JOHN
We finally come to an examination of the text to see what it will reveal, if anything, about the way things would be if Jesus had been chosen King of Judea; and we begin, as I said, with John's Report.
First, it is clear from the introduction that John considers Jesus to be God incarnate; the Word (which also means "the intelligibility or 'meaning' of things") was "face to face with God" in the beginning, "and the Word was God." Hence, there is some distinction between the Word and God, but not one of divinity or reality, apparently.(1) Note that "the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it." "He came into his own lands, and his own people would not accept him."
Does this refer to Jesus, or to the relation between YHWH and the holy people before Jesus, or to both? Probably to both; but it is significant "he was in the world" is placed before "the word took on flesh and made his home among us." But certainly once this happened, "we saw how great he was, with a greatness that belongs to the only Son God ever fathered, full of God's blessings and truth."
John clarifies himself on this much later in the Last Supper discourse, when Philip says, "Show us the Father, Master, and that will be all we need!" "I've been with you all this time, Philip," cried Jesus, "and you still don't know who I am? Anyone who is looking at me is seeing the Father! How can you tell me to show you the Father! Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?"
What he is saying here, evidently, is that he is the way the Father appears in this world. The phrase "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" is intended both to explain and be explained by "One who is looking at me is seeing the Father." He does not simply say, "The Father is in me," as if when you looked at Jesus, you could see the being who housed the Father; but "I am in the Father" also. The container is inside the contained; and the only way that this is possible is if the two are identical. And he says so in various places: "The Father and I are one and the same thing." That is, hen, the neuter, is used, not heis, the masculine, which could indicate some kind of union between two things. But Jesus claims that the Father and he are "one thing"; or as we would say today, "one and the same."
And in the very first scene after the introduction, we have the Baptist saying words to the same effect:
"The law was given by Moses, but blessings and truth came into being through Jesus, the Christ--the Messiah, the Prince. No one has ever seen God; but the God God fathered, who is in the Father's bosom, has made him known."
First of all, the "blessings and truth" refer back to the end of the introduction just a couple of sentences above: "and we saw how great he was, with a greatness that belongs to the only Son God ever fathered, full of God's blessings and truth." Hence, it is clear that the strange statement of John is meant to convey that John not only knew but publicly proclaimed that Jesus was God and the Son of God.
This presents us with our first difficulty: How likely is it that the Baptist, if he didn't use exactly these words, used words which indicated that he knew that Jesus was God in human flesh? A priori, one would incline to be supremely skeptical about this.
But let us try to think about it objectively. Was John putting his own Theology into the Baptist's mouth, or was he reporting the gist of what he heard (since presumably he was the companion of Andrew who heard the Baptist and followed after Jesus)? The answer to this question will color everything else that we can say about this Report.
The question really is whether the Baptist would have known the real truth about what was going on, or whether he was merely acting on an inspiration that Jesus was the Prince who had been foretold, without being informed of the implications of this.
Luke seems to indicate that something of the divinity was known even by the Baptist's mother: Elizabeth cries to Mary, "But how is it that my Master's mother should be coming to me?" Now allowing for Luke's use of language that didn't belong to Jesus, he is clearly indicating here that Elizabeth was aware (a) that Mary was pregnant, (b) that her child was the Prince, and that (c) he was something beyond merely the successor to David (which could have been true just on the grounds that Mary and Joseph were in David's line).
Either Luke, who has just got through saying that he isn't going to be telling legends, is doing the same thing that John is doing, putting Theology into the mouths of those who said no such thing (nothing even remotely resembling it), or there is at least a hint that the revelation that was given to Elizabeth and presumably to John was to prepare him for the actual role that he was to take in announcing that this Prince was to usher in a kingdom totally unlike anything that had ever occurred in history.
If we now look at earlier reports of the Baptist's preaching, we find Mark quoting him in this way: "Someone who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not good enough even to untie his sandal straps. I have bathed you in water; he will bathe you in the Holy Spirit." And, in fact, Mark reports that during the Baptism of Jesus by John, the Holy Spirit descends like a dove and a voice from the sky says, "You are my Son, the one I love. I am pleased with you."
