SET TEXT

John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Bethzatha, which has five porticoes.

 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed.

 4

 5 One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years.

 6 When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be healed?"

 7 The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am going another steps down before me."

 8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your pallet, and walk."

 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked. Now that day was the sabbath.

 10 So the Jews said to the man who was cured, "It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet."

 11 But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, `Take up your pallet, and walk.'"

 12 They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, `Take up your pallet, and walk'?"

 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.

 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you."

 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

 16 And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath.

 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working."

 18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

 19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.

 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.

 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

 23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

 25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

 27 and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.

 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

 30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

 31 If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true;

 32 there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true.

 33 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.

 34 Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved.

 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.

 36 But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.

 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;

 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.

 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;

 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

 41 I do not receive glory from men.

 42 But I know that you have not the love of God within you.

 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

 44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.

 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.

 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

 16  kai. dia. tou/to evdi,wkon oi` VIoudai/oi to.n VIhsou/n( o[ti tau/ta evpoi,ei evn sabba,tw|Å

 17  o` de. ÎvIhsou/jÐ avpekri,nato auvtoi/j( ~O path,r mou e[wj a;rti evrga,zetai( kavgw. evrga,zomaiÅ

 18  dia. tou/to ou=n ma/llon evzh,toun auvto.n oi` VIoudai/oi avpoktei/nai( o[ti ouv mo,non e;luen to. sa,bbaton( avlla. kai. pate,ra i;dion e;legen to.n qeo,n i;son e`auto.n poiw/n tw/| qew/|Å

 19  VApekri,nato ou=n o` VIhsou/j kai. e;legen auvtoi/j( VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n( ouv du,natai o` ui`o.j poiei/n avfV e`autou/ ouvde.n eva.n mh, ti ble,ph| to.n pate,ra poiou/nta\ a] ga.r a'n evkei/noj poih/|( tau/ta kai. o` ui`o.j o`moi,wj poiei/Å

 20  o` ga.r path.r filei/ to.n ui`o.n kai. pa,nta dei,knusin auvtw/| a] auvto.j poiei/( kai. mei,zona tou,twn dei,xei auvtw/| e;rga( i[na u`mei/j qauma,zhteÅ

 21  w[sper ga.r o` path.r evgei,rei tou.j nekrou.j kai. zw|opoiei/( ou[twj kai. o` ui`o.j ou]j qe,lei zw|opoiei/Å

 22  ouvde. ga.r o` path.r kri,nei ouvde,na( avlla. th.n kri,sin pa/san de,dwken tw/| ui`w/|(

 23  i[na pa,ntej timw/si to.n ui`o.n kaqw.j timw/si to.n pate,raÅ o` mh. timw/n to.n ui`o.n ouv tima/| to.n pate,ra to.n pe,myanta auvto,nÅ

 24  VAmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti o` to.n lo,gon mou avkou,wn kai. pisteu,wn tw/| pe,myanti, me e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion kai. eivj kri,sin ouvk e;rcetai( avlla. metabe,bhken evk tou/ qana,tou eivj th.n zwh,nÅ

 25  avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti e;rcetai w[ra kai. nu/n evstin o[te oi` nekroi. avkou,sousin th/j fwnh/j tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ qeou/ kai. oi` avkou,santej zh,sousinÅ

 26  w[sper ga.r o` path.r e;cei zwh.n evn e`autw/|( ou[twj kai. tw/| ui`w/| e;dwken zwh.n e;cein evn e`autw/|Å

 27  kai. evxousi,an e;dwken auvtw/| kri,sin poiei/n( o[ti ui`o.j avnqrw,pou evsti,nÅ

 28  mh. qauma,zete tou/to( o[ti e;rcetai w[ra evn h-| pa,ntej oi` evn toi/j mnhmei,oij avkou,sousin th/j fwnh/j auvtou/

 29  kai. evkporeu,sontai( oi` ta. avgaqa. poih,santej eivj avna,stasin zwh/j( oi` de. ta. fau/la pra,xantej eivj avna,stasin kri,sewjÅ

 30  Ouv du,namai evgw. poiei/n avpV evmautou/ ouvde,n\ kaqw.j avkou,w kri,nw( kai. h` kri,sij h` evmh. dikai,a evsti,n( o[ti ouv zhtw/ to. qe,lhma to. evmo.n avlla. to. qe,lhma tou/ pe,myanto,j meÅ

