God's work on the sabbath. 5:1–47

THE NARRATIVE OPENS WITH JESUS healing on the Sabbath and leads into a conflict dialogue between Jesus and the authorities. John reveals that behind Jesus» signs, particularly his signs that challenge what no mere mortal could challenge, stands his identity. The signs therefore point to Christology: Jesus is the Father's supreme agent, and far from dishonoring the Father by claiming divine rank, Jesus is concurring with the Father's decree.

To keep the Gospel's geography neater, some have argued that chs. 5 and 6 have been transposed,⁵⁷¹³ but this approach does not take into account what John simply assumes, namely major chronological as well as geographical gaps (e.g., 7:2; 10:22; 11:55). While such transposition is conceivable for pages in a codex, it is difficult to conceive such an accident for the earliest versions, on scrolls; and no manuscripts attest the alleged transposition.⁵⁷¹⁴ It is possible that 6:28–29 depends on the prior description of the works of Father and Son in 5:20, 36.⁵⁷¹⁵ Further, as we argue below, the closing paragraph of ch. 5 presents Jesus as one greater than Moses, which becomes a central theme in ch. 6. «After these things» (μετά ταύτα) is a common chronological transition device.⁵⁷¹⁶

The focus of 5:l-9a is a healing narrative that fits John's water motif and makes a point by itself. But the additional notation about the Sabbath in 5makes this account part of a larger unit addressing the Sabbath (5:1–16), allowing a christological discourse comparing Jesus» role with that of the Father (5:17–47). As John often addresses Passover (2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14; more fully in ch. 6), plus other festivals like Tabernacles (7:2) and Hanukkah (10:22), in this chapter he addresses the Sabbath. As in many other narratives of Jesus» signs (3:1–21; 6:1–71; 9:1–41), this one leads to a response.⁵⁷¹⁷

The water of the pool of Bethesda, like the ritual water in most of the preceding chapters, is ineffectual, leaving a man paralyzed for thirty-eight years until Jesus comes to heal him. While the water of such a pool would not be used in official Jewish ritual, its significance on a popular level must have been great.

We lack multiple attestation of the account, but the healing of the lame (which signifies the messianic era in Isa 35and was not performed by OT prophets) is consonant with the Jesus tradition (Matt 11/ Luke 7:22; Matt 15:30–31; 21:14).⁵⁷¹⁸ More critically in this case, its close knowledge of Jerusalem, confirmed by a pre-70 record from Qumran, as well as the probable attestation of a healing cult at the cite, suggests the authenticity of the basic story.⁵⁷¹⁹ What we do have multiple attestation for is the frequency of Jesus healing persons, sometimes on the Sabbath (Mark 3:2–5). It is also not surprising that, given Jesus» activity on the Sabbath, we also have controversies between Jesus and other interpreters of biblical Sabbath law.⁵⁷²⁰

«After these things» (μετά ταϋτα) is a rather indefinite (though frequent Johannine) chronological marker,⁵⁷²¹ and John's mention of «a Jewish feast» does not clarify matters substantially beyond this; for him, both Passover (6:4) and Tabernacles (7:2) are called «the Jewish feast.» The unidentified feast of 5has been identified with Purim,⁵⁷²² Pentecost,⁵⁷²³ Tabernacles,⁵⁷²⁴ or perhaps Rosh Hashanah,⁵⁷²⁵ since many early manuscripts omit the article. If «the feast» is read, Sukkoth is surely in view;⁵⁷²⁶ but since no special associations with Sukkoth appear (unlike John 7–9), it is probable that the «feast» is simply an explanation for why Jesus has returned to Jerusalem, since he makes the journey to Jerusalem only for the feasts (cf. also 2:13; 10:22–23; 12:12).

That John does not specify the particular festival, however, but merely uses it to locate Jesus in Jerusalem is probably deliberate. The real calendrical issue in this chapter is not an annual feast, but the Sabbath (5:9; as in the parallel 9:14),⁵⁷²⁷ and Jesus» claim to divine authority as God's shaliach to adapt Sabbath rules. From Jesus» perspective he is not undermining the Sabbath, but challenging «the Jews"» interpretation of it (7:22–24). The purpose is not to undermine the Sabbath but to support the high Christology in which Jesus acts as his Father does.⁵⁷²⁸ John is not the only Gospel author to inform us that Jesus» religious accusers felt that his Sabbath behavior was «unlawful» (εξεστιν, 5:10; Mark 2:24,26; 3:4; 10:2; 12:14; Luke 14:3); but from John's perspective, their view of unlawfulness misses the heart of God's word (18:31). The chapter ultimately leads into a comparison of Jesus with God's earlier messenger, Moses, through whom Israel received Torah, arguing that Jesus is much greater than Moses (5:45–47). This theme is further developed in ch. 6, where Jesus becomes a manna-giver far greater than Moses. The continuity between the chapters is considerably greater than advocates of transposition recognize.

Scholars today often credit John with topographic reliability in matters such as the one at hand; external evidence confirms the existence of a pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem before the city's destruction, even though it is usually held that John writes over two decades after that event.⁵⁷²⁹ Qumran's Copper Scroll attests Judean awareness of the pool's title before 70 C.E. (3Q15 11.12–13, «By Bethesdatayin, in the pool where you enter is a smaller basin»).⁵⁷³⁰

John cites the pool by its «Hebrew»⁵⁷³¹ name, but, while our current manuscripts have variants of the name (e.g., «Bethzatha»), «Bethesda» seems to be the most likely reading, especially in view of Qumran's Copper Scrol1.⁵⁷³² The pool is near the «sheep gate» (5:2), which, like the rest of old Jerusalem, was near the temple (Neh 3:31–32; 12:39–40; cf. John 2:14–15). A lame man might be excluded from some sacred precincts (Lev 21:18; cf. 2Sam 5:8), but certainly not from the vicinity of the Temple Mount. Locating the pool by the «sheep gate» is probably a historical remembrance, but it might also serve to further connect the narrative with ch. 9, where the healed man is one of the sheep, and those who seek to lead him elsewhere are those who ignore the true «sheep gate» (John 10:1–4, 7–8).⁵⁷³³

Alternative possibilities for its site exist, but most commentators continue to prefer the site of the Twin Pools beneath St. Annés Monastery,⁵⁷³⁴ which excavators identified as the Pool of Bethesda.⁵⁷³⁵ The pools were apparently as large as a football field, and about twenty feet deep.⁵⁷³⁶ The «five porticoes» (5:2) represent a porch on each of the four sides and one separating the two pools,⁵⁷³⁷ perhaps to separate the men and the women.⁵⁷³⁸ The pool to the north is smaller than the one to the south; the structure, seven or eight meters deep, gathered much rain water.⁵⁷³⁹ Public baths were a standard feature of Hellenistic-Roman cities,⁵⁷⁴⁰ and in Greco-Roman cities, porticoes, like temples, theaters, baths, and gymnasia, were public places,⁵⁷⁴¹ so it would not be unusual to find beggars and other people in such places.⁵⁷⁴² Often donors built porticoes to shield worshipers or others from inclement weather, so they would not be deterred from gathering.⁵⁷⁴³

Even members of John's audience unfamiliar with Bethesda would recognize here the basic associations with waters for healing. On occasion, oracles instructed people to wash in (2 Kgs 5:10) or drink from (Valerius Maximus 2.4.5) local waters for healing. Much more regularly, healing shrines were common in Greek religion,⁵⁷⁴⁴ and water was typically associated with them; along with the temple and a place for sleeping, a spring for purification was an essential component of ancient Greek healing sanctuaries.⁵⁷⁴⁵ The masses of sick people who crowded Palestinian Jewish hot springs and healing baths⁵⁷⁴⁶ may suggest some degree of transference of the Greek expectation of supernatural intervention at such sites. Despite the fact that the late texts that add 5:3b-4 may have no longer had any tradition concerning the original reason the man expected the waters to heal him (v. 7),⁵⁷⁴⁷ there is some evidence that healing properties had been attributed to this pool in folklorish tradition:

In 1866 a broken marble foot was found in the debris in the vaults of the Church of St. Anne. On the top was this inscription in Greek:… «Pompeia Lucilia dedicated (this as a votive gift).» … The donor, a Roman lady to judge by her name, had certainly visited the place and left a sign of her visit; it could be that the foot commemorates a healing. Paleographically the inscription may be from the second century. At that time the Pool of Bethesda may have been a pagan healing sanctuary.⁵⁷⁴⁸

Pagans reused earlier sanctuaries or sacred space (Aelia Capitolina, for example, reused the Jerusalem temple site for a pagan one).⁵⁷⁴⁹ If the dating to the second century is correct, it is unlikely that the pagan tradition derived from a Christian interpretation of the Fourth Gospel; it is far more likely that it reflects an earlier popular Jewish tradition. No doubt this use of Bethesda as a healing bath would have been regarded as unorthodox by the establishment,⁵⁷⁵⁰ but Theissen is surely right when he notes, «In Jn 5.Iff. Jesus is in competition with ancient healing sanctuaries.»⁵⁷⁵¹ Jesus replaces not only Johns baptism (1:31–33), ritual purity (2:6), proselyte baptism (3:5), and the Samaritan water of Jacobs well (4:14) but also the water of a popular healing cult.

The water in this case is more a part of the stage props for the miracle that leads to a proclamation of Jesus» supremacy over the Sabbath and Moses, than a focus on the issue of purification itself. Given the possible exodus allusion in the «thirty-eight years» (5:5), the «troubling of the waters» (John 5:7) might suggest an allusion to the exodus; the same language appears in Ps 77(76LXX), which depicts the time when God led his people «like a flock» by Moses and Aaron (ώς πρόβατα, 77[76LXX]; cf. John 5:2), and that entire Psalm assures its hearers that the God who acted in the past exodus would act again (Ps 77:8–15).⁵⁷⁵² Such an exodus allusion is not particularly clear, and even John's biblically literate audience may not have recognized it even if he intended it. Other proposed allusions, if any allusions are present, are, however, weaker.

While some see the passage as a baptismal reference,⁵⁷⁵³ others find the basis for baptismal interpretation «fragile»⁵⁷⁵⁴ or see an antibaptismal motif reflected in the fact that the water was not efficacious.⁵⁷⁵⁵ The last point is the most likely, given earlier references to water in the Gospel, but it depends almost entirely on the cumulative support of the other references. There is no reference to purification, and while replacement by the Spirit could have been implied by replacement of a popular healing shrine, there is no definite evidence that this is the case in this text. What demonstrates that this water text fits into the others is the clear antithetical parallel it provides with ch. 9,⁵⁷⁵⁶ where the evidence of ritual water and the Spirit (in the context of Sukkoth) is much clearer.

This miracle story provides a direct foil for the miracle story in 9:1–14, together coupling a positive and negative example of response to Jesus. Being touched by Jesus is inadequate without perseverance (8:31–32). Other ancient texts also sometimes coupled the lame and the blind; even though other healings might be mentioned in the context, a summary statement could focus specifically on the lame and the blind, perhaps as the most dramatic cures.⁵⁷⁵⁷

Culpepper lays out the parallel structure of the passages as follows:⁵⁷⁵⁸

Contrasting of characters was a common enough rhetorical device; John presents both a positive and a negative paradigm of initial discipleship, fleshing out the warning for perseverance in 8:30–36.

The close relationship between these two passages suggests that the function of the water in the two passages is analogous or antithetically paralle1. That in the first case the water is not effective, and in the second case, the water only heals (a promise not made for the pool of Siloam as it was for Bethesda) because Jesus «sent» the man there, suggests that Jewish piety is still in the background, and that Jesus» touch in person symbolizes for the Johannine community how the other Paraclete, Jesus» presence in the Spirit, functions in their time. This suggestion is further strengthened by the fact that the waters of the pool of Siloam come to point to the work of the Spirit in 7:37–39, the one water passage intervening between chs. 5 and 9 (though only the most informed members of John's audience would necessarily recognize the Siloam allusion there).

Although no official condemnation existed and Jewish ethics would have taught the opposite, many people in the ancient Mediterranean viewed the lame with contempt.⁵⁷⁶⁰ Some have linked the duration of the man's illness (5:5) with Israel's wandering in the desert;⁵⁷⁶¹ this is quite possible, but the mention of the hardship's duration may simply indicate the depth of the man's plight to heighten the miracle.⁵⁷⁶² The demonstration involved in picking up the bed serves a similar function.⁵⁷⁶³ Such beds were the barest minimum possession,⁵⁷⁶⁴ and for the poor were typically mats spread on the floor, often made from palm leaves.⁵⁷⁶⁵ Miracle stories often emphasize the suddenness of the miracle.⁵⁷⁶⁶

The life of an infirm person was typically shaped by the infirmity.⁵⁷⁶⁷ This may be one reason Jesus confronts the man with the question whether he wants to get wel1.⁵⁷⁶⁸ Usually in the Gospel traditions Jesus heals those who seek him, rather than seeking them out (e.g., Mark 1:30, 32, 40; 2:3–4; 3:10; 5:23; 7:26, 32; 8:22; 9:18), though there are apparently exceptions (e.g., Mark 1:25; 3:3). Sometimes Jesus would even request clarification, despite the obvious (Mark 10:51). When Jesus asks the man if he wishes to be healed, the man misunderstands.⁵⁷⁶⁹ Misunderstanding appears in some other ancient miracle stories,⁵⁷⁷⁰ but is a critical Johannine motif (see comment on 3:4). Jesus» command to take up the bed and «walk» may reflect a wordplay on John's theological use of walking (e.g., 8:12; 11:9–10; 12:35; 1 John 1:7; 2 John 4, 6; 3 John 3–4; some other texts, like 6:66, may reflect such a wordplay): one physically saved by Jesus, like one he has saved spiritually, must walk accordingly. But whether John intends such a double entendre here is less than clear; in many cases «walking» functions on a purely literal level (probably in 1:36; 6:19; 7:1; 10:23; 11:54; 21:18).

John surprises the reader both here and in ch. 9 by suddenly announcing the Sabbath (and consequent controversy) after the healing story;⁵⁷⁷¹ perhaps this is meant to produce reader empathy for the healed person to heighten the irrelevance of the opponents» theological criteria. The issue here is not only the Sabbath but the law as a whole. Jewish teachers often regarded dismissing one commandment as tantamount to dismissing the whole of the Torah;⁵⁷⁷² this principle would have been still more true (qal vaomer) for a «heavy» biblical commandment like that of the Sabbath.⁵⁷⁷³ Thus for Jesus» opponents in this passage, a violation of the Sabbath can indicate a cavalier attitude toward Torah and Moses in general, whereas Jesus will appeal to Moses and the law in his defense (5:39, 45–47).⁵⁷⁷⁴ But in contrast to those whose primary concern is carrying a mat on the Sabbath (5:10), Jesus knows the man's former sin and warns against him sinning further (5:14).