Luke fleshes this out a little by having John say, "I am bathing you in water; but there is someone coming who is more mighty than I--someone whose sandal-straps I haven't the right to untie--and he will bathe you in the Holy Spirit and fire! And he has his winnowing-fan in his hand to thresh out the grain, so that he can store the wheat in his granary, and burn the chaff with a fire that will never go out!" Luke also reports the voice as calling Jesus his beloved Son, which is obviously from Mark; but we must remember that Luke was researching things to make sure that what was reported was authentic.
Matthew says the same thing, but adds that before John actually bathes Jesus, he says, "I need bathing by you, and you are coming to me?" indicating that he knew that Jesus was not just the prophesied Prince but someone of surpassing holiness.
John, of course, was a hermit, and so had plenty of time to reflect on his mission as herald before he started his project of bathing the people; and so it is quite possible that he actually claimed that Jesus was God's Son and realized (though those who heard him didn't) that this meant that Jesus was also God. In all probability, most people took what the he was saying as the hyperbolic utterances of a religious fanatic. So too, without doubt, did John (the Evangelist) and Andrew at the beginning; but when you think about it, it might easily have been through the Baptist that these earliest followers of Jesus had the seeds planted in their hearts enabling them to believe in the divinity of Jesus against all their Judaic training. John the Evangelist certainly gives this impression.
If this is the case (keeping in mind that the Synoptics hint at the same sort of thing), then it might very well be that it isn't the Evangelist that is putting words in the Baptist's mouth, but that the Baptist's Theology found its way into the Evangelist's mind; and he is simply reporting what he heard the Baptist say. It is as plausible a scenario as the other, at least.(2)
But this, of course, means that the Baptist foresaw a kingdom in which God was going to take over the ruling of Judea in the person of Jesus; and there would be a winnowing out of those who deserved to be his subjects from those who would be thrown aside like chaff. John the Evangelist does not add "and fire" to the bathing by the Holy Spirit, nor does Mark; and one can argue from this that probably the Baptist didn't add this phrase either, and that what Luke and Matthew report was a hyperbolic addition based on the tone of what was said.
Now "the day after that"(3) John--who we find out later was prominent enough to be known by the High Priest--and Andrew see the Baptist point Jesus out and follow after him, clearly not as following a guru, but with the idea of being in the entourage of this Prince.
And that the Prince is gathering his retinue seems confirmed by that mysterious passage with Nathanael, where Jesus tells him, "Before Philip called you I saw you--under the fig tree," and Nathanael exclaims, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" What happened under the fig tree? Either this is all "meaningful legend" or there were strange doings afoot; Nathanael had some kind of experience indicating that Jesus was divine and was to be the King. Note that John does not say anything about that experience (though I would suspect he asked Nathanael, who probably refused to talk about it); he certainly seems to be simply reporting what he saw.
And, of course, he reports Jesus as confirming the divine implications of this, when he says, "You believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see more marvelous things than that. Amen amen I tell you, you will see the sky open up and God's angels going up and coming down upon the Son of Man!" The reference is, of course, to Jacob's ladder (or stairway); and the point is that Jesus is claiming that he is what mediates between God and earth, and that, presumably in the new kingdom, orders will come from heaven to earth through Jesus, and petitions from earth to heaven also through him.
Here is a case where the meaning could be double. Clearly, Jesus is this mediator now, though he is not on earth. But it would be much more literally true if he were in fact the King of the world. Perhaps once the new order was established, the messengers between God and the human race would be a common sight.
But immediately in the Report, there are indications of the rejection that was to come. The Pharisees ask for his authorization to drive the sellers out of the Temple, and Jesus predicts his death and resurrection; and though "while he was there in Jerusalem many people believed in what he was because they could see the proof that he gave, Jesus did not put his trust in them, because he knew them, and he needed no proof to inform him about human beings; he knew what was inside a person." Nicodemus' reaction to Jesus statement that a person had to be born from above is a case in point.
But does the Nicodemus episode tell us anything about the Kingdom? Clearly, there is the prediction of the crucifixion, ("The Son of Man will have to be lifted up, so that those who believe will have eternal life."); but before this, what of "Unless a person is born from water and Spirit, he won't have God as his king."
It sounds as if a bath such as the Baptist predicted was to be a condition for entering the actual kingdom Jesus intended to found. Perhaps the idea was that when he was chosen King, then he would decree a bath which would wash away sin and the effects of Adam's fall; and those who underwent the bath would then experience a birth into a new sort of life: the life of perfect control over oneself, in which sickness and dying would no longer exist.
