirits must have viewed with
some misgiving all this ritual,
feeling still in themselves a
thirst which none of these
symbolic forms quenched,
and wondering when the vision of
Ezekiel would be realieed, and a
river broad and deep would issue
from the Lord's house "
(Expositor's Greek Testament,
vol. i., p. 767). As regards the
fitness of the second figure,
the same writer's words may be
given. " Notwithstanding Meyer
and Holtzmann, it seems not
unlikely that this utterance
was prompted by the symbolism of
the feast. According to the
Talmud, on every night of the
feast the Court of the Women was
brilliantly illuminated. . . .
This brilliant lighting was
perhaps a memorial of the Pillar
of Fire which led the Israelites
while dwelling in tents "
(ibid., p. 773). The evangelist
was assuredly one who was
thoroughly familiar with Jewish
customs, and also with the mode
of the teaching of Jesus, whose
language was always appropriate
to the occasion and to the
environment, as the Synoptic
teaching shows.
(4)
In spite of these two
indications of historical
trustworthiness, it may be
urged that the crucial test is
the language put in the lips of
Jesus; and on this question
several considerations must be
offered. (a) It is evident that
short, crisp, and clear sayings,
such as those given in the
Synoptic Gospels, could be much
more distinctly remembered than
controversies such as are here
recorded; and we cannot assume
a verbal exactness, only a
substantial accuracy.
(b)
The sharpness of the tone of
Jesus, the severity of His
judgment throughout this
controversy does undoubtedly
present a difficulty. Could
these words fall from the lips
of the meek and lowly in heart?
The possibility must be admitted
that the evangelist in his
passionate devotion to his
Master, and his no less vehement
indignation against his Master's
enemies, may have unconsciously
exaggerated the polemic
character of both the spirit and
the content of Jesus' teaching.
But it must also be remembered
that. Jesus combined severity
with gentleness, and even of
His
earthly ministry we might use
the paradoxical phrase "the
wrath of the Lamb." We must not
forget His woes on Chorazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Matt.
xi. 20-24), and His terrible
denunciation of the scribes and
Pharisees at the close of His
ministry (xxiii. 1-36); also His
solemn warning about the
unpardonable sin against the
Holy Ghost (xii. 31-32). The
hostility in Jerusalem was more
persistent, vehement, and
ruthless than any experience in
Galilee. As it came from the
rulers, the teachers, and the
leaders of the nation, it was
more fatal to the acceptance of
Jesus as Messiah by the Jewish
people. These enemies were
responsible for the rejection of
Jesus, and the doom which would
fall on the nation. The lament
over Jerusalem (Matt. xxiii.
3739) follows the denunciation
of the scribes and Pharisees;
it was Jesus' compassion for the
people which intensified His
indignation against the blind
leaders of the blind. We abstain
from judging, because we know
that we ourselves deserve to be
judged. Surely the sinless and
perfect had a right to condemn
as no man has. His insight
enabled Him to know the
unreality both of the piety and
patriotism under which pride,
greed, conceit, censoriousness,
selfindulgence and
self-interest hid themselves.
The Synoptic records leave
unexplained the hatred that did
Jesus to death; but John's
record of the controversy in
Jerusalem offers an intelligible
explanation. Are we not, in
finding a difficulty in the
severity of Jesus, condemning
our own moral and religious
standpoint? Was not His burning
indignation against falsehood,
wrong and hate the reverse of
the moral perfection of which
passionate devotion to God,
truth, and goodness was the
obverse? Just because He as Son
was so certain of God as Father
could He be so confident in His
judgment of those who not only
rejected that Fatherhood in Him
for themselves, but stood in the
way of the acceptance by the
people of the blessings of that
Fatherhood.
(c)
Just because in this controversy
the final issue of His
acceptance or rejection as
Messiah was involved, Jesus now
begins to lay aside all reserve
and restraint, and uses the
whole of His resources of
argument, appeal, and authority.
It is not improbable too that
the more His claim of sonship
was contradicted and challenged,
the more distinct, confident,
and dominant would His
self-consciousness become. To
the writer it does not seem at
all improbable that the
intuition of pre-existence,
expressed in viii. 58, the
certainty that His relation as
Son to Father was not temporal
but eternal, antecedent to the
very beginnings of God's
revelation to the chosen people,
flashed upon Him as a gleam from
heaven, when the shadows of
unbelief and hate were
gathering thick and close
around Him (see for further
discussion Studies in the Inner
Life of Jesus, pp. 85-86).
Accordingly the writer does not
find in the reports of these
chapters teaching about the
person of Jesus which seems to
go beyond what was possible and
even necessary for the occasion.
(d)
It is not necessary for the
present purpose to discus11 the
passage vii. 53-viii. 11, as the
generally accepted conclusion
of scholars is unhesitatingly
accepted; but it may be pointed
out that the intrusion of a
passage not authentic affords
some justification for the
assumption here being made, that
there are displacements in the
text of the Gospel, and that we
may without rashness attempt to
restore the order of the
original document.
XIII. CONTROVERSY AT THE FEAST
OF DEDICATION (John ix.
and x.).