As noted above, Jesus commonly provided a physical demonstration of a healing, as did some of his contemporaries. In telling the man to carry his bed mat, however, Jesus contravened the Pharisaic understanding of the Sabbath (5:8–12; cf. 9:14–16). It was already against the law to carry burdens on the Sabbath, at least insofar as this could be interpreted as work (Num 15:32–35; Jer 17:21). Jesus might not interpret this physical celebration of healing as work, but many of his contemporaries surely would. Carrying anything from one domain to another could be regarded as work.⁵⁷⁷⁵

John probably uses «Jews» here (5:10) ironically (see introduction); the man who was healed was himself certainly Judean as wel1.⁵⁷⁷⁶ Jewish people held some views of the Sabbath universally, but many, including many Pharisees, recognized diverse interpretations of Sabbath practice. The Sabbath was central to Jewish practice throughout the ancient world,⁵⁷⁷⁷ a part of Jewish life in general, not restricted to the most pious.⁵⁷⁷⁸ The rest of the Roman world marked its calendar with market-days rather than a weekly religious day of rest,⁵⁷⁷⁹ but it was widely aware of the Jewish Sabbath.⁵⁷⁸⁰

The seventh day was already important in the Genesis creation narrative, but it became still more so in later tradition (e.g., Jub. 2), which declared that angels kept the Sabbath and that this day was holier than any other holy day (Jub. 2:21,30).⁵⁷⁸¹ Some later rabbis even said, in notoriously hyperbolic language, that the Sabbath outweighed all other commandments of the Torah.⁵⁷⁸² A well-educated first-century Jew could assume that Moses commanded Jewish people to assemble to learn the law together each Sabbath (Josephus Ag. Αρ. 2.175),⁵⁷⁸³ though the law itself commanded no such thing. The same writer testifies that Jewish laws required, and even the laxer Jews of Tiberias observed, retiring to ones home for a dinner when the Sabbath began around 6P.M. (Josephus Life 279).⁵⁷⁸⁴

Thus later rabbis meticulously detailed a fence around the Sabbath law.⁵⁷⁸⁵ Most Jewish people allowed some exceptions, especially for saving a life. After Syrian troops slaughtered a thousand Israelites who refused to defend themselves on the Sabbath (1Macc 2:34–38), most Jewish pietists contended that the law would permit defensive warfare on the Sabbath (2:41).⁵⁷⁸⁶ But any activity that could be done before the Sabbath was prohibited on the Sabbath.⁵⁷⁸⁷ Although matters of life and death remained exceptions, and common people were probably less particular, the Pharisees probably opposed minor medical cures on the Sabbath.⁵⁷⁸⁸

It is doubtful that Jesus himself rejected the Sabbath, though he clearly interpreted and applied it quite differently from most of his contemporaries. Even in John, Jesus defends his Sabbath practice with good halakic argument (see comment on 7:22–23), although in this passage it depends on a high Christology his opponents do not share (5:17).⁵⁷⁸⁹ As Vermes notes, «If, as is often claimed, the evangelists aimed at inculcating … Christian doctrine such as the annulment of the Sabbath legislation … they did a pitiful job which falls far short of proving their alleged thesis.»⁵⁷⁹⁰ One may suspect that wishful thinking of later Gentile Christianity generated some of the later antinomian or partly antinomian traditions of interpretation.

Some Christians, probably especially Jewish Christians, continued to observe the Sabbath centuries later,⁵⁷⁹¹ just as many Jewish and Gentile Christians, convinced that the teaching remains scriptural, continue to do today. Nevertheless some later rabbinic texts stereotype sectarians, probably largely Christian, as challenging the Sabbath,⁵⁷⁹² suggesting that correct interpretation and practice of the Sabbath remained a major issue of controversy between Jesus» followers and many of their Jewish contemporaries. For John, the keeping of the Sabbath while executing Jesus (19:31) would appear the epitome of unrighteous judgment (cf. 7:24; 8:15).

Jesus follows up on the healing by inviting the man to change his lifestyle.⁵⁷⁹³ The man did not know where his healer was because Jesus slipped away in the midst of a crowd (5:13; compare Mark's Messianic Secret). That the temple crowds, especially in times of feasts, provided opportunity to become inconspicuous, is clear from Josephus's description of the escapes of terrorist assassins there (Josephus War 2.254–255). Jesus, however, finds him (as with the healed man in 9:35).

That Jesus finds him in the temple suggests an early tradition and/or John's knowledge of Jerusalem topography; the pool of Bethesda was directly «north-northeast of the temple area.»⁵⁷⁹⁴ Perhaps he had gone directly to the temple to offer thanks for his recovery;⁵⁷⁹⁵ in any case, the place serves a theological as well as geographical function in locating opposition to Jesus in the Jerusalem temple area (5:14–18), hence again with the powerful Judean elite who would have reason to feel threatened by the new temple of Jesus (2:19–21). In contrast to the man blind from birth (9:2–3), this man's malady apparently stemmed from sin (5:14).⁵⁷⁹⁶ Jesus was sinless (8:46) and came to free people from sin (1:29; cf. 20:23), but those who refused to believe him would remain enslaved to sin (8:21, 24, 34), and those who rejected him after he revealed truth had greater sin (9:41; 15:22,24). Others in the ancient world understood that the disobedience of a suppliant for healing could lead to greater suffering than one had experienced before.⁵⁷⁹⁷ A prominent book of wisdom advised Jews who had sinned to add no more (μηκέτι) sins and to repent of their earlier sins (Sir 21:1).⁵⁷⁹⁸

Also in contrast to the man blind from birth (9:38), this man does not become a disciple of Jesus. Like some members of the Johannine community touched by Jesus, he falls away (cf. 6:66; 1 John 2:19), becoming a betrayer (5:15; cf. 6:71). Already aware that the leaders opposed Jesus, he informs on Jesus and so prefigures analogous acts of betrayal in the Gospel (cf. the parallel actions in 11:45–46; cf. 18:2–3).⁵⁷⁹⁹ (Confessing Jesus only as healer would not impress the authorities; see introduction on signs, ch. 7. Nor is he disciplined like the man in John 9.) Thus Jesus may protest that his opponents seek to stone him for «good works» (10:32–33).

Under later rabbinic rules, which may or may not reflect earlier Pharisaic ideals, Sabbath violation was in theory worthy of death.⁵⁸⁰⁰ Nevertheless, under the same rules it would have been impossible to have found someone sufficiently guilty of Sabbath violation to warrant execution in practice.⁵⁸⁰¹ The Essenes observed the Sabbath more strictly than others,⁵⁸⁰² probably sharing the view of Jubilees that death was appropriate for even minor infractions such as intercourse with onés wife (50:8) or fasting (50:12–13) on the Sabbath.⁵⁸⁰³ Nevertheless, in practice they commuted the biblical death sentence for its violation.⁵⁸⁰⁴

Jesus» conflicts in the Synoptics with his contemporaries concerning the Sabbath were relatively minor by the standards of Sabbath controversies of the period.⁵⁸⁰⁵ Some other groups did apparently come to blows,⁵⁸⁰⁶ and individual representatives of some groups might wish Jesus» death in contradiction to their own group's ethical teachings;⁵⁸⁰⁷ Josephus attests that some aristocrats went so far as seeking to kill a fellow aristocratic rival for influence (in this instance, himself).⁵⁸⁰⁸ Jesus» conflicts with Pharisees concerning the Sabbath are multiply attested in the tradition and are likely historica1.⁵⁸⁰⁹ But by themselves Jesus» interpretations of the Sabbath in the Synoptics would have generated far less hostility than the more forthright christological claims of the Fourth Gospel, which here escalate a controversy over Sabbath interpretation into a more substantial debate about the character of God!⁵⁸¹⁰ Persecution (5:16) escalates to a desire to kill (5:18), though this desire, too, contravened general Pharisaic leniency. The persecution Jesus faced (5:16) also warned John's audience what at least in principle awaited them (15:20).

The Pharisees have a different understanding of the Sabbath from that of Jesus (5:9–16). Because Jesus grounds his own Sabbath work in that of his Father (5:17), the Pharisees charge Jesus with seeking to make himself equal with God (5:18). This sets the stage for one of the Gospel's lengthy christological discourses: far from seeking to make himself equal with the Father, Jesus merely carries out what the Father commissioned him to do (5:17–30). The sticking point in the debate with the synagogue must be Jesus» frank admission that the Father's commission for the Son includes divine acts like raising the dead and judging the world, and divine attributes like having life in himself. Thus Jesus also cites various witnesses on his behalf (5:31–47), the central and most critical being the Father (5:36–44).