 31  eva.n evgw. marturw/ peri. evmautou/( h` marturi,a mou ouvk e;stin avlhqh,j\

 32  a;lloj evsti.n o` marturw/n peri. evmou/( kai. oi=da o[ti avlhqh,j evstin h` marturi,a h]n marturei/ peri. evmou/Å

 33  u`mei/j avpesta,lkate pro.j VIwa,nnhn( kai. memartu,rhken th/| avlhqei,a|\

 34  evgw. de. ouv para. avnqrw,pou th.n marturi,an lamba,nw( avlla. tau/ta le,gw i[na u`mei/j swqh/teÅ

 35  evkei/noj h=n o` lu,cnoj o` kaio,menoj kai. fai,nwn( u`mei/j de. hvqelh,sate avgalliaqh/nai pro.j w[ran evn tw/| fwti. auvtou/Å

 36  evgw. de. e;cw th.n marturi,an mei,zw tou/ VIwa,nnou\ ta. ga.r e;rga a] de,dwke,n moi o` path.r i[na teleiw,sw auvta,( auvta. ta. e;rga a] poiw/ marturei/ peri. evmou/ o[ti o` path,r me avpe,stalken\

 37  kai. o` pe,myaj me path.r evkei/noj memartu,rhken peri. evmou/Å ou;te fwnh.n auvtou/ pw,pote avkhko,ate ou;te ei=doj auvtou/ e`wra,kate(

38  kai. to.n lo,gon auvtou/ ouvk e;cete evn u`mi/n me,nonta( o[ti o]n avpe,steilen evkei/noj( tou,tw| u`mei/j ouv pisteu,eteÅ

 39  evrauna/te ta.j grafa,j( o[ti u`mei/j dokei/te evn auvtai/j zwh.n aivw,nion e;cein\ kai. evkei/nai, eivsin ai` marturou/sai peri. evmou/\

 40  kai. ouv qe,lete evlqei/n pro,j me i[na zwh.n e;chteÅ

 41  Do,xan para. avnqrw,pwn ouv lamba,nw(

 42  avlla. e;gnwka u`ma/j o[ti th.n avga,phn tou/ qeou/ ouvk e;cete evn e`autoi/jÅ

 43  evgw. evlh,luqa evn tw/| ovno,mati tou/ patro,j mou( kai. ouv lamba,nete, me\ eva.n a;lloj e;lqh| evn tw/| ovno,mati tw/| ivdi,w|( evkei/non lh,myesqeÅ

 44  pw/j du,nasqe u`mei/j pisteu/sai do,xan para. avllh,lwn lamba,nontej( kai. th.n do,xan th.n para. tou/ mo,nou qeou/ ouv zhtei/teÈ

 45  mh. dokei/te o[ti evgw. kathgorh,sw u`mw/n pro.j to.n pate,ra\ e;stin o` kathgorw/n u`mw/n Mwu?sh/j( eivj o]n u`mei/j hvlpi,kateÅ

 46  eiv ga.r evpisteu,ete Mwu?sei/( evpisteu,ete a'n evmoi,\ peri. ga.r evmou/ evkei/noj e;grayenÅ

[These comments are largely derived from my book, John’s Apologetic Christology]

John chapter 5 provides an excellent example of the character of the Fourth Gospel as apologetic. In this chapter of the Gospel, one finds numerous indications both of some of the points at issue in the christological controversy, and of the ways the Fourth Evangelist sought to respond to them. Under the guise of ‘the Jews’, the contemporary opponents of the Johannine Christians  are allowed to raise their objections.[i] As Loader  points out, the accusations brought in this chapter ‘are doubtless...real accusations hurled at the Johannine community by Jewish critics.’[ii] The Johannine Jesus then provides a response to these Jewish objections, a defense or legitimation of Christology. These features have led a number of scholars to see an apologetic thrust here: the beliefs of the community are being ‘put on trial’ by Jewish objectors, and what is being mounted here is a defense of their understanding of Jesus, which is coupled with a denunciation of their opponents’ unbelief (5.37-47).[iii] There is much to support the conclusion that the whole passage (John 5.19-47) represents one of the clearest examples in John of the Evangelist engaging in legitimation, in the defense of his community’s beliefs about Jesus.

In order to ascertain exactly what is at issue in the conflict with ‘the Jews’ in John 5, we must consider the relationship between earlier tradition and the miracle story which John recounts in this chapter. As has already been emphasized, the relationship between the Johannine conflicts and those attested in earlier New Testament writings is crucial for our model of development.