(1) The incident recorded in the
9th chapter leaves a vivid
impression of historical reality
; the development of the faith
of the man born blind, to whom
sight was given, is described in
a. most convincing way. As the
incident closely connects itself
with the teaching given in
chapter x "
and the note of time in verse 22
fixes the date of that
teaching, we may treat both
chapters as an account of a
visit to Jerusalem at the Feast
of Dedication. The disciples
mentioned in ix. 2 need not be
the twelve, the companions of
Jesus in Galilee, but may be
Judean disciples, including
probably the evangelist, whose
account here seems to be given
at first hand. Dr. Moffatt, in
his New Translation of the New
Testament, makes a transposition
which seems justified. He
connects x. 19-29 directly with
ix. 41. An appropriate comment
on Jesus' action and speech in
chapter ix. is offered in x.
19-21. Verses 22-29 follow quite
naturally on 19-21; verses 26 to
29 continue the thought of
verses 24 and 25, and very
appropriately lead up to the
teaching in x. 1-16. Also it
seems more probable that such a
declaration as "I and My Father
are one" (ver. 30) would follow
on the frank declaration of His
intention to lay down and take
up His life again (v. 18), than
on the assurance of God's
supreme power over all.
Altogether there is a. decided
gain in the continuity of the
teaching by this rearrangement.
(2) The passage in chapter x.
1-16 is interesting as an
example of the allegory into
which, according to the Fourth
Gospel, Jesus expanded His
metaphors. Doubtless it was of
the blind man, who had fully and
freely confessed his faith,
Jesus was thinking when He spoke
of the sheep who listened to His
voice; and of the constancy of
His sorely tried faith when He
gave the assurance that no one
could tear them out of His hand,
because God's strength was His
(x. 27-29). In the Fourth Gospel
there are no parables exactly
similar in structure to those in
the Synoptic Gospels, and we may
raise the question, whether and
why Jesus avoided in Judea a
mode of teaching so attractive
and effective? la it not more
probable that the evangelist,
transforming reminiscence by
reflexion, has changed parables'
into allegories. This at least
is Wendt's opinion in regard
to this
passage, for he finds here
companion parables. " The first
of these parables (vv. 1-5)
describes how the sheep obey and
follow only the shepherd who
enters by the door into the
sheepfold, while the one who
breaks in by another way is a
stranger and a robber, from whom
the sheep flee. Its application, according to ·the
explanation in verses 7-9, is
that Jesus is the one essential
Mediator of salvation for men:'
I am the door; by Me if any man
enter in he shall be saved, and
shall go in and out and find
pasture' (ver. 9). But since
this comparison of Jesus to the
door of the sheepfold, which in
a merely passive sense gives
entrance to the flock, makes no
account of the devoted care with
which Jesus ministers salvation
to His people, therefore this
additional idea is brought out
by a. second parable (from ver.
10), in which the same figure of
a. sheepfold is employed in
another relation. As the good
shepherd, in contrast to the
robber who will only injure the
flock, and in contrast to the
careless hireling who leaves it
in the lurch in time of danger,
devotes his life to the welfare
of the sheep; so Jesus exhibits
Himself as the true Saviour, in
lovingly devoting His life for
them " (The Teaching of Jesus,
pp. 128-129). To this statement
we must add that it is quite
probable that verse is a.
genuine logion, but from another
context. Would not Jesus have
confused His hearers, if, just
after calling Himself the
Shepherd, He had called Himself
the door also? The transition
from the one parable to the
other must be conceived
differently from Wendt's
suggestion. The first parable is
that of the sheep in relation to
the shepherd; the second of the
shepherd in relation to the
sheep. Wendt does not point out
clearly enough how the
evangelist has altered the
parabolic form; probably in the
original form the first personal
pronoun was not used, as in vv.
10-11, 14-15; but a description
of the Good Shepherd's ways was
given in the third person; and
the evangelists has blended
explanation
and parable. So restored, the
companion parables would fall
into the first of the two
classes which Wendt
distinguishes, that which gives
"a rule in frequently recurring
cases" (p. 117).
(3) The intimation of the
voluntary sacrifice (x. 17, 18)
follows easily and simply on the
teaching about the Good
Shepherd, and is appropriate to
the occasion. His enemies were
purposing and intriguing for His
death. Jesus admits to them that
they will accomplish their end;
but He ii concerned to make
plain to them that the death
they are seeking to inflict will
nevertheless be a voluntary
sacrifice on His part in loving
obedience to God and loving
solicitude for man. There is
nothing incredible in such
teaching at this time. Nor is
the declaration, "I and My
Father are one., (v. 30)
improbable, if we do not impose
on it the doctrine of
difference of person in unity of
substance; but understand it as
the context indicates. It is
unity of purpose that is
primarily referred to, whatever
metaphysical inferences may or
may not legitimately follow. The
Son's obedience to the Father's
commandment makes Him one with
the Father. His opponents were
not sound Christian theologians.
He did not make Himself God in
the sense they meant. He does
not place Himself merely on an
equality with the persons to
whom the word of God came; but
it is as sanctified and sent
into the world that He claims to
be the Son of God (vv. 34-36).
The mutual indwelling of Father
and Son (ver. 38) is not unity
of substance. It is not the
correctness or otherwise of the
orthodox formula which is in
question here; but the
historical exegesis of the
passage. The claim rightly
interpreted is not historically
improbable.
|
|