If this is so, then when Jesus talked about "eternal life," the primary sense of the term would be an unending stay on this earth; and instead of finally going to meet God, God visible as Jesus would eternally have his home with us.
No wonder Nicodemus was nonplused, if he caught any hint that Jesus might have been saying this. "But how can this be?" he asked; and Jesus answered, "You are a teacher in Israel and you don't understand this? Amen amen I tell you, we are telling you people about what we know, and are giving evidence about what we have seen; and you don't accept what we say. If you don't believe when I speak of things on earth, how would you believe if I were to speak of heavenly things?"
Think about that. The new birth is part of the "things on earth" that are easy to believe; it's the things in heaven that are incredible. And presumably, Nicodemus ought to have been prepared by the prophets to accept a shift in the whole of creation.
But of course, everyone always interpreted the Messianic prophesies metaphorically. But listen to Isaiah 65 (in the New American Bible translation):
"Lo, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth;
the things of the past shall not be remembered
or come to mind.
Instead, there shall always be rejoicing and happiness
in what I create;
For I create Jerusalem to be a joy
and its people to be a delight;
I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and exult in my people.
No longer shall the sound of weeping be heard there,
or the sound of crying;
No longer shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not round out his full lifetime;
He dies a mere youth who reaches but a hundred years,
and he who fails of a hundred shall be thought accursed.
They shall live in the houses they build,
and eat of the fruit of the vineyards they plant;
They shall not build houses for others to live in,
or plant for others to eat.
As the years of a tree, so the years of my people;
and my chosen ones shall long enjoy
the produce of their hands.
They shall not toil in vain,
nor beget children for sudden destruction;
for a race blessed by YHWH are they and their offspring.
Before they call, I will answer;
while they are yet speaking, I will hearken to them.
The wolf and the lamb shall graze alike,
and the lion shall eat hay like the ox.
None shall hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain, says YHWH.(4)
Jesus' castigation of Nicodemus said in effect, "You're supposed to know these prophesies; but you don't believe them, do you? Consequently, you don't believe I am doing anything but talking in riddles. I am telling you that I am speaking literally and plainly, and the only problem is that you refuse to believe it. Well you had better believe it, or you will be one of the ones left out of the Kingdom."
He wouldn't have said this to an ordinary Jew, because that sort of person wouldn't be expected to know the prophesies that well; but teachers in Israel were a different story.
It is significant that Jesus is reported to have begun bathing people, in competition, as it were, with John, who was quite willing to have Jesus "grow greater, and I less," because, "the one that God has sent to represent him is the one who speaks the utterances of God, because the Spirit does not give things in doses. The Father loves the Son, and has put everything into his hands. One who believes in the Son has eternal life; one who does not believe the Son will not see life, and God's vengeance rests on him." Again we have Johannine Theology; but whether it was put in the mouth of the Baptist by the Evangelist or whether the Evangelist got the idea from the Baptist is open to question. Immediately after this, it is reported that Jesus himself did not actually bathe anyone; and so the Kingdom was not yet founded, and this bath was another preparation.
In the episode at the well in Samaria, Jesus reveals himself to someone who is all but a Gentile, and in a very interesting way. First of all, he says that anyone who drinks the water he gives will never feel thirst afterwards. If this is to be taken to refer to the physical future, it means that bodily needs will not apply in the Kingdom; we will not have to replenish energy and nutrients lost.
I think we should be able to say that our bodies, after the bath that ushered us into the Kingdom, would be much like Jesus' resurrected body: true, flesh-and-blood bodies, which could be felt, and which could eat (Jesus ate something to prove that he was not an apparition), but which, if this passage means anything, would not have to.
When the woman, after hearing Jesus tell her about her five men, realizes that he is a prophet and hears Jesus' answer to her objection about worship, says, "I know that the Prince is coming, and that when he comes he'll explain everything to us," Jesus answers, "He is speaking to you; that is who I am." (Ego eimi ho lale soi. Lit. "I am, the [one] speaking to you.") Now of course, this is a normal way of talking. We would say it, "I am he, speaking to you," but Jesus is in fact using the divine name, and in a context in which it is significant. So after telling the woman that he was coming to give people eternal life of no thirst, he is explicitly claiming to be the Prince, but covertly claiming to be God.