            The similarity between this Johannine miracle story and that found in Mark  2.1-12 (and parallels) is noted by most commentators.[iv] These similarities do not necessitate that we posit a direct literary dependence by John on one or more of the Synoptic  Gospels, but do at least suggest that here the Fourth Evangelist is dependent on a very similar tradition, and perhaps an independent version of the same basic story.[v] There is in fact much evidence to support this conclusion.

(1) In the Johannine narrative we have an invalid, someone who may well have been a paralytic in view of the reference to paralytics immediately prior to his being introduced, and also of his difficulty in getting into the water (John 5.3-7; cf. Mark  2.3).

(2) Jesus heals him by telling him to get up, pick up his mat and walk (John 5.8; Mark  2.9-11). The two Greek sentences are practically identical, the only difference between them being an additional kai£ in the Marcan version.

(3) In John this occurs on a Sabbath (John 5.9-10; cf. Mark  2.23-28; 3.1-4; Lk.13.10-16, which are not part of the same story but which nonetheless show that controversy concerning healing on the Sabbath is also a traditional motif rather than a Johannine creation).[vi]

(4) Jesus is accused of blasphemy and/or of doing what only God  can do (John 5.16-18; Mark  2.7).

(5) He speaks with the man about sin and being made well (John 5.14; Mark  2.5-11).

(6) It may also be significant that both Mark  2.10 and John 5.27 speak of the authority of the Son of Man.[vii]

John thus seems to be familiar, if not with the same story as is narrated in Mark  and the other Synoptics, then at the very least with a similar tradition.

            Nevertheless, some commentators feel that the differences outweigh the similarities. For example, Brown  considers that, apart from the basic fact that a lame man is told to stand, pick up his mat and walk, the two stories have almost nothing in common. He mentions three differences which he considers decisive in leading to the conclusion that the Johannine narrative and the Synoptic  narratives do not refer to the same incident. These are the differences

            (1) In setting: Capernaum vs. Jerusalem.

            (2) In local details: a man brought to a house by his friends and lowered through the roof vs. a man lying at the side of a pool.

            (3) In emphasis: a miracle illustrative of Jesus’ power to heal sin vs. a healing with only a passing reference to sin (5.14).[viii]

To this list may be added several additional points noted by Sanders (although Sanders only feels that these differences preclude direct literary dependence between John and Mark , and not the sort of dependence on divergent forms of the same original tradition which we are proposing):

            (4) In Mark  the man has four friends, in John nobody.

            (5) In Mark  they take the initiative, in John Jesus does.

            (6) In Mark  Jesus sees their faith, in John faith is not mentioned.

            (7) In Mark  Jesus forgives the man before healing him, in John Jesus heals him and then warns him not to go on sinning.

            (8) In Mark  Jesus gives offense by telling the man he is forgiven, in John by breaking the Sabbath (not mentioned in Mark 2) and making himself equal to God  (although Sanders notes that this last point is at least implied in Mark 2.7). [ix]

Points (1) and (2) are rather easily explicable as changes made in order to allow the incident to occur in Jerusalem, as do the other Johannine accounts of conflicts with ‘the Jews’; indeed, nearly the whole of the Fourth Gospel is set in Jerusalem. The third point (3) is weak, inasmuch as it is a similarity as much as a difference: although John’s emphasis differs from that of the Synoptic  story, not only does he mention sin and healing in connection with one another, but there is in addition a fundamental continuity in the issue being addressed by both the Johannine and Marcan narratives, namely the issue of whether Jesus blasphemously claims to do what only God  can do. Dodd , in contrast to Sanders (point 6), feels that the Johannine account’s discussion of the man’s will to be healed, and participation in the healing process by responding to Jesus’ call for him to get up and walk, parallels the calls for or discussions of faith in Mark  2 and other similar healing narratives.[x] Further, as Brown  notes (point 3; compare Sanders, point 7), the question of the relationship between sin and suffering is addressed, albeit differently.

            In connection with a number of the points raised, it should be noted that neither Brown  nor Sanders considers the possibility that here John may perhaps be drawing on more than one traditional story, which he is then altering or conflating in order to be used as a foundation for a theological discourse. Lindars  and Witkamp  have argued that John is familiar not only with the story in Mark  2.1-12, but with the whole section Mark 2.1-3.6, which may have already been linked in pre-Marcan tradition.[xi] The Synoptics combine stories, and we should not be surprised to find the Fourth Evangelist doing so as well.