Far from rebelling against God's law (5:16) or dishonoring God (5:18) as some have charged, Jesus imitated his Father as a son should, carrying out the Father's will as his agent (5:17–30).

Some scholars argue, on the basis of John's term έλυεν (5:18), that Jesus not only violates the Sabbath here but annulls it.⁵⁸¹¹ The term itself offers no complaint: in John it can mean not only «destroy» (2:19; cf. 1 John 3:8) but violation of the law (7:23; cf. Matt 5:19), which in practice again meant annulling the law, for all blatant violations of Torah were held to annul it.⁵⁸¹² Nevertheless, later Gentile Christian tradition seems likely for the interpretation of this passage that suggests that Jesus either violated or annulled the law. The claim that Jesus annulled the law is not his but that of his opponents. Throughout this Gospel, the group called the «Jews» are unreliable characters; in this context they also prove wrong in thinking that Jesus claims equality with the Father (see Jesus» clarification in 5:19–30).⁵⁸¹³ Jesus himself shares their view that Scripture cannot be «annulled» (10:35).⁵⁸¹⁴ Thus it is unlikely that John or Jesus views himself as «annulling» the Sabbath; rather, in John's view Jesus is acting as God's agent to do what no one denied that God could do on the Sabbath.

Jesus argues that God regularly supersedes the Sabbath. By implying («my Father» in a special sense that allowed him to act on the Father's authority) his minor premise that he is God's agent, he concludes that he is therefore permitted to do God's work on the Sabbath (5:17). The major premise, that God was active on the Sabbath, was not a matter of dispute.⁵⁸¹⁵ On the basis of Gen 2:2–3, Jewish pietists had to believe that God rested on the seventh day (also Jub. 2); in some texts later rabbis declared that God finished his work of creating but continued his work of judging (cf. John 5:22,24,27,30).⁵⁸¹⁶ Yet the rabbis also recognized that God daily renewed his work of creation;⁵⁸¹⁷ in miracles God could continue to create after finishing the creation;⁵⁸¹⁸ he continues to matchmake, thereby sustaining his creation.⁵⁸¹⁹ Just as one may observe the Sabbath in onés own courtyard, God is free to observe it as he wills in his creation.⁵⁸²⁰ Others, like Philo, emphasized that though God rested on the seventh day, this means only that his activity requires no labor; he never ceases from his activity, because creation continues to depend on him.⁵⁸²¹

It is Jesus» implied minor premise to which his opponents object (5:18). The issue is not calling God «Father» (5:18) in a general sense, as this was a title for God in Judaism and for the supreme deity among many pagans as wel1.⁵⁸²² The issue is that he calls him his Father in a way unique to himself, implying something more than solidarity with the Jewish people as God's children (see the debate in 8:37–47). Rather than understanding him as God's agent, however, they characteristically misunderstand him, assuming that he claims equality with the Father. Such a claim could be either positive (in the sense of godlike) or negative (in the sense of presumptuous) in Greek thought,⁵⁸²³ but to Judean teachers would definitely appear blasphemous in the broader sense of the term (cf. Gen 3:5; Isa 14:14; Ezek 28:2).⁵⁸²⁴ Despite John s tendentious portrait of his opponents, their affirmations of monotheism against the Christian claims probably do represent the voice of the Jewish theological opponents of Johns audience, not mere fabrication.⁵⁸²⁵ «Equal to God» is a close equivalent of a later rabbinic phrase meaning to make oneself independent from God, similar to a phrase applied to a son who casts off the yoke of his parents.⁵⁸²⁶ The charge of ditheism became significant in later rabbinic controversy with the sectarians, probably including the large number of Jewish Christians who continued to affirm Jesus» deity.⁵⁸²⁷ Even 3 Enoch, which calls Metatron «the lesser YHWH» (12:5), condemns as apostasy the view that there are «two powers in heaven» (16:2). Probably the opponents of John's community also charged the Jewish Christians with ditheism;⁵⁸²⁸ John responds that if one does not have Jesus, one does not have God ( 1 John 2:22–23). Jesus denies equality of rank with his Father in his ensuing response (5:19–30).

It is for such blasphemy that some seek (cf. 7:1; 10:39) to kill him (5:18; 8:59; 10:39). Though such plotting contravened the best in Pharisaic ethics, evidence remains for intra-Jewish violence over doctrinal points in this period (see comment above). That they sought «even more» to kill him (5:18) probably alludes to Jesus» earlier challenge to «destroy this temple» (2:19).⁵⁸²⁹

In 5:19–30, Jesus responds to the view that he «makes himself» equal with God, arguing that he is not making himself equal with God.⁵⁸³⁰ Their claim is false for two reasons. First, to «make oneself» something was to claim authority or identity one did not have;⁵⁸³¹ to make oneself a deity was universally regarded as an act of foolish, arrogant presumption.⁵⁸³² (In fact, the discourse plays on the semantic range of ποιέω in a manner difficult to render in English, though intelligible in Hebrew: Jesus does not «make» [ποιών] himself anything, 5:17, but rather «does» [ποιεί] what he sees his Father «do,» 5:18. He does not «make» himself God, but by the Father's decree is the Father's co-creator of both the first and future creations, 1:3; 5:21–22.)

Second, Jesus is not claiming rank equal with the Father, but rather that he acts in obedience and on delegated authority. In an honor-and-shame culture that highly prized disciplining boys for obedience, the claim that Jesus was «obedient» to his Father was a cause for praise.⁵⁸³³ From John's standpoint, Jesus is fully deity (1:1,18; 20:28),⁵⁸³⁴ but he also submits to the Father, whose rank is greater than his own (10:29; 14:28). Thus Jesus does not claim equality of rank (cf. Phil 2:6); in view of his prologue, John presumably would have agreed with the later Trinitarian notion of the Father and Son sharing the same «substance» had the question been put to (and explained to) him, but he uses the term «equality» for rank, not an ontological question of nature. Ancients understood the principle of deferring honor to those to whom it belonged;⁵⁸³⁵ Judaism had proved especially jealous for God's honor.⁵⁸³⁶

Having already claimed that God is his Father, Jesus explains his own action by means of an analogy of a son who imitates and obeys his father (5:19–20).⁵⁸³⁷ Because the Father loves Jesus (5:20; cf. 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23–24), the Father shows him what to do (5:20), and Jesus has watched the Father's activity (8:38). The present active indicative for «shows,» contrasted with the future, is probably deliberate, probably implying a continuous relationship (cf. 10:15; 8:55) and not simply occasional visions. This would exceed the claims of mystics who hoped to see God in mystic ascents; Jesus remains in the Father's bosom, and only through him is God revealed (1:17–18). Πάντα, «all things,» underlines the unlimited measure of the Father's revelation to the Son; nothing remains hidden from him (cf. 15:15; 16:15; Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22). The Father would afterward show Jesus still greater works (cf. 1:50; 14:12), that they might marvel (5:20; for his works, cf. 7:21; for his teachings, cf. 3:7; 5:28; 7:15); Jesus probably refers here especially to the ultimate demonstration he would provide in his death and resurrection (2:18–19; 20:20; cf. Matt 12:39–40); thereafter the postresurrection church would carry on his signs (14:12). The Father's works that the Son will imitate will ultimately include the divine activities of raising and judging the dead (5:21–22).

