Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42

THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20).

The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones.

In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication»⁷⁴⁴⁹ (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought.⁷⁴⁵⁰ In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section,⁷⁴⁵¹ as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible⁷⁴⁵² would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation's heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel's deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11).⁷⁴⁵³

Specific connections with the festival are fewer than for the tabernacles narrative (esp. 7:37–39), though in few cases are John's dialogues related solely to the festival contexts in which they occur. But some connections with that festival may appear here, such as the consecration of Jesus (10:36) rather than the temple altar as in Hanukkah tradition.⁷⁴⁵⁴ That the term used in 10is different is not surprising and does not nullify the connection; in the LXX, the term for «consecration» used in 10was applied to things, whereas the term used in 10applies to persons.⁷⁴⁵⁵ Although cognate terms in the LXX apply to the dedications of the first altar (Num 7:10–11, 84) as well as the altar in the Maccabean purification (1Macc 4:56,59; 2Macc 2:19), they also apply to the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5; 2Macc 2:9),⁷⁴⁵⁶ and the exact term appears for the consecration of the temple in Ezra 6:16–17,⁷⁴⁵⁷ fitting the picture of the Johannine Jesus (John 2:19). If Jesus replaces the altar as «the consecrated one,» this passage may imply John's new-temple motif (e.g., 1:14; 2:19–21; 4:20–24), explaining the connection with the Father's and Son's mutual indwelling (10:38).⁷⁴⁵⁸

Most possible associations with Hanukkah are less clear than the clearest associations John provides with Sukkoth and Passover elsewhere; many of these potential associations with Hanukkah appear outside as well as inside this passage. Nevertheless, John's Jewish audience might well contemplate the narrative in the light of their own celebrations of Hanukkah. When Jesus» interlocutors demand to know whether he is the Messiah (10:24), the calendrical context is political, a celebration of national deliverance; Jesus instead defines his messianic identity in terms of oneness with the Father (10:30). The Hanukkah context also may highlight the hypocrisy of Jesus» enemies. The feast honored the Maccabean heroes for their good works on behalf of Israel, whereas Jesus» opponents seek to stone him despite his good works (10:32). During this season those gathered in Jerusalem also would have recalled with disdain the Hellenist Jewish apostates who sided with Antiochus Epiphanes» claim to be deity; Jesus» opponents might well have in mind this history when they charge Jesus with making himself God (10:33). Jesus argues the opposite; they reject him though he is God's agent, «sent» by God; he is «sanctified» just as the new altar was (10:36). Because they reject him as God's agent, he would imply that they are the true apostates, no more from his sheep (10:26) than the Hellenists who preferred Antiochus to the Maccabees. In such a context, it is not difficult to see that the charges and countercharges represent loaded language that invited an acceleration of conflict (10:39).

By contrast, although John mentions Jesus as the «light» in the context of Tabernacles (8:12; 9:5), where it fits the tradition, and Passover (12:35–36, 46), where it does not, it is not clear that Jesus associates «light» with the feast of dedication,⁷⁴⁵⁹ though Jewish tradition did. But while the use of lights precedes the time of John,⁷⁴⁶⁰ it is possible that the emphasis on lights engendered by the tradition of the eight days of oil may be later or less widespread.⁷⁴⁶¹ Perhaps John is less inclined to have Jesus fulfill the feast in greater detail because it is extrabiblica1. In any case, John makes less explicit parallels with Hanukkah than with some other feasts.

On the southern end of the massive outer court of the temple lay the royal portico; the eastern colonnade was called Solomons Portico. People believed that the eastern colonnades pre-Herodian masonry derived from the time of Solomon, hence the title «Solomons porch» (Josephus War 5.184–185; Ant 15.397–400; 20.221).⁷⁴⁶² Greek public buildings regularly included such porches, which philosophers and others employed for public lectures and other activities;⁷⁴⁶³ shielded on one side by the buildings to which they were attached and somewhat on the other side by pillars, porticoes provided respite from sun and inclement weather.