            It is also likely that John will have edited his source  material, rather than simply incorporating it in toto into his Gospel.[xii] This may account for the remaining differences, since there is no reason to think that John’s dependence upon tradition here can only be demonstrated if he made no alterations to the tradition which he inherited. As Barrett  points out, ‘disagreement does not prove lack of knowledge; all it proves is disagreement, and it often presupposes knowledge.’[xiii] John’s version, where the man complains that he has no one to help him into the water (John 5.7), reads like an intentional contrast to Mark  2.3-4, where the man has friends to help him. Lindars  rightly notes that the mention of the man’s pallet (krabatton) comes unexpectedly and is somewhat redundant in John, whereas it is central in the Markan narrative. Its presence is best explained by supposing that John preserved it from a tradition he inherited, in which it was an essential part of Jesus’ pronouncement.[xiv] Given that John is setting up a contrast with the healing story in chapter 9, many of the differences are explicable in terms of Johannine editorial activity aimed at bringing out the parallels between the two narratives. Culpepper notes the following as points of contact between the healing stories in John 5 and 9: Jesus taking the initiative, the presence of a pool, the Sabbath issue, the invitation of belief subsequent to the healing and the topic of the relation between sin and suffering. Given that these are key areas of difference between John and Mark , these elements are probably best regarded as the result of the editorial activity of the Fourth Evangelist.[xv]

            None of the objections raised proves that John was not dependent on a tradition akin to that preserved in Mark . The differences probably suggest that there was no direct literary dependence, but do not preclude an original common tradition lying behind both.[xvi] Thus given that, as Lindars  notes, ‘The verbal similarity between 5.8-9a and Mk. 2.9, 11-12a is so close that it can scarcely be doubted that an almost identical source  lies behind them both’,[xvii] it seems best to follow the majority of scholars in regarding John as dependent on traditional material similar to that found in Mark 2, and very probably traditions akin to those found elsewhere in the Synoptics as well.

            The reason for discussing the relationship between John and earlier tradition at such length is that certain scholars regard the issue which is addressed here in John, in connection with the Sabbath healing, as fundamentally different from that addressed in John’s source  and in the Synoptics. In the view of Bultmann  and Neyrey , for example, the earlier concern was with the sin of Sabbath breaking, whereas the Fourth Evangelist’s concern is with blasphemy.[xviii] In other words, in the Synoptics, and in the pre-Johannine tradition known to the Fourth Evangelist, the concern is with a humanitarian principle, whereas the focus in John is christological. However, this line of argument ignores the fundamental similarity between the issue addressed on the basis of the miracle account in both John and the Synoptics. In the Marcan version (and parallels), Jesus is accused of blasphemy because he is claiming to forgive sins, something that in the objectors’ opinion only God  can do. In John, through the inclusion of the Sabbath motif, the issue is brought into focus by means of a claim that Jesus, like God, can work on the Sabbath.[xix] The basic claim being made is essentially identical, namely, that Jesus is capable of doing what only God can do, which ‘the Jews’ find objectionable.[xx]

            This element is an essential part of the tradition, and does not represent a Johannine alteration of an earlier tradition that did not address the question of Jesus claiming divine prerogatives.[xxi] What is different from the Synoptics is the fact that John provides a lengthy response to the objections, whereas in the Synoptics the miracle itself is deemed sufficient to silence opposition and legitimate Jesus’ actions.[xxii] It seems likely, then, that the difficulties which some had with the claims made for Jesus by Christians, as are reflected already in the Synoptics, became even more problematic as time went on, so that John needed to address the issue in a fuller way.

Before we can proceed, we must consider further the accusation that is brought by ‘the Jews’.[xxiii] Commentators seem to be more or less unanimously agreed that the phrase in 5.18, patera i¦dion e¦legen ton qeon i¦son eauton poiwªn twª qewª, means something like, ‘He was caalling God  his own Father, thereby making himself equal with God.’[xxiv] However, while this is obviously a possible translation grammatically, from the perspective of cultural anthropology it is extremely difficult to maintain. In first century Jewish and other Mediterranean cultures, a claim to sonship would immediately imply obedience and dependence, not equality.[xxv]

            We may note the following important texts as evidence. Epictetus, the first century Stoic philosopher, wrote, ‘Bear in mind that you are a son. A son’s profession is to treat everything that is his as belonging to his father, to be obedient to him in all things, never to speak ill of him to anyone else, nor to say or do anything that will harm him, to give way to him in everything and yield him precedence, helping him to the utmost of his power’.[xxvi] Ben Sira 3.6-16 says, ‘Whoever glorifies his father will have long life...he will serve his parents as his masters...Do not glorify yourself by dishonoring your father, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you...Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer’.[xxvii] In a similar vein Philo  asserts that ‘men who neglect their parents should cover their faces in shame...For the children have nothing of their own which does not belong to the parents, who have either bestowed it upon them from their own substance, or have enabled them to acquire it by supplying them with the means’.[xxviii] The Hebrew Scriptures share similar assumptions concerning sonship, as we see in Deuteronomy 21.18, where ‘a rebellious son’ is one ‘who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother.’