And when his students ask him to eat something, he says, "I have food to eat you know nothing about." "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me, and to finish the task he gave." and he remarks that the fulfillment is a lot closer than they think it is.
The episode at the Bethesda pool and the cure on the Sabbath, of course, is the next step in the preparation for the Kingdom; but it involves Jesus' claim to be master over the Sabbath, because "The Son can do nothing by himself; he only does what he sees his Father doing. . . . But the fact is that the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing; and he will show him even greater things than this and you will be amazed. Just as the Father brings the dead back and gives them life, the Son will give life to anyone he pleases." But he says something significant for our purposes at this point. "Amen amen I tell you that the time is coming when corpses will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who listen to it will live again. . . . Don't be surprised that the time is coming for everyone in the grave to hear his voice; and they will all leave it: the ones who have done good to eternal life, and those who have done wrong to eternal condemnation."
So the Kingdom will not simply be populated by those who accept Jesus from the time he makes his pronouncement; all of the dead who were virtuous will come back to life in the new realm and live eternally on this earth with the believers. If any of his followers caught what he was saying, imagine their excitement that this was to happen this year or next year! But of course, they too, probably including John, thought that he was speaking metaphors.
Having predicted that those in the new Kingdom would never feel thirst, Jesus then claims that no one will feel either hunger or thirst, after first preparing his students for this (and for the reaction of the people) by the miraculous feeding of the five thousand followed by walking on water.
There is one little aspect of the walking on water that might be overlooked. When Jesus sees the students terrified as if he were a ghost, he says, "You know who I am. Don't be afraid." (Ego eimi, me phobeisthe. "I am. Do not be afraid."). Again, this is ordinary language; "It's me. Don't be afraid." But the fact is that Jesus uses the Greek of the divine name. (If I were one of his students and I caught the implication in what he was saying, I would have been more frightened than ever-which is a clear indication that none of them did.) But what he says is significant in the light of what occurs the next day..
At that time, in his discourse to the crowd that followed him across the lake, Jesus of course claims to be the food that will give them eternal life, and that to have it they would have to "eat the meat which is my body and drink my blood," which outrages the people, who shout, "That's disgusting! How can anyone listen to it!" And Judas, presumably, at this point thinks that Jesus has finally lost his mind, while poor Peter responds to Jesus' appeal, "Master, who would we go to? We know that what you say is eternal life, and we have believed that You are God's Holy One--we know this." Note that Peter does not really say that he knows that Jesus is divine, and that he can literally give his body to be eaten; he just says that he believes that somehow Jesus' words make sense, though he clearly has no idea how.
Now it turns out that we know how Jesus managed this. He made the bread and wine at the Last Supper into his body and blood; and so we do in fact literally eat the meat of his body and drink his blood. As to those who think that this is more symbolism, recall what John has Jesus tell Philip at that same Last Supper, "Anyone who is looking at me is seeing the Father." And we know that, either Christianity is a total waste of time, or that is literally true. So, we can say of the Eucharist, "Anyone who is looking at this is seeing Jesus in the flesh." Just as Jesus is the way the Father looks, so this apparent bread is the way Jesus' body looks at present.
In the physical Kingdom, of course, Jesus would not be sacrificed; and so presumably he would be present to us in the same form he was present to the students after the Resurrection. But, given that here in the synagogue by the lake he is saying that he will give his body to eat and his blood to drink, we could expect that the Eucharist, recognized as it is now among Catholics and others as Jesus' actual physical body, would also be part of the Kingdom. And I would suspect that the "water that removes thirst" referred to at the well would be this blood of his, which we find here is "real drink."
Would the subjects in this Kingdom eat the meal daily or only once? Presumably, since there is no hunger or thirst (i.e. no loss of energy which needed to be replaced), there would be no need for more than a single time; once it occurs, it effects the unification into the mystical body of Jesus. Still, since Jesus did eat something to show his students he was real, it might be that people would eat it more often. A propos of this, there are certain saints who seem to survive quite nicely on nothing but the Eucharist. It may be that throughout this Christian history marred by our rejection of Jesus, he gives the favor of this or that aspect of the Kingdom which he originally, so to speak, intended to found (and which will occur in fact after the Last Day) to certain of his believers--presumably to keep the faith alive, by showing that he really did mean what he said.
Part of this Bread of Life speech, however, creates a problem for my thesis. Early on, Jesus says, "It is the will of my Father for everyone who sees the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will bring him to life on the last day."