Winter (10:23), even as early as the feast of dedication, could become cold in Jerusalem, so Jesus had good reason to be walking in a colonnaded area.⁷⁴⁶⁴ Although this fact would be obvious to readers who had been to Jerusalem in winter before its destruction over two decades before, winter was not a favored time for travel, especially from long distances (like the Diaspora); pilgrims even from Galilee came more frequently to the major festivals of Tabernacles, Passover, and Pentecost. Such factors increase the likelihood that this statement is an accurate historical reminiscence.⁷⁴⁶⁵ (Although John employs «night» symbolically as in 13in accordance with his light imagery, there is no reason to think that he employs seasons the same way;⁷⁴⁶⁶ winter was associated with travel difficulties more than with darkness, and his interlocutors were no less hostile during spring, at Passovers.) Land travel grew more difficult, often because of the cold winter rains;⁷⁴⁶⁷ armies normally stopped their marches and settled into towns or camps for winter;⁷⁴⁶⁸ the seas also closed for the most part during winter.⁷⁴⁶⁹ Even on a local level, winter's weather might compel men to spend more time at home.⁷⁴⁷⁰ Because porticoes in public buildings, including temples, were frequent places for public gatherings, it is not surprising that the early Christians reportedly frequently met there (Acts 3:11; 5:12).

For those with eyes to see, Jesus» works revealed his identity as one with the Father who sent him (10:25), but his opponents were not of his sheep hence could not believe (10:26–27); they thereby rejected not only the Son but the Father who sent him (10:30). John's audience, however, would identify with the «sheep» in this passage; the Judean elite and their allies might repress God's elect, but they could not drive them from true membership in the people of God (10:27–29; see comment on 10:3–6).

That his interlocutors demand that he reveal more explicitly what he has already been implying about his identity (10:24) merely reinforces the portrait of their prosaic denseness, meriting the same response as before (8:25). When Jesus keeps his opponents «in suspense» (10:24, according to some translations), he is «withholding» or (literally) «taking his life» or «soul» from them. John probably employs this unusual construction⁷⁴⁷¹ as another wordplay: though Jesus lays down his life for his followers (10:11,15), he will take it from the hands of those who think they have killed him (10:18).⁷⁴⁷² They want Jesus «openly» to (see comment on 7:4–5) reveal to them his identity (10:24; as in 4:26). He claims that he has already done so (cf. 18:20) by interpreting his signs before them (10:25) as in 7:27–29, 37–41; 8:12, 29, 35–36, 51, 56, 58; on the testimony of the works, see 5:36; 10:32, 37–38; 14:11. Jesus answers their question indirectly but is too evasive to provide a sufficient charge; although John presents the Messianic Secret differently from Mark, he does have one.⁷⁴⁷³ Although his answer may have been less explicit than they liked, the meaning was clear enough if understood in the appropriate context. As in Mark, the Messianic Secret becomes or should become transparent to some (Mark 4:9–12; 8:27–30; cf. 8:32) yet frustrating to others.

John's Jewish-Christian audience probably would hear the demands of Jesus» opponents that he reveal whether he is the Messiah in the context of the feast of dedication (10:22), which commemorated a national, political deliverance. Jesus ultimately redefines the question by asserting not a political role but his role as the Father s agent (10:36), in unity with the Father (10:30).

Jesus returns to the image of sheep (10:1–16) in 10:26–27, continuing a dispute from the recent festival of Tabernacles about the true people of God.⁷⁴⁷⁴ One might believe to become one of Jesus» followers (e.g., 6:47), but it was also those who were his sheep who could believe (or believe adequately; 10:26). John envisioned a conflict between free will and predestination no more than did most of his Jewish contemporaries (see comment on 6:44–45). The point in this text is not the impossibility of apostasy; apostasy appears elsewhere in this Gospel (e.g., 6:66, 70–71; 15:6). But none of those examples contravene the principle here: sheep abandoning the fold is not the same as a wolf «snatching» them; sometimes Jesus appears to have provoked his professed followers (in chs. 6, 8) simply to reveal what was already in their hearts. Many early Christian texts warn of apostasy; one could experience God's grace and yet fall away.⁷⁴⁷⁵ Johannine theology, however, emphasizes that Jesus knows peoplés responses before they make them; from God's omniscient standpoint, only those who will ultimately persevere belong to Christ in any event (6:37–39; 10:29; 17:2,9,12; 18:9; 1 John 2:19). These would never perish (cf. 3:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6).⁷⁴⁷⁶

No one could snatch sheep from Jesus the shepherd (this recalls the image of thieves and wolves seeking to seize sheep in 10:1, 8, 10, 12; especially the wolf in 10:12, where αρπάζω also appears), just as they could not seize them from the Father (10:28–29). (Possibly the inability of his enemies to seize him before his Father allowed it [10:39] illustrates the principle on a narrative level; the term differs, but άρπάζω would not be as appropriate there.) Although technically this shared power probably reflects Jesus» role as divine agent, it may also suggest some degree of functional (not necessarily ontological) equivalence of the Father and Son here. (This does not require an equivalence of rank; the Father who was greater than all in 10was greater than Jesus in rank as well–14:28.) Certainly this does not identify the Father and Son as the same entity.⁷⁴⁷⁷