            To make an assertion of sonship would thus imply submission and obedience, and to make oneself equal to one’s father (i.e. to claim the unique prerogatives of one’s father and thereby detract from one’s father’s honor) would be to make oneself a rebellious son, one who was behaving in a way totally inappropriate to a son.[xxix]

            It is thus better to take the participle poiwn in John 5.18 as a concessive participle, which would mean that the phrase as a whole be given a sense something like, ‘He claimed that God  was his[xxx] Father, although [he was] making himself equal with God’.[xxxi] Jesus has claimed to be God’s son; the Jews are accusing him of not behaving in a way appropriate to sonship, because he is claiming for himself his Father’s unique prerogatives. In other words, what ‘the Jews’ find objectionable is not Jesus’ claim to be God’s son per se. Rather it is the fact that, while claiming this designation appropriate for one who submissively obeys God, he has nonetheless put himself in the place of God. ‘The Jews’ are thus accusing Jesus of behaving in a way that discredits or tells against his spoken claims. This suggestion fits well with what we find elsewhere in John. Similar accusations, which appeal to the actions of Jesus in order to discount his claims, can be found, for example, in John 8.13; 9.16,24; 10.33.[xxxii] The interpretation we have suggested not only fits with the first century Mediterranean cultural context, as we have already seen, but as we shall demonstrate shortly, also coheres with the response which the Johannine Jesus goes on to give to the Jews’ accusation.

            Before proceeding, we may note some of the evidence that is available concerning Jewish views on human beings claiming equality with God . Even in the Old Testament, to grasp at equality with God was regarded as sinful hubris (cf. Gen. 3.5-6; 2 Chr.24.24; Isa.14.13-15; 40.18,25; Ezek. 28.2; 29.3). Philo  expresses a similar opinion, as does the author of 2 Maccabees, who places these words in the mouth of a repentant Antiochus: ‘It is right to be subject to God, and no mortal should think that he is equal to God.’[xxxiii] On the other hand, Beasley-Murray notes the Rabbinic discussion of Pharaoh, where Moses  is made ‘as God’ to Pharaoh, whereas because Pharaoh makes himself as God he must learn that he is nothing.[xxxiv] He concludes that ‘It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to be as God, but whoever made himself as God called down divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter category.’[xxxv]

            To summarize, it appears that for any son to place himself on an equal standing with his father would be regarded as disrespectful. Thus for Jesus to claim to be God ’s son while also apparently making himself equal with God would have been wholly unacceptable to his Jewish interlocutors.[xxxvi] The key issue does not appear to have been equality with God per se, but whether Jesus is making himself equal with God. That is to say, ‘the Jews’ do not regard Jesus as someone appointed by God, who would thus bear God’s authority and speak and act on his behalf, but as one who seeks his own glory, a messianic pretender who blasphemously puts himself on a par with God.

We now turn to the Johannine response to these objections, in the first part of which the Evangelist makes use of the imagery and categories of sonship and agency .[xxxvii] The presentation of Jesus as God ’s Son and agent was already part of Christian tradition prior to John, as we have already seen in chapter 2. It would seem that John is here drawing out the implications of the agency concept in a much fuller way than any of his predecessors, making the principle of agency (that the one sent is like the one who sent him) a central christological theme in a way that earlier writers did not do or did not do as fully. This motif is combined with the generally accepted idea in contemporary culture that an obedient son will imitate his father and do what he sees his father doing.[xxxviii] The Evangelist argues on the basis of these concepts that Jesus is not a disobedient or rebellious son; the fact that he does what his Father does demonstrates not rebelliousness, but rather obedience.[xxxix] The implication which is then drawn out of the traditional motifs which John uses here is that, as Son and Agent, Jesus can legitimately be regarded as carrying out functions which were traditionally considered to be divine prerogatives: working on the Sabbath, giving life, judging, and so on.[xl] And whereas for a son to usurp the honour due to his father would be to become a rebellious son, because the son has been appointed as the father’s agent, he is to be honored, respected and obeyed as if he were the father himself. The one sent is to be regarded and honored as the one who sent him.[xli] John emphasizes these aspects of the Jesus tradition to make the point that Jesus resembles an agent appointed by God rather than a rebel against God, because he is constantly pointing attention away from himself to the Father who sent him.