The Son's imitation of the Father's deeds here may suggest the specific analogy of apprenticeship, for Jewish fathers often trained their sons in their own trade.⁵⁸³⁸ The image of God revealing his works to his special agent who watches him and learns from him would have made good sense in an early Jewish framework.⁵⁸³⁹ Jesus» works are central to the Fourth Gospel (7:3, 21), just as a protagonist's «works» usually are central to an ancient biography;⁵⁸⁴⁰ but Jesus» works are emulations of the Father's works, undertaken in obedience to the Father (5:36; 9:3–4; 10:25, 37–38; 14:10–11; 15:24; 17:4). Jesus does his Father's «works» (5:20,36) and came to «finish» them (4:34; 5:36), just as the Father did when he completed creation and then rested on the seventh day (συνετέλεσεν … τα έργα αύτου, Gen 2:2–3).⁵⁸⁴¹ Thus Jesus was performing works as his Father had performed in creation.⁵⁸⁴²

The image of continuing God's creative work on the Sabbath would strongly imply Jesus» deity. In view of 7:23, where Jesus describes this event as making a whole person well on the Sabbath, an allusion to creation probably implies specifically the creation of humanity in Gen 1:26. If so, the background for the Father and Son working together in creation here may well be «Let us make … in our image» (Gen 1:26). This past giving of life would then foreshadow the resurrection (5:24–25),⁵⁸⁴³ an idea to which the discourse quickly turns. That resurrection will come «on the last day» (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48), an idea that might evoke the sense of the eschatological Sabbath that appears in some Jewish sources,⁵⁸⁴⁴ though «last day» would also be perfectly intelligible without such an allusion.⁵⁸⁴⁵

If such an allusion is in view, the particular wording of Gen 1LXX (και είπεν ό θεός Ποιήσωμεν άνθρωπον) is significant. «Make» with άνθρωπον as the object appears in John only in 5and 7:23, the latter a comment on this passage.⁵⁸⁴⁶ The LXX elsewhere declares that God «made humanity,» employing this verb (Gen 1:26, 27; 2:18; 5:1; 6:6, 7; 9:6; Wis 2:23).⁵⁸⁴⁷ («Likeness» from that verse maybe reflected in Jesus» imitation of the Father in 5:19; but the allusion is far from clear, since similar Johannine expressions in 6:11; 8:55; 9:9 and 21are irrelevant.)

The Father's love for the Son is good Johannine theology, but Jesus» opponents in the story world can hear it as a commonplace of family wisdom (e.g., Gen 37:4, φιλέω; 44:20, αγαπάω). Such a statement has biblical and early Jewish precedent in God's love for the patriarchs (e.g., Deut 4:37; 10:15; Isa 51LXX; cf. Deut 33:12); for David (1 Chr 17LXX); for Solomon (Neh 13:26); for Moses (Sir 45:1); and for Israel (e.g., Deut 7:8,13; 23:5; 1 Kgs 10:9; 2 Chr 9:8; Hos 3:1; Pss. So1. 9:8).⁵⁸⁴⁸ The Father's particular love for Jesus appears in the Synoptic tradition at the baptism and transfiguration, the two decisive points at which God speaks (Mark 1:11; 9:7).

John frames this part of the discourse with Jesus» claim not to act «from himself,» or on his own initiative or authority (5:19, 30),⁵⁸⁴⁹ fitting the Jewish conception of the agent who carries out his commission.⁵⁸⁵⁰ Jesus elsewhere emphasizes that he does nothing «from himself» (άφ» εαυτού, 5:30; 7:17–18, 28; 8:28, 42; 14:10), as the Spirit does not (16:13), and that the disciples cannot produce anything profitable from themselves (15:5). Acting «from oneself» signifies independence; for John its negation can signify divine inspiration (11:51).⁵⁸⁵¹ Thus Jewish tradition emphasized that Moses explicitly claimed to speak only on God's authority, not his own.⁵⁸⁵²

To praise oneself without good excuse was considered offensive (see below on the introduction of 5:31–47); but for ancient hearers the claims here go beyond any normal hubris of mortal self-praise. Jesus shares the Father's works of bringing life (5:21) and judging (5:22); the Father delegated these works to him so that humanity would worship Jesus as they worship the Father (5:23). Such a claim could sound only like ditheism to many of Jesus» and John's contemporaries. Worshiping humans who wanted to be divine was certainly idolatry, but the informed reader knows that Jesus was actually of divine rank and became human (1:1,14).⁵⁸⁵³

Like the Father, Jesus could give life (5:21; cf. 17:2); this made him act in a divine manner.⁵⁸⁵⁴ The resurrection of the dead was a divine work,⁵⁸⁵⁵ specifically attributed to God in the oft-recited Shemoneh Esreh; God was widely viewed as the giver of life,⁵⁸⁵⁶ hence the only one who life was not contingent on a giver of life (see comment on 5:26). Jesus» claim here could further his opponents» perception that he articulated a sort of ditheism.⁵⁸⁵⁷ In this context, the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda prefigures in a small way the resurrection; Jesus will raise (έγείρει) the dead, just as he told the lame man to «rise» (έγειρε, 5:8; cf. 4:50).⁵⁸⁵⁸ The point is that if Jesus has authority to raise the dead at the last day of this era, then qal vaomer, how much more, does he have authority to heal on the Sabbath, the last day of the week (cf. Mark 2:10–11). That he gives life to «whomever he wills» (5:21) reinforces the image of divinity in this Gospel; God made alive (cf. 6:57, 63) and drew to life those whom he willed (6:37,44, 65; cf. 3:8).

The discourse reports a number of divine activities the Father has «given» the Son: judgment (5:22,27), life in himself (5:26), and divine works (5:36; cf. 5:20). Since these activities come from the Father, those who complain about the Son's exercise of these prerogatives must complain against the Father, just as one who rejected an agent rejected the one who sent him (see introduction on agency, pp. 310–17).

The claim that God delegates the judgment to Jesus would have unnerved his opponents (5:22).⁵⁸⁵⁹ Even Moses, to whom Jesus» opponents will appeal (5:45), could not judge all Israel by himself (Exod 18:14–18; Deut 1:9–13).⁵⁸⁶⁰ Some Jewish traditions suggest God delegating judgment in some matters to figures such as Enoch or Abel,⁵⁸⁶¹ perhaps modeled on Greek notions of Minos and Rhadamanthys as judges in the realm of Hades.⁵⁸⁶² The Similitudes of 1 Enoch even portray the final judgment being delegated to the son of man ( 1 En. 69:27); these writings are of uncertain date and might betray Christian influence, but Daniel spoke of the Son of Man reigning, presumably including at least a measure of judging (Dan 7:13–14).⁵⁸⁶³ God's people would also exercise judgment over the nations in the eschatological war.⁵⁸⁶⁴ But all these images refer to judgment in a limited sense; the prevailing picture is of God judging alone⁵⁸⁶⁵ or (an image especially common in later texts) simply listening to members of his court as a judge might hear voices in a case.⁵⁸⁶⁶ Jewish people also sometimes understood God as judging in the present era,⁵⁸⁶⁷ a thesis Jesus apparently accepts in this Gospel (3:17; 8:50; 12:47). Yet John teaches that the Father delegated authority for divine acts to Jesus (3:35), and that he judges along with the Father (8:16); he seems to have delegated the eschatological judgment to Jesus in particular (cf. 12:48; Rev 19:11). Some of John s imagery stands in creative tension that forces the hearer to qualify its sense: Jesus did not come for the purpose of condemning (3:17), but he is authorized to judge (5:22).⁵⁸⁶⁸

Because some believed that God had shared some of his honor with Moses (following Exod 3),⁵⁸⁶⁹ Jesus» claim that the Father shared honor with the Son (5:23) could be interpreted less offensively (cf. Isa 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 60:1–2). Some Tannaim argued that God wanted his prophets to honor both the Father and the son (Israel).⁵⁸⁷⁰ But because Jesus claims that people should honor the Son even as (καθώς) they honor the Father, he utters a claim to divine rank (cf. Isa 48); one cannot have the Father without the Son or vice-versa (cf. 1 John 2:23). Even Roman emperors could affirm their authority by using a phrase equivalent to «just as» to assert a direct linkage with earlier, deified emperors.⁵⁸⁷¹ That «all» should honor him (5:23) emphasizes the universality of Christ's sovereign authority (1:7; 5:28–29).