The inability of others to snatch sheep from Jesus» «hand,» explicitly compared with the Father's hand in 10:29, probably is another Johannine allusion to Jesus» deity. It alludes to Ps 95(94LXX), where God's people are the «sheep of his hand.» That this allusion is in view is probably confirmed by the allusion in 10to the contextual summons to «hear God's voice» (Ps 95:7). This summons contrasts with the example of Israel in the wilderness (Ps 95:8–9); at the new exodus occurring in Jesus» ministry, those who really prove to be his sheep hear him. This clarifies the point that Jesus as shepherd in this Gospel employs the image of God as Israel's shepherd in the earlier biblical tradition. In this context, Jesus» unity with the Father that follows (10:30) reaffirms his divinity, though outside their Johannine context the words of 10would not have needed to be construed in this manner. (God's hand was, of course, a frequent metaphor, e.g., Jub. 12:17; Sib. Or. 3.709; including for keeping God's people, e.g., Wis 3:1.)

Just as no one could seize Jesus» life from him (10:18), no one could seize his sheep, because it was ultimately his Father's flock and he was one with his Father (10:30; cf. 17:22).⁷⁴⁷⁸ Greek thinkers could speak of the deity as a unity,⁷⁴⁷⁹ but Jewish hearers would think even more immediately of the Shema, the basic confession of Judaism that affirmed God's unity.⁷⁴⁸⁰ With such words, Jesus not only denies that his hearers are in right relation with God but claims a divine status that they could understand only as blasphemy on their presuppositions (10:31).⁷⁴⁸¹ (This is a more general but also more common use of «blasphemy» than the later technical Mishnaic definition. Yet the use of the neuter for «one» suggests unity of purpose rather than identity of person.)⁷⁴⁸² Jesus goes on to define that oneness in terms of his sonship (10:36),⁷⁴⁸³ but the informed reader understands that he is maintaining a level of ambiguity until the appropriate time for his hour of revelation and lifting up (1:1, 18; 8:28).⁷⁴⁸⁴ John's audience, facing persecution, would take courage that no amount of opposition could seize them from Jesus if they chose to remain faithful to him.⁷⁴⁸⁵

Jesus warned that rejecting him meant rejecting God's agent, for he and the Father were one (10:30). That Jesus» hearers would regard his words as blasphemous, hence take up stones (10:31), would not be surprising under such circumstances; nor would one normally hope to escape such a situation alive (11:8). As noted earlier (comment on 8:59), some others in the first century confronted such actions on the part of an angry mob;⁷⁴⁸⁶ careful Roman legal procedure was undoubtedly not on their minds. John's audience, however, would think of Jesus as God's true agent rather than a blasphemer, and so would interpret the scene in a very different framework. As Glasson points out, Israel often murmured aganst Moses, and stoning was conjoined with murmuring in Exod 17(with Joshua and Caleb in Num 14:10).⁷⁴⁸⁷ They might also think of the Jewish wisdom tradition in which the wicked complain because the righteous one boasts that God is his father (Wis 2:16).

When Jesus» enemies seek to stone him ( 10), John uses a regular term for such stoning (λιθάζω, 10:31–33; 11:8; cf. 8:5) that appears twice in the LXX, both times in passages about a descendant of Saul opposing David (2Sam 16:6,13). Whereas the Maccabees were honored for good works at the feast (10:22), Jesus» enemies seek to stone him, the true Davidic Messiah, for his good works (10:32).⁷⁴⁸⁸

Jesus reveals his opponents» character by contrasting their attempt to kill him with his good works (10:32; cf. 8:39–40; Acts 4:9); comparison was a standard rhetorical technique (e.g., Demosthenes On the Embassy 174),⁷⁴⁸⁹ as was reductio ad absurdum (cf., e.g., commentaries on Gal 5:12). Jesus in fact declares that they seek to kill him because of his good works (10:32)–such as healing on the Sabbath (5:9; 9:14).⁷⁴⁹⁰ In their minds, the issue at this point is not Jesus» works but his claims (10:33);⁷⁴⁹¹ for John, however, the works support Jesus» claims (10:25, 37–38).