            In addition, John can reinforce the legitimacy of the attribution of various divine prerogatives to Jesus through appeal to the fact that, as many of his contemporaries would acknowledge, God  had on occasion delegated the authority to carry out at least some of these acts. Prophetic figures like Elijah in the Hebrew Scriptures were believed to have restored the dead to life through God’s power,[xlii] and the apocalyptic figure of the Son of Man was thought of as judge.[xliii] The Fourth Evangelist does not appear to be arguing his point here strictly on the basis of certain unique christological claims, but also appeals to what is true in general of father/son relationships, and which could (in theory, at least) also apply to others, although the Evangelist would certainly have regarded Jesus as God’s Son and Agent par excellence.[xliv] Yet although Jesus has been delegated an authority which may at least in theory be delegated at times to others, the Evangelist is broadening the area of authority being claimed for Jesus by including the idea of work on the Sabbath, which does not appear to have been claimed for any other figure in Israel’s history anywhere in the extant literature.[xlv] Even if the Evangelist’s argument is based on a broad principle, there is nonetheless in this passage an accentuation and extension of earlier use of sonship and agency  categories in relation to Jesus. The Evangelist is appealing to traditional images and/or generally accepted ideas, and although his argument would carry more weight for those who already accepted the Christian position that Jesus is God’s Son and agent, the fact that the Fourth Evangelist bases his argument on general principles of agency and/or sonship suggests that even some non-Christian Jews may have found him persuasive, and at least concluded that there is nothing blasphemous or scandalous in the claims being made by the Johannine Christians  for Jesus.[xlvi]

            The clearest indication that the Fourth Evangelist’s appeal to tradition also represents a development of that tradition is to be found in the links between his conception of Jesus in terms of agency , and his understanding of Jesus as the Logos  ‘become flesh’. Although it may seem to some inappropriate to relate the concept of Logos, mentioned only in the prologue , to the imagery used in the present chapter, in fact there are a number of important conceptual links between them.[xlvii] It must also be stressed that, inasmuch as the Gospel in its present form is concerned, the Evangelist would have expected his readers to be familiar with the prologue and the theology expressed therein. As Barrett  and others have rightly stressed, John intends the whole of his Gospel to be read in light of the prologue.[xlviii] The Fourth Evangelist would expect readers of this passage to think of Jesus not only as God ’s human agent, but also as God’s unique agent, the Logos, ‘become flesh’.

             Even as early as Deutero-Isaiah, we find agency  language associated with God ’s Word (Isa. 55.11). In later Jewish literature, Wisdom  is presented in terms that are rightly regarded as falling within the sphere of agency categories, and the association is particularly close in connection with creation.[xlix] That the role of the Logos  in Philo  can also be correctly brought under the heading of agency seems clear from the designations which Philo uses, such as ‘mediator’, ‘angel /messenger’, ‘ruler’ and ‘governor or administrator’.[l] That many aspects of these contemporary Jewish portraits of God’s Word or Wisdom in agency categories were familiar to the Evangelist is clear from the prologue .

            Although there is no evidence that the Evangelist and his readers knew Philo ’s writings directly, nonetheless the similarities between what is said by Philo concerning the Logos  and what the Fourth Evangelist writes in the prologue  are so striking that most scholars consider the parallels to be significant and worth noting. The concepts, language and imagery are so similar that, even if there is no direct interdependence between the two, there is at the very least a shared ‘world of ideas’, a connection of environment or milieu, culture or tradition, which the two share in common with one another. This same point also applies to Philo’s Logos concept as it relates to John 5. Most worthy of mention is Conf. 63, where the Logos is described as follows: ‘For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns’. The significance of this statement is heightened still further when one also considers passages such as Cher. 77, where Philo  writes, ‘Who...could be a more determined enemy to the soul than he who out of arrogance appropriate[s] the especial attributes of the Deity to himself? Now it is an especial attribute of God  to create, and this faculty it is impious to ascribe to any created being’.[li]

            It is of course true, as so much recent research has stressed, that the Logos  is for Philo none other than God  himself in his interaction with the created order, depicted through means of personification.[lii] Nonetheless, this in no way diminishes the significance of the fact that Philo  has chosen to describe the Logos as fulfilling this divine prerogative in terms of a son obediently imitating his father. It