Further, Jesus both answers the basic charge and returns it, a common rhetorical technique (see our introduction to 8:37–51). In contrast with their charge of blasphemy, Jesus honors his Father. But because he is the Father's representative (see discussion of the «sent one» under Christology in the introduction, ch. 7) whom the Father honors (5:23), by dishonoring Jesus they are dishonoring the Father (cf. the same idea more explicitly in 8:49). Jesus thus effectively returns the charge against them: it is they, not he, who dishonor the Father.

Jesus returns to the claim that the Father has authorized him to give life (5:21) with the image of realized eschatology implied by «passed from death to life» (5:24); one already abides in death until believing in the one who sent Jesus, hence in Jesus» delegated mission (cf. also 3:18).⁵⁸⁷² Numerous ancient texts employ «death» figuratively or spiritually;⁵⁸⁷³ some Jewish texts employ «death» eschatologically, as in Rev 2:11; 20:6, though sometimes (in likely contrast to Revelation's use) for annihilation.⁵⁸⁷⁴ «Life» and «death» figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel, often spiritually (6:50; 8:51; cf. 8:21, 24). Even when literal (e.g., 4:47; 6:49, 58; 8:52; 11:13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 37, 44, 51; 21:23), they sometimes illustrate spiritual realities (11:26). «Passing» from death to life, like being «born from above» (3:3), implies a line of demarcation between those who have returned to God's side and those who remain arrayed against him (cf. 1 John 3:14; Wis 7:27; Col 1:13). Response to Jesus» «word» decided onés destiny (5:24; 12:48; cf. 5:38), for how one treats envoys indicates how one would treat their sender.⁵⁸⁷⁵

In some early Jewish circles, the present Sabbath prefigured an eschatological Sabbath era;⁵⁸⁷⁶ if John intends such a connection between the Sabbath (5:9) and Jesus» eschatological works (5:25–29), however, it is not clear. What is clear is that the Father who delegated Jesus his authority to act in the future⁵⁸⁷⁷ has also given him authority to interpret and adapt the Sabbath in the present.

Most Jewish people affirmed the resurrection of the righteous (5:25).⁵⁸⁷⁸ The future expectation indicated in 5:28–29 likewise speaks of a future resurrection.⁵⁸⁷⁹ That God's voice brings life would not surprise Jesus» hearers, though such a claim for a human voice would sound jarring.⁵⁸⁸⁰ (His claim shortly thereafter that they did not know God's voice would also disturb them; see comment in 5:37.) But the «now is» in 5is significant (cf. 4:23): the believer enters new life (3:3,5) and has in the present the life of the future age (3:15–16). Those who believe «hear» or «heed» Jesus» voice (cf. 18:37), which for John's audience can allude to the Spirit's life-giving power in creating and leading disciples (3:8; 10:3–4). Thus when Jesus cries «with a great voice» and Lazarus comes forth alive (11:43–44), this act prefigures Jesus» eschatological role but also symbolizes his present role as giver of life (11:26).⁵⁸⁸¹

Jesus» claim that he has life in himself as the Father does (5:26) would be confusing to most ancient Jewish hearers.⁵⁸⁸² Early Jewish works called God «self-begotten» (αύτολόχευτος; αυτοφυής),⁵⁸⁸³ as did some pagan sources.⁵⁸⁸⁴ Jewish people also called God «uncreated» (άποίητος)⁵⁸⁸⁵ and "unbegotten»;⁵⁸⁸⁶ pagans also called the supreme god and high gods «unbegotten.»⁵⁸⁸⁷ Others applied similar language about God's self-sufficiency, lack of contingency, and difference from all creation.⁵⁸⁸⁸ Following their Scriptures, Jewish people also recognized God as the «living one»⁵⁸⁸⁹ and therefore spoke of his true immortality.⁵⁸⁹⁰ Jewish people could relate such conceptions to the popular interpretation of «Yahweh» as the one who is (Exod 3:14), existing in both past and future in the same way he exists in the present (Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8J.⁵⁸⁹¹

By claiming that he has life in himself, Jesus seems to make a claim to deity. By claiming that the Father delegated this authority to him, however, he acknowledges the Father's superior rank (5:26). He also claims to live because of the Father (6:57). Polytheistic syncretism could lead to considerable confusion in roles; thus one could address Helios as the «greatest of gods,» «god of gods,» then entreat him for access «to the supreme god, the one who has begotten and made you.»⁵⁸⁹² But in a Jewish context, one might think best of God's agent, Wisdom or the Logos (see comment on 1:1–18).

The claim that the Son would participate in the judgment would probably shock most of Jesus» hearers (see 5:22, above), but now Jesus explains why he will judge (5:27). The Father has committed judgment to his Son,⁵⁸⁹³ because his Son is also the Son of Man. The point could be that Jesus participates fully in humanity (1:14) and hence is an appropriate judge for humanity (cf. Heb 5:2); hence the distinctively anarthrous use of «Son of Man» here.⁵⁸⁹⁴ Even in the LXX of Dan 7:13, however, «Son of Man» is anarthrous, and it is the allusion to that Son of Man that most fully explains Jesus» authority here. (On Jesus» likely historical claim to be Son of Man, see the Christology section in chapter 7 of our introduction, esp. p. 304.)

People should not marvel at Jesus» claims, for he would one day demonstrate them by raising all the dead (5:28).⁵⁸⁹⁵ The future form of 5(«an hour is coming») without the present (cf. 5:25) shows that Johns eschatology is not wholly realized, as do other references such as the last day (6:39; cf. 11:24) and the explicit mention of «tombs» in 5:28. (Other texts connect «tombs» with the final resurrection,⁵⁸⁹⁶ but the most likely source of the language here is Isa 26LXX.)⁵⁸⁹⁷ The «tombs» call attention to the later mention of Lazarus's and Jesus» tombs (11:17,31,38; 12:17; 19:41–42; 20:1–11), from which the physically dead are restored, and in the most dramatic way in the second case.

Jesus speaks of a resurrection to life and to judgment (5:29). One could not discuss the resurrection and the day of judgment separately from one another; the discourse thus moves back and forth between «life» and judgment (5:24–29).⁵⁸⁹⁸ God would resurrect both the righteous and unrighteous, distinguishing them from each other, in much early Jewish⁵⁸⁹⁹ and early Christian⁵⁹⁰⁰ thought. Jewish texts were explicit that the wicked would have no part in the «resurrection to life» (2Macc 7:14, similar to Johns phrase here: άνάστασις είς ζωήν). Many affirmed permanent destruction for the wicked, whether following or without a resurrection (e.g., Pss. Sol 3:11–12; 13:11).⁵⁹⁰¹ For John, those who do works in God embrace Christ and those whose works are evil are those who reject his light (3:19–21).

The resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked may have been a matter of some controversy in early Judaism, but there was much wider agreement that God would judge both good and evil (5:29). That he would judge each person according to that persons deeds was a commonplace of both early Jewish⁵⁹⁰² and Christian (cf. Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12; Matt 16:27) teaching, rooted in their common biblical heritage (Ps 62:12).

Jesus again reiterates that he does nothing without the Father's direction (5:30), reinforcing his protest that he is completely submissive to the Father's will (5:19). He does nothing «from himself» (5:19; 8:28, 42; 12:49; 14:10), as the Spirit does not (16:13) and disciples should not (15:5). Jesus not only sees (5:19–20) but hears (5:30; cf. 8:38) his Father, hence executes judgment according to his Father's wil1. Jesus» claim that his judgment is just (5:30; cf. Rev 19:11) may allude to a saying in a well-known wisdom work widely circulated by this period: Only God can demonstrate that his judgment is not unrighteous (ούκ άδίκως εκρινας, Wis 12:13). If so, Jesus again claims his deity. Jesus again emphasizes his obedience to the Father's will as a perfect agent (5:30; 4:34; 6:38).

Confronted by accusations that he is guilty of blasphemy, a capital offense (5:18), Jesus responds by citing witnesses in his defense. He accommodates the biblical rule that requires at least two witnesses to validate testimony in a capital case (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15).⁵⁹⁰³ Indeed, testimony on onés own behalf was easily dismissed in a court of law.⁵⁹⁰⁴ Ancient Greek and Roman courts weighed heavily arguments from probability.⁵⁹⁰⁵ Nevertheless, witnesses often proved essential for demonstrating a case.⁵⁹⁰⁶ When honorable men testified, people listened; but if the case went against them and their testimony was deemed false, they lost honor.⁵⁹⁰⁷ Perhaps the opponents of John's community, like Jesus» opponents in this passage, complained that Jesus was an isolated voice making a bizarre claim for himself; perhaps they had even cited the requirement for dual testimony to the Johannine community (Jesus» opponents certainly cite it to Jesus [8:13]).⁵⁹⁰⁸ Such conflicts for Jesus» followers (cf. 9:24–34; 16:2) may suggest one reason that forensic imagery pervades the Gospel's apologetic.⁵⁹⁰⁹

Jesus thus answers the charge that he alone testifies of himself (5:31; 8:14–16). He cites the witness of John (5:33), and on a higher level the Father's works (5:36) and hence the Father himself (5:37), who also spoke (5:38) through the Scriptures (5:39) including Moses (5:46–47) to testify of Jesus. In other words, the claim that Jesus testified of himself without any other supporters was false. If many did not accept and share in the witness, it was only because the world was too corrupt to recognize and understand heaven's agent (3:11–12,32–33).⁵⁹¹⁰ John often addresses the truthfulness of witness (5:31–32): the Pharisees critiqued Jesus» apparent self-witness (8:13), but the Father was the main witness on Jesus» behalf (3:33; 8:14), and the beloved disciple as a model disciple would also offer true testimony to Jesus (19:35; 21:24).

The principle Jesus articulates in this passage would have been intelligible in an early Jewish milieu. Ancient Mediterranean culture in general frowned on self-praise except in specific sorts of circumstances that could justify it.⁵⁹¹¹ (Indeed, some enemies of Christianity in late antiquity complained that Jesus» exalted self-claims–e.g., 8:12–constituted a form of self-testimony, contradicting 5and making Jesus a «liar.»)⁵⁹¹² Tannaim warned against self-exaltation, especially any self-exaltation that could be construed as exaltation above Torah.⁵⁹¹³ In one Tannaitic tradition, no onés self-glorification counted, but Moses was glorified by God himself.⁵⁹¹⁴

2A. Johns Witness (5:33–35)

When they had sent to John (1:19, 22), he had testified to the truth (1:19; cf. 1:6–8,15; 10:41), as 5reminds the audience. John was not the light (1:8–9), but a temporary lamp (5:35). Handheld Herodian lamps, which could quickly deplete their oil, were no match for the brilliance of celestial lights.⁵⁹¹⁵ The passive voice of «kindled» may also imply that the initiative for John's mission did not stem from John himself ( 1:6).⁵⁹¹⁶ Jewish tradition had already emphasized that Elijah's message came burning like a lamp (ώς λαμπάς εκαίετο, Sir 48:1), which is probably in view here.⁵⁹¹⁷ Jesus» appeal to John's witness provides a strong implicit argument:⁵⁹¹⁸ if Jesus» opponents listened to John (as they did in 1:19–27), even «rejoicing» in his light (5:35), should they not accept John's testimony about Jesus? Their rejoicing (cf. also John's rejoicing in Jesus [3:29]; other witnesses rejoicing in Jesus [8:56]) in John was only temporary (προς ώραν; cf. 2Cor 7:8; Gal 2:5; Phlm 15; μίαν ώραν, Rev 17:12), but it allowed them the opportunity to hear a little from a witness who honored Jesus.

Jesus did not need human witness (5:34; cf. 5:41), but offered it for their sake (cf. the strategy in 1Cor 9:19–22).⁵⁹¹⁹ Jesus may here adapt a fairly familiar rhetorical device, paralipsis, in which one brings to bear evidence while denying that one can afford to do so, or at least to do so with adequate thoroughness (cf. also Heb 11:32).⁵⁹²⁰ In making an argument, speakers or writers sometimes would point out that further evidence was unnecessary, yet provide it anyway.⁵⁹²¹

Jesus introduces the topic of the Father's witness in 5:36–37 and then expounds more thoroughly in a probable chiastic structure in 5:38–47:

A They reject God's word in his shaliach Jesus (5:38)

    Β Scriptures witness to Jesus (5:39–40)

    [Life in the Scriptures (5:39)/life in Christ (5:40)]

        C Jesus does not receive glory from people (5:41)

            D Jesus knows them (5:42a)

                Ε They do not love God (5:42b)

               É Jesus comes on his Father's behalf (5:43a)

            D» They do not receive Jesus (5:43b)

        C» They receive glory from one another, not God (5:44)

    B» Moses testifies to Jesus (5:45–46)

    [Judgment from Moses (5:45); Moses speaks of Christ (5:46)]

Á They reject God's word in his shaliach Moses (5:47)

The works (έργα) that the Father had given Jesus attested his identity (5:36; on Jesus» works, see comment on 5:20). Early Judaism understood that the invisible God had attested himself through his «works» (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.190), especially in creation (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.192; cf. John 5:17, 20);⁵⁹²² it was also good for God's people to make known his works, his miraculous help on their behalf (Tob 12:6). More importantly, God himself had attested Moses» virtue (Josephus Ag. Αρ. 2.290).⁵⁹²³ Jesus did not ultimately need John's witness because he had that of the Father (5:36)–whose witness was more important than any other, as John himself had already testified (3:33). This argument may presuppose an ancient rhetorical principle: an ancient speaker could invite his hearers to listen not merely to his words or those of his opponent, but rather to attend to the facts (εργα)–which this speaker implied that he had just presented (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.52.5).

Jesus goes on the offensive in 5:37. Despite his opponents» claim to know God through the Torah, Jesus denies that they truly know God (cf. 8:55). The Gospel noted in 1:18, where it expounded on Exod 33–34, that no one has beheld God except through Jesus (also using πώποτε and a perfect of όράω); 5and 6reinforce this point.⁵⁹²⁴ Jewish teachers affirmed that Israel had heard and seen God at Sinai;⁵⁹²⁵ one early wisdom teacher claimed that at Sinai Israel saw the greatness of God's glory and their ears heard the glory of his voice (φωνή, Sir 17:13).⁵⁹²⁶ (Exod 24also says they beheld God, but Deuteronomy qualifies that; though they heard God's voice at Sinai, they did not actually see his form [ομοίωμα, Deut 4:12] only his fiery glory [Deut 4:36; 5:24].) Thus Jesus denies that those who reject him ever truly accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, either (5:37);⁵⁹²⁷ they reject the Torah among them (1:11, 14) and they do not not belong to his sheep (10:4). Moses did see God έν είδει (Num 12LXX), but they have not (John 5:37); Moses heard God's voice (Num 7:89), but they have not heeded it (Deut 8:20). In this context one hears the Fathers voice only if one has heard the life-giving voice of the Son (5:24–25);⁵⁹²⁸ one has life (5:40) only in the same way (5:24–25). Jesus» disciples, like Moses of old, get to see part of God's glory, but Jesus» enemies cannot (cf. 14:21–23; see comment on 1:14–18).⁵⁹²⁹ Jesus is God's word (hence his voice; 1:1–18) and his image (14:7–9; cf. 2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3), like divine Wisdom in Jewish tradition (Wisd 7:26) or Philós Logos.⁵⁹³⁰