Ironically, though his opponents do not believe, they do «understand» his claim (10:38): they believe that he is claiming deity.⁷⁴⁹² Hanukkah commemorated a deliverance from Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who claimed to be deity and got some apostate Jews to follow him; in such a setting, his opponents» claim that he was making himself God (10:33) was a dramatic charge.⁷⁴⁹³ By contrast, if Jesus is truly God's agent and the one «sanctified» by him (10:36, like the rededicated altar), their rejection of his leadership is more serious than the Hellenist apostates» rejection of that of the Maccabees. The audience knows what Jesus» opponents in the story world do not: Jesus is deity (1:1,18), hence it is Jesus» opponents who rebel against the God of Israe1. At the same time, Jesus is «not a human making himself God, but God already made human,» as the reader knows from 1:14.⁷⁴⁹⁴ Jesus has not explicitly claimed deity, and is now in the position of being able to point that out to them, just as his views concerning the kingdom were presented in the Markan parables, yet could not be publicly nailed down without an explicit interpretation.

Although the Christology presupposed in the narrative, as elsewhere in John, is more explicit than in most of Synoptic tradition,⁷⁴⁹⁵ the argument of 10:34–36 securely fits a Jewish milieu; it could derive from the historical Jesus, his Jewish followers, or John himself, but not from Gentile Christian circles.⁷⁴⁹⁶ (Some writers have proposed that John here fits the Orphic view of a spark of the divine in every person,⁷⁴⁹⁷ but this proposal ignores both Johannine theology as a whole and the structure of the argument in this passage.)

Some Jewish people apparently considered the Psalms, like other Scripture, to be in a general sense «Torah,» given to Moses on Sinai.⁷⁴⁹⁸ Phrases like «your law» seem more appropriate when directed by a Gentile antagonist toward a Jewish teacher (cf. 18:31).⁷⁴⁹⁹ But by «your law» (10:34; cf. 7:51; 8:17; 15:25) John does not demean the law itself; Jesus evidently accepts the premise that Scripture cannot be broken (10:35). Being a reliable character, Jesus articulates the view of Scripture communicated by the implied author; in the Fourth Gospel both Jesus and the narrator understand even some detailed acts surrounding his passion as fulfilling Scripture (13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36), and appeal to Scripture as authoritative elsewhere as well (2:17; 7:38; 20:9). Instead, the language is ironic: they claim to look to the law (5:39,45), but they are inconsistent with regard to its claims.⁷⁵⁰⁰ Because he claims to be God s Son, they think he blasphemes (10:36) and should die (19:7); yet only a few months earlier they recited their own claim to be God's children (8:41).

Recalling that Moses became a god to Pharaoh (Exod 7:1), Jewish teachers often commented on the nature of his (figurative) divinity,⁷⁵⁰¹ sometimes interpreting it as «judge.»⁷⁵⁰² Later rabbis sometimes applied Ps 82 to judges.⁷⁵⁰³ Thus Jesus may point out that they called some humans, such as judges, or especially Moses, gods; by what consistent standard could they oppose him, who is greater than Moses, for calling himself Gods son?⁷⁵⁰⁴

Others have argued that the text addresses the angels of the nations.⁷⁵⁰⁵ Other traditions may prove more relevant to the study of this passage. Some teachers did think that God's word made Israel his children (10:35);⁷⁵⁰⁶ Philo affirmed that those who lived in the knowledge (επιστήμη) of God were called «sons of God» (Confusion 145). Specifically and perhaps more important in this context–if the rabbinic evidence suggests a widespread early tradition, which is unclear⁷⁵⁰⁷–was the view that Ps 82applied to Israel, usually Israel which became immortal when it received the law at Sinai but lost the law after disobeying it,⁷⁵⁰⁸ a view often cited by commentators.⁷⁵⁰⁹ In this case God made Israel «gods» in some sense at Sinai, so he could certainly install Jesus as his Son.⁷⁵¹⁰ Alternatively, in context the psalmist uses the image of the divine court⁷⁵¹¹ but actually addresses Gentile rulers who saw themselves as divine kings (Ps 82:1–2, 6–7) but who failed to execute justice (82:3–4) and would die like mortals (Ps 82:7).⁷⁵¹² The sarcastic claim of 82might then apply well ironically to «rulers» of the Jews (though Jesus» interlocutors here are called only «Jews»).⁷⁵¹³