On the last day? But of course, the day Jesus becomes King will be the last day, because that is the day which ends history and begins the eternal equilibrium of the New Jerusalem; it is just that the last day was only a matter of months away if Jesus was accepted; with his rejection, it was postponed, we can now say, for thousands of years. And Jesus implies as much a little later on, when he says, "Your ancestors ate manna in the desert and died; but this is bread that comes down from heaven for people to eat and not die. I am living bread that comes down from heaven, and if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever."
We, of course, interpret this "not dying" to mean--what? Not going to hell, I suppose, which in Revelation is called the "second death." And the interpretation we give it is based on the hindsight of the fact that we believe Jesus, and yet we see that people do die; and so there must be an interpretation that is consistent with the manifest facts about our lives.
But the point is that it need not necessarily be taken in that sense; and the thesis I am advancing is that it has both senses: The bread I give you will keep you from physical dying (if I am accepted as King); it will bring you back from death (if I am rejected) to the eternal life you would have had without dying--unless of course (as Paul says) you happen to be around when the penalty-time for your rejection of me is up.
This second meaning is reinforced just a few lines after the assertion that we will not die: "A person who eats the meat which is my body and drinks my blood has life forever, and I will bring him out of the grave on the last day." After all, as John remarks a little later, "Jesus knew from the beginning who the skeptics were, just as he knew who the traitor was."
That is, Jesus here is planting the seed of the truth about the Kingdom, but he is doing so in such a way that, outrageous as it sounds, it is not so hard to accept as the fact that a person who eats Jesus' body will simply stay alive forever without ever dying at all. Jesus, who says, "So you find this hard to accept? What if you were to see the Son of Man rise up to where he was before?" knows that no one, even if called by the Father, would be able to accept this all at once, not even the people who had seen the miraculous feeding or the students, who had seen not only that but Jesus walking on water the night before. Hence, he exploits his knowledge of what in fact will happen (though it need not) and qualifies his not dying and living forever by making it compatible with dying and coming back to life and then living forever.
The attitude of Jesus' relatives which John records at this point reveals something of what the well-disposed non-student was thinking; they thought of him as a magician, who should "go show yourself to the world" if he wanted to make something of himself.
And the following episode during the Festival of the Tents indicates that Jesus now felt it necessary to stress this second sense of the Kingdom: the one that actually would obtain. He chides the people on their wanting to kill him because of his healing on the Sabbath, and starts warning them that he will be around only a short time, and "you will look for me and not find me, because you can't come where I will be."
The people, of course, expected him to be their King (as was evident from their reaction to the feeding of the five thousand), and so they could make nothing of what he said.
On a later occasion, Jesus reiterates this, and warns the people that if they do what they plan, they will die in their sins. He says, "Unless you believe what I am, you will die in your sins. The Greek is somewhat different: ean me pisteusete hoti ego eimi: "unless you believe that I am." But since this can be construed as meaning "unless you believe that I am the one [you must accept as king]," I translated it as above, since to translate it more literally would make it unambiguous that Jesus at this point is claiming to be "I am."
And the people caught the ambiguity, and immediately asked, "Who are you?" And Jesus answered with that enigmatic statement, te arche o ti kai lalo humin; The best manuscripts make this a question. Literally, it is "The beginning (accusative) that which also I speak to you?" Now the accusative alone is used for length of time, and the "that which" is neuter, so it doesn't modify "beginning," which is feminine. The New American Bible translates this as a statement: "What I have been telling you from the beginning," taking the accusative as being the equivalent of ek tes arches. My problem with this is that "the beginning" is a point in time, not a length of time. The New English Bible attempts, "Why should I speak to you at all?" which I think is a little far-out. I rendered it, "Should I tell you the source of all this?" I.e. "Is what I tell you to be the beginning [of the definitive rejection, presumably]"? No; there is a great deal I could say to you; but the one who sent me is faithful, and I am only to say to the world what I have heard from him." If I am right, Jesus realizes that the crisis is approaching; if he says anything more openly, he has no chance of being accepted.