Failure to have God's «word» in them (5:38) continues the thought, for Jewish teachers would immediately think of having Torah in them.⁵⁹³¹ But the sentence structure is parallel, as in 5:37bc: the word abiding in them corresponds to believing the one God sent to them. Jesus is the word, hence the Scriptures (5:39) can be truly embraced only in him (see introduction to prologue). For the Fourth Gospel, to reject the Word in flesh is to show that one does not heed the less complete revelation in the law, either ( 1:17–18).⁵⁹³²

Jesus could therefore urge them to genuinely search the Scriptures in 5:39; more likely, he notes that they do search the Scriptures, but to no avai1.⁵⁹³³ Searching the Law was an act of piety that often included returning to investigate it and implement what had been neglected (1Macc 14:14, though it uses εξεζήτησε, from εκζητέω, rather than εραυνάω, as here; cf. John 7:52; Acts 17:11); the equivalent Hebrew term was applied to diligent study of Scripture.⁵⁹³⁴ Such study was thought to bring life.⁵⁹³⁵ Because they belong to the wrong sphere, however, they cannot understand the Scriptures, which testify to the one from above.⁵⁹³⁶ While they think they have life in the Scriptures they are searching,⁵⁹³⁷ they cannot have life apart from Jesus (5:40; see comment on 1:4), and John applies the other term for «searching» to their failure to seek Gods glory (5:44).⁵⁹³⁸ (As in 5:45, δοκεΐτε probably refers to their misconceptions rather than a correct understanding.) Like the Scriptures, Jesus is God's Word (1:1–18); their rejection of him thus represents a repudiation of the very heart of Scripture.

In the ancient Mediterranean world with its competing value systems, people had to choose the groups whose honor mattered to them.⁵⁹³⁹ Jesus did not receive glory from people (5:41)–in this context, this means that he depended not on human testimony, but God's (5:32, 34, 36).⁵⁹⁴⁰ Meanwhile his opponents trade human honor or glory (in an ancient Mediterranean culture that heavily emphasized honor and shame) rather than seeking the honor which comes from God alone (4:44; 5:44; 12:43).⁵⁹⁴¹ Given John's double entendres, it is possible that this is the glory that also reveals God's character (1:14; 12:41).⁵⁹⁴² That Jesus «knew» their character (5:42) testifies to his divine omniscience in this Gospel (see comment on 2:23–25). Not having God's love in them (5:42) is tantamount in Johannine terms to declaring that they are not his children because they do not love him (1 John 2:15; 3:17), just as they do not have his word (5:38) or life (6:53) in them.

That Jesus was rejected though he came in the Father's name (5:43a) indicates that his adversaries are rejecting God, for to come in the Father's name meant to come as his representative (cf. 12:13).⁵⁹⁴³ That they receive another who comes in his own name (5:43b) may refer to a coming antichrist figure or false messiahs,⁵⁹⁴⁴ as many commentators think.⁵⁹⁴⁵ More likely, however, it is intended generically: unlike Jesus» true sheep, they listen to those who flaunt themselves without God's genuine attestation (10:8). They were more interested in receiving glory from one another (5:44) than in receiving Jesus (5:43); Jesus «sought» the Father's will (5:30) but they did not «seek» God's glory (5:44), that is, the ultimate honor which God alone gives (cf. 12:43). That he is the «only God» (also 17:3; cf. 1Tim 1:17) underlines that his honor alone is what counts.

Jesus here challenges the views of the very people who claimed to be Moses» disciples (see 9:28). For John, it is the disciples rather than the Pharisees who truly «believe» Scripture (2:22; cf. 1:45), in contrast to the view articulated by his Pharisees, who think that they alone understand it (7:49). The claim in 5:46–47 that these Pharisees did not «believe» Moses⁵⁹⁴⁶ was the sort of polemic that would hardly endear Johns Jesus to his opponents– or to subsequent generations of antinomian Christians who doubted the relevance of Israel's Scripture. Earlier Gospel writers also had presented Jesus articulating such a pro-Mosaic position (e.g., Matt 5:17–18; Luke 16:17, 31). Whatever other factors in John's milieu contributed to the present language of his Gospel, he believed that Jesus» words were rooted in earlier biblical revelation (5:47).

Although John's Pharisees do not represent all of early Judaism or even all of its elite, their fidelity to Moses is perfectly believable in the light of the rest of early Jewish piety; it clearly exalted Moses.⁵⁹⁴⁷ He was the most righteous of all people in history.⁵⁹⁴⁸ Contrary to 1 Kgs 3:12, he was also the wisest of all people in history.⁵⁹⁴⁹ Commenting on Exod 7:1, some traditions virtually divinized Moses in the way many Greeks had divinized Plato and other philosophers.⁵⁹⁵⁰ (See further comments on 6:14–15.) It was no wonder that Moses «was by far the best-known figure of Jewish history in the pagan world.»⁵⁹⁵¹ The witness of Moses proved important in the polemic of some streams of gospel tradition (e.g., Luke 16:31; 24:27,44; Acts 26:22; 28:23; 2Cor 3:7–18).

Various early Jewish texts present Moses as a continuing advocate or intercessor for Israel,⁵⁹⁵² as he had been in the Bible (Exod 32:32; Jer 15:1). If John regards this tradition as well enough known that his audience may have grasped it, he may imply that these Jewish leaders regarded Moses as an advocate,⁵⁹⁵³ the way the Fourth Gospel presents the Spirit on behalf of believers (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) and 1 John presents Jesus (1 John 2:1);⁵⁹⁵⁴ but here Jesus declares that Moses will be their accuser (5:45),⁵⁹⁵⁵ as he elsewhere teaches that Jesus» words (12:48) and the Spirit (16:8–11) wil1. In Palestinian Judaism, «accusers» were witnesses against the defendant rather than official prosecutors (cf. 18:29),⁵⁹⁵⁶ an image which would be consistent with other images used in the gospel tradition (Matt 12:41–42/Luke 11:31–32). The irony of being accused by a person or document in which one trusted for vindication would not be lost on an ancient audience.⁵⁹⁵⁷ Thus instead of receiving «glory» before God (5:44), they would receive condemnation, and their eschatological «hope» would prove vain (5:45).

Moses» «writings» (5:46–47) were believed to be the first five books of Scripture,⁵⁹⁵⁸ and it was natural for Jewish commentators to emphasize that he was a truthful witness of what God revealed to him.⁵⁹⁵⁹ Appeals to Torah were useful in polemic; for example, one might appeal to nationalism by denouncing other Jews as betrayers of Jewish laws and collaborators with Romans (Josephus Life 135).⁵⁹⁶⁰ (To direct such a charge against those associated with Pharisaism might be particularly infuriating, for they were known for their scrupulous attention to the laws.)⁵⁹⁶¹ The formal logic of the argument would have been effective if one accepted the premise that Moses wrote of Jesus; Jesus addresses the practice of rejection of God's message by an argument from lesser to greater.⁵⁹⁶² The claim that «Moses wrote of me» might be taken as a reference to Deut 18:18, but though Jesus is the «prophet,» that Christology by itself is inadequate in this Gospel (cf. 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17). The context of this Gospel rather suggests that the reader approach this claim in light of the dominance of the prologués climax: Moses saw the glory of Jesus on Sinai when he received Torah (Exod 33–34; John 1:14–18), just as Isaiah the prophet later did (John 12:41). This closing appeal to Moses in 5:45–47 paves the way for John's narrative about the one greater than Moses who gives new manna, in ch. 6.⁵⁹⁶³