Gospel of John – second lecture Signs and discourses: puzzles for the reader

First episode continued... Double declaration of “the Lamb of God” by John: 1: 29, and 1: 36. What does this mean? Not answered at this point. Note the conclusion in the two Johannine disciples leaving John and following Jesus. One turns out to be Andrew, the brother of Peter, who becomes the link between Peter (aka Simon, Cephas) and Jesus. Then the calling of Philip and Nathanael (who is never mentioned in the synoptics). Nathanael valued as “an Israelite in whom there is no deceit” – clearly a significant figure in the “John community.” “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Nazareth clearly was a backwater, not valued for anything. (See later 7: 41-43, where Galilee and Bethlehem become a question in regard to Davidic messiahship. (John differs from Matthew, Luke on this Davidic question.) Also, 7:52: no prophets from Galilee. Jesus' first prediction here is not of suffering and death, as in Mark, but in a divine glorification (1:51).

The seven signs (Greek semeia) These are “miracles,” but their point is not so much their miraculous character as what each means. Each must be interpreted, each becomes a kind of parable. 1. The changing of water into wine at Cana. 2. Cure of the royal official’s son at Capernaum (specified as second sign, 4:54). 3. Cure of the crippled man at the Sheep Pool in Jerusalem. 4. Feeding of the 5,000 with five barley loaves and two fish (analogue to Synoptic miracle). 5. Jesus walks on the water to the boat (perhaps a version of synoptic calming of sea?): "It is I“ – or, in Greek, “I am.” 6. Cure in the pool of Siloam of the man born blind. 7. Finally, the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Water into wine at Cana (Galilee) Perhaps the most straightforward of the signs in its meaning. Six times 20 or 30 gallons – 120 to 180 gallons of wine! Almost enough? (At two persons/ 750ml bottle -- = 10 persons/gallon, this might be enough for 1,200 to 1,800 people!) The steward’s words to the bridegroom: “You have saved the best wine for last.” Not the way one usually serves wine. But what does the line mean? What is the water-become-wine? The sign “revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.”.

The demonstration in the Temple (Judea) A synoptic pericopé, but here transferred to the beginning of Jesus’ career. “The Jews” ask for a sign what this might mean. And he gives an oblique, and metaphorical, prophecy of his death and resurrection: destroy this temple... Which is only understood after he is raised from the dead. Other signs in Jerusalem (2:23). His knowledge of people’s interior – John insists on this.

Puzzles for Nicodemus “Born from above” or “born again”? 3: 5: one must be born “of water and spirit.” Discourse a bit “Thomas-like” in what follows? This is God’s “only Son” (3: 16). The Son is judgment and light. And also water? Jesus’ disciples baptize, but he doesn’t (4: 2). Because he is water? (See what follows in episode of Samaritan well.) Puzzles about descent and ascent, Moses and the serpent. God’s gift of “only Son.” Reiteration of prologue at 3:19 – “light.” Notice the frequent difficulty of determining where quotations end and narrator’s discourse begins: at 3:15 and 31.

The literal and the figurative: 4:7ff Similar to the Nicodemus exchange. 4: 4ff: noon, J. sitting by a well, asks a Samaritan woman for a drink. 4: 13: clearly there’s water, and then there’s water. And he sees into the woman. And insists on the end of Samaritan/Jew division in the worship “in spirit and truth.” And declares messiahship: “I am.” And disciples also puzzled about the “food” he has eaten (4: 31ff). And sign 2 occurs at 4:46: it occurs in response to the official’s believing in the word spoken to him (49). And sign 3 involves working: “now it was the sabbath.” J. works, and the man cured performs the work of carrying his mat. And v. 17 asserts the work of the Father in the work of the Son. And see following discourse, 5: 19-21ff. Identification of Father and Son.

Reinterpretation of synoptic miracles Signs 4 and 5 look like versions of the synoptic miracles, feeding of 5000, calming of sea. But the calming of sea becomes even stranger, as J. walks over the water (three or four miles!) to the boat. He says “I am” and immediately the boat is at the shore. Everyone wonders how he got across the sea. But he directs the puzzlement to the issue of bread/food. Bread and bread – like the question of water and water before. Now Jesus is bread, which must be eaten (6: 35). And claims he has come down from heaven, when everyone knows he is the son of Joseph (6: 42). More literalism: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?!” And Jesus ups the ante: you also have to drink his blood! Very offensive to good Jews (who didn’t even eat animal flesh unless the blood was drained from it). The synoptic feeding of the 5000 had indicated the messianic age: God feeds his people (and also the gentiles in the feeding of the 4000 in Mark). But now the feeding means something else: symbolic of the feeding on Jesus’ own flesh, which he now demands.

Distinguishing John from synoptics The “synoptic” way of reading this discussion of eating flesh, drinking blood, would refer it to the Eucharist, the assertion at his Passover/last supper that his disciples should eat the blest bread as his body, drink the wine as his blood. But John doesn’t contain this pericopé. So, staying strictly within John, it’s best not to jump to this interpretation. How then is this eating of bread/flesh, drinking of blood to be interpreted? Becomes a dividing point among disciples: 6: 66. See what Simon Peter says at 6: 68 (analogous to the synoptic declaration of Peter in Mark 8?). How are they to ingest this Jesus?

Jesus’ identity – lead-up to the final two signs Chapters 7 and 8 are discourses and disputes with “the Jews” centering on J’s identity. Like Matthew, John “retrojects” the bitterness coming of the disputes of the late first century into the time of the gospel. Not Jesus’ historical quarrel. Note the dispute about Davidic messiahship at 7: 40; literal Davidic descent not important for John (like Mark, unlike Matthew, Luke). Dispute with “the Jews” centers on Abraham: 8: Whoever keeps J’s word will escape death: 8: But Abraham died, and so did the prophets; how can he make this claim? “Before Abraham was, I am.” The ultimate claim! But connected to other “I am” passages: I am light, water, the one coming over the water (6:20), good shepherd, “gate for the sheep,” vine, life.

Sixth sign – the man born blind Begins with the assertion “I am light.” Cure does not end the story, but results in dispute with Pharisees and “the Jews.” Since man has been “born blind,” this raises the stakes (see 9: 32-33). Hence the calling of the man’s parents. Evidence of the late-first cent. context at v. 22: expulsion from synagogue. Slow unfolding of story allows the claims for Jesus to unfold gradually: first prophet (v. 17), then mystery (v. 25), then “from God” (30-34). Finally man himself believes in “Son of Man” or “Son of God” (see language note w). And finally what really is blindness, what is true sight in the conclusion (40-41)?

Seventh sign: raising of Lazarus Again, a long unfolding of the narrative. Lazarus, four days dead, has crossed the boundary between life, death. So not just a “cure” like synoptic raising of dead. Martha professes faith in final resurrection “on last day.” But Jesus claims to be “resurrection and life.” And Martha expresses belief, beginning with synoptic term of messiah, but concluding with “the one coming into the world.” Jesus’ human emotion: 11: And finally the promise of “the glory of God” in response to belief. Ultimate sign of J’s connection with, identification with, the Father.