So he turns to the Judeans who stuck with him even after the Bread of Life speech and tells them that if they are steadfast, the truth will set them free. But even they become indignant that he is implying that children of Abraham could be regarded as slaves. Jesus then realizes that even those who seemed to be his followers are now lining up on the other side, and there is no further use of being ambiguous; and so he comes right out and says that "anyone who keeps what I say will never see death," evidently hoping either to bring them back to their faith when they ate the bread and heard him speak, or make them realize that they could no longer pretend to follow him as an enigmatic speaker.
They challenge him with the death of Abraham, and he counters, after calling his Father to witness, through the miracles, that he is telling the truth, and that Abraham himself was glad to see his day come; and then when they scoff, "You aren't even fifty years old, and you've seen Abraham!" he lashes out, "Amen amen I tell you, "before Abraham came into existence, I am."
Gone is the ambiguity. There is no way to construe this except as a claim to be YHWH; and they pick up stones to throw at him, and he disappears.
This is immediately followed, in John's Report, by the healing of the man born blind, something which had never happened before, and which the blind man himself says couldn't have happened unless God was behind Jesus.
Jesus' behavior now seems to be something like what YHWH did with Sodom based on Abraham's pleas. He is trying to round up his sheep, if any, in the hopes that there will be enough of them who can stomach the seemingly outrageous and blasphemous statements so that he will be able to institute the Kingdom even over the opposition. But "I am ready to give up my life, and then have it back again. No one is going to take it from me; I am giving it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the power to take it back; this is the command I have from my Father."
Here is the "contingency plan" being offered. Jesus can accomplish his main purpose through his death, even though if the people believe, neither he nor anyone else will have to die. One suspects that he would have to have at least some people who would stick by him, however. The problem the students had, of course, is that Jesus frequently does speak metaphorically ("Be careful of the Pharisees' leaven," which they take literally, and he chides them that he isn't talking about bread.); and as what he says becomes literally more outrageous, they were doubtless racking their brains trying to find out the metaphorical sense that in this case wasn't there.
During the feast of the Dedication, the Judeans, who have been embroiled in controversy about him, challenge him to stop talking enigmas and come out with a straight answer as to whether he is the Prince; and he says, "I have told you, and you didn't believe me. And the deeds I perform representing my Father give proof of it; but you won't believe them either--because you don't belong to my sheep. . . . My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than anyone, and no one can take anything from his hands--and the Father and I are one and the same thing."
And they again pick up stones, but Jesus offers them an out, quoting Scripture, when it says, "I said 'you are gods.'" But they won't any longer be persuaded that he is doing anything but blaspheming, and so he apparently gives up, but actually sets the stage for the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
Why, if John is reporting and not making up things to produce a dramatic effect, is he the only one who mentions this colossal miracle? There are several possible explanations. First of all, since Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, his return to life (though after four days) was not as dramatic as the raising of the widow's son that Jesus happened upon, or that of the daughter of Jairus; it is much easier to stage such an event if you have the cooperation of your friends. Secondly, if those called back from "near-death experiences" are any indication of the state of Lazarus' mind after his resurrection, it might have been thought indelicate to mention him while he was alive; and by the time John was writing he was dead. I might point out, however, that the two earlier resurrections occurred when the person had just died, and could be explained on the grounds that they hadn't really died, but were in a deep coma. But this was (if not a trick) more convincing, since Lazarus, as Martha said, "is already decaying; he's been there four days."
But the conversation with Martha just before this is really important for our purposes. Here is the way it goes:
"When Martha heard that Jesus was nearby, she ran out to meet him; Mary stayed at home.
"Master," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother wouldn't have died! And yet . . . even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask him."
"Your brother will come back to life," said Jesus.
"I know that he'll come back to life in the Resurrection on the Last Day," said Martha. ["But--"] [This is not in the text, but is clearly implied. Why else would Martha have said what she had just got through saying?]
"I am resurrection," said Jesus, "and I am life. Anyone who believes in me will be alive even if he is dead, and anyone who is alive and believes in me will not die ever. Do you believe this?"
"Yes, Master," she said. "I have always believed that you are the Prince, the Son of God who has come into the world."
Here Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who have died and will come back to life (and Martha knows already that this is to happen on the Last Day--possibly not from Jesus, but the teaching of the Pharisees); but Jesus hints that it can be sooner because he himself is resurrection and life; but then he says, "anyone who is alive and believes in me will not die ever."