In any case, scholars frequently recognize that in this passage Jesus employs a familiar form of reasoning (qal vaomer);⁷⁵¹⁴ this method of reasoning appears throughout Tannaitic literature (e.g., m. "Abot 1:15), throughout the Tosefta,⁷⁵¹⁵ Mekilta,⁷⁵¹⁶ Sipra Leviticus,⁷⁵¹⁷ Sipre on Numbers⁷⁵¹⁸ and Sipre on Deuteronomy.⁷⁵¹⁹ Jesus uses such a «how-much-more» sort of argument in reasoning that, if Scripture as God's word called Israel (or other humans or others besides the true God) gods on their interpretation, how could they protest if Jesus called himself God's son, a lesser claim?⁷⁵²⁰ (Jewish tradition applied «sons of God» language in a variety of manners;⁷⁵²¹ the only way the accusation would have been useful as a charge would have been to report to the Roman governor that Jesus used it with political connotations.)⁷⁵²² Indeed, «if Scripture itself can use the term θεός of someone besides God himself, how much more appropriate is the use of this term for Jesus»?⁷⁵²³

Yet Jesus is clearly more than a «son» simply in the sense of being an Israelite or even a messiah; in the context of the repeated Father-Son imagery of the Gospel, Jesus appears as the Father's imitator, agent, and image–in short, as divine Wisdom. That the Father «sanctified» Jesus (10:36) could be ambiguous, though as noted above, in the context of Hanukkah it could present Jesus as a new temple.⁷⁵²⁴ Israel was sanctified for God, specially committed to him.⁷⁵²⁵ Perhaps more relevant for John was the Jewish tradition that God had hallowed his Torah (cf. 1:1–18),⁷⁵²⁶ or sanctified Israel specifically by his commandments (cf. 17:17).⁷⁵²⁷ John's readers know that Jesus is not merely one to whom God's word at Sinai came (10:35), but is the word revealed in part to Moses at Sinai and now more fully still in the flesh (1:1–18, esp. 1:17). That the Father «sent» Jesus makes the latter the agent of the former; see comments on agency under Christology in the introduction, pp. 310–17.

If they would not believe Jesus» words and identity directly, Jesus invites them to believe by means of his works (10:38; cf. 14:11); these were his Father's works (10:37; cf. 5:17), hence revealed his origin. Such an invitation should have fit the logic patterns of his contemporaries; thus some Tannaim taught that if Israel in the wilderness did not believe God's future promises, they could at least gain confidence by believing his past works on their behalf.⁷⁵²⁸ Likewise, according to some later rabbis, even if one did not study Torah with the highest motives, that is, for its own sake, one should study it nevertheless, and one would eventually study it for its own sake.⁷⁵²⁹ The result of such investigation would be the recognition that Jesus was in the Father and the Father in Jesus (10:38; cf. 14:10,20; 17:23), which explained why the Father worked in Jesus. But his opponents, unmollified, again seek to seize him (10:39; cf. 5:18; 7:30; 8:59; 11:57), and he again escapes (10:39).⁷⁵³⁰

The final verses of the section wrap it up, again emphasizing the division among the people (7:43; 9:16). John writes not to an audience alienated from its Jewish heritage, but to one Jewish group alienated from other Jewish groups. Some wished to seize Jesus (10:39); others believed him because of his works and the Baptist's witness (10:41–42), as Jesus had requested (10:38).

This concluding cap to the section also provides a geographical transition (10:40), allowing John to move into ch. 11 and the following passion materia1. Jesus returned to the area where John had been preparing the way (1:23), especially in Perea (10:40),⁷⁵³¹ and Jesus «remained» there (10:40; cf. 1:39; 11:6) safe from his opponents (10:39) until it was time for him to return to Judea to face death there (11:7–10).

This passage attests the effectiveness of Johns «witness» so heavily emphasized in the Gospel (1:6–8, 15); here, where John had been preaching, Jesus was temporarily safe from his Judean opposition, and many believed him through John s earlier testimony (10:41–42). (This was a region controlled by Herod Antipas, but Antipas apparently interfered with John only when he became a political threat,⁷⁵³² and Antipas does not figure in the Fourth Gospe1.) Although the crowds must have known some of Johns testimony about Jesus (5:33), most of Johns denials and confessions in 1:19–36 and 3:27–36 were only to his inquirers or to the disciples; nevertheless, these texts probably functionally supply the reader with what the author wishes to emphasize as the substance of the Baptists testimony. Again, however, the author contrasts the forerunner and Jesus: John did no signs, but properly attested Jesus» identity (10:41). That many believed in Jesus in Perea (10:42) is a positive note, but previous texts supply an ominous warning that such faith must be proved through perseverance (2:23–25; 8:30–31).