Note the difference with Mary, who says the same thing Martha says at first, but doesn't add the note of hope that Jesus can do anything about it. And Jesus "heaved a deep sigh [of disappointment]. Then he said, 'Where did you bury him?'" And when the people tell him to come and see, he breaks down and cries. Why? Because of how much he loved him? Clearly not. Because of the fact that not even these people would believe him--not even Martha, really, as we can see from what follows.
When Jesus asks the people to roll away the stone, she says, "Master, he's already decaying; he's been there four days." I can see the fire in Jesus' eyes as he turns on her and says, "Didn't I tell you that if you believed, you'd see how great God is?"
How many people would take Jesus literally? But he is apparently angry that they don't. And Lazarus' return to life proves that he deserves to be taken literally; though what happens afterwards is that when the incident is reported to the Judeans by the ones who actually saw it, their only reaction is, "What should we do? This man is doing so much to prove this claim of his. If we leave him like this, everyone will believe that he is the Prince, and then the Romans will come and crush our country and our people right out of existence!" And that leads to Caiaphas' assertion that they would be better off with one man dying for the people rather than having the whole people destroyed. And so they commit themselves to killing Jesus, and for practical purposes, the original plan is dead because of an indirect consequence of the major evidence that was supposed to prove it feasible.
But we must not be too harsh on the Judean leaders. Would you actually have believed that in a couple of months death would be abolished forever? Would you have believed that this calling of a friend back from death was not a clever trick by a master magician, and was a real restoration of a decaying corpse to life? Do you believe it now? Do you think this actually happened, or do you suspect that maybe the author is retelling something that he didn't see, like these urban legends that are going around nowadays that happened to somebody who is known to somebody who knew my cousin?
I know that the mere fact that I want it to be true makes me doubt. Perhaps I am investing more credence in what after all isn't as evidentially valid as I think it is.
But he would have his recognition as King, however futile it might be in practice. Note that he waits until the Passover, when there would be a flood of Galileans in the city, because he had a better chance with Galileans than simply with the Judeans, and they might be able to sway the people as a whole. He enters the city on a donkey, just as the prophets foretold (if you looked at them hard enough), and is acclaimed King by everyone--except the people who really mattered. When they see what is happening, the Pharisees say to each other, "You see? Nothing will do any good! The whole world has gone after him!"
Immediately after this, John recounts that strange episode of the Greeks who approached Philip, who then took Andrew and told Jesus that some non-Jews wanted to see him. Jesus says, "The time has come for the Son of Man to show what he really is!" And he continues with the analogy of the dying grain of wheat, and his turmoil of spirit, answered by a voice from heaven, at which he announces that the present moment is the world's crisis-point, to be saved by his being lifted up and drawing everyone to himself.
Somehow he knew that the occasion of these Greeks (either Gentiles or Jews who lived in Greece--probably, I would think, the former) wanting to see him was the point at which everything was to turn against the triumphal spirit of the people.
No more does Jesus announce what the Kingdom is to be like on earth; he is leaving, and then going to return. There is one attempt to save the situation: if Judas can be made not to carry out his plan of betrayal, Jesus might still be chosen King. So Jesus offers him a special gesture of friendship, even as this gesture also serves as the signal to John as to who the betrayer actually is.(5) he dips bread in the Passover sauce and hands it to Judas(6) --"and Satan went into him along with the bread." Jesus still does not denounce him, and merely says, "Do what you're going to do, and be quick about it." But Judas has made up his mind.
John says nothing of Jesus' interrogation at the actual trial before the Judeans, but from the Synoptics we learn that Jesus said nothing (and so would have to be acquitted, because no two witnesses agreed on what he did), until ordered specifically by the one who had authority over him as a Judean to state whether he was or was not "The Prince, the Son of God [or, as Mark has it the Blessed One]." And he answers, "I am." and clarifies that by indicating where he got the name "Son of Man" that he gave himself: "And I will tell you further that after this time, you will see the Son of Man enthroned beside the Power, and coming upon the clouds of heaven," referring obviously to Daniel's theophanic vision.
What John does report is Jesus' interrogation by Pilate, where he does not deny being a King, but says that his Kingdom does not belong to this world. This would be true even if he were actually named King by the Judeans, and it would be evident if the thesis of this study is correct, because those not belonging to the Kingdom would witness the transformation of the world. The point here, however, is that Jesus shows Pilate that he has no reason for finding him guilty, and Pilate admits as much, when he goes outside and says, "I don't see that you have a case against him," and tries to get him released without actually releasing him contrary to the mood of the crowd.
Jesus, then, avails himself of every opportunity for Judas, the Judeans, and the Gentiles to realize what they are doing and set him free; but in every case, they reject his overtures. Hence, as he predicted in the Last Supper discourse after Judas had left, he was leaving the world; but "I will not leave you orphans; I am coming back to you." And "you too are in agony now; but when I see you again, your hearts will be full of joy, and no one will take your happiness from you." And so we find the plan of God as we know it: that Jesus dies, and through his death we are saved; and that he rises, but leaves us so that this salvation occurs through our suffering and our faith that he will in fact return, and every tear will be wiped away.
What, then, have we learned about the Kingdom as it would be without this rejection? It seems that entrance into it would be by some kind of bath; that the Eucharistic meal would be eaten in it at least once; that we would no longer be thirsty or hungry; and that we would never die. Would we get sick? John does not report that we wouldn't. Would pain be abolished? Again, we have no clear indication from John.
It does seem that there would be people who would be outside the Kingdom, who presumably would be living the kind of life we now live, and who would "die in their sins."
Notes
1. Incidentally, some say that this is a hymn that "the author of John" used as a kind of epigraph; but I think that this theory doesn't hold water for several reasons: first, because the rest of the book is shot through with the same Theology; second, because it uses the style of the rest of the book--simple language used to sublime effect, coordination rather than subordination, etc; and finally, because it is interrupted by the remarks about John in a way that a person quoting a hymn already before him would not do. There is a tendency in some Biblical circles whenever something poetic appears to say, "See there! He's copying one of the pop songs of the time!"
2. I should make a tiny remark about the actual testimony the Baptist gives in John's Report. The best manuscripts (including the emended version of the Codex Sinaticus) say this: "'I saw,' he said, 'The Spirit coming down from the sky like a dove and lighting on him. It wasn't that I recognized him; the one who sent me to bathe the people told me that when I saw the Spirit come down and rest on someone, he would be the one who is to bathe people in the Holy Spirit. And I saw this, and now my sworn testimony is that he is the Son of God.'"
The New American Bible takes the original reading of the Codex, supported by a few other manuscripts and translates the end, "Now I have seen for myself and have testified, 'This is God's chosen One.'" The note explains that they adopted this reading as more probably what was actually written because of the principle of the "more difficult" reading. That is, it is more likely, they say, that an inattentive scribe would substitute "Son of God" for "chosen of God," because all the Synoptics have that reading; but the careless scribe would not be inclined to make the substitution the other way.
I can think of a situation where he would. A scribe who had the inclination to think of Jesus as a man "filled with" God would perhaps be inclined to "correct" the "misleading" impression that John actually claimed Jesus was God's Son at this early stage. And don't think this doesn't happen. I heard a reader at Mass the other day substitute "a member of God's family" for "Son" in the passage of the letter to Galatia, where Paul says, "But you are not a slave any more; you are a Son," not realizing that Paul had been claiming that the "son" in question was the (singular) "descendant" of Abraham who was to inherit the promise, and we were identified with him. Hence, I think it legitimate to take the reading of the best manuscripts as the true one.
3. Remember, we need not take time literally here; and is it merely a coincidence that from the beginning to the wedding in Cana there are seven days? I think not. I think this is the "creation" of the New World Order.
4. I have replaced "the LORD" with YHWH.
5. There is something here that is not in John's Report. When he announces that one of the Twelve is a traitor, each asks whether it is himself, and Judas, according to Matthew says, "I wouldn't be the one, would I, Rabbi?" and Jesus answers, "You are right." So Judas knew that he knew; which means that this act is an act which indicates that Jesus would not punish him for it. Judas, however, undoubtedly took it as defiance, and determined to carry out his plan. There is some indication that he thought that if Jesus actually had the power he seemed to have (especially if he knew about the betrayal), he would overthrow his enemies and proclaim himself King. I say this because Judas is reported as returning the betrayal-money in remorse at what he did. In spite of John's understandable animosity toward Judas, his motives could very well be much more complex than we tend to think.
6. Note also that, even though John implies that the following day is the Passover, because the Judeans will not enter the headquarters so that they can eat the Passover dinner, even he seems to indicate that the Last Supper was in fact the Passover meal; because this dipping of bread into the sauce was one of the rituals of that meal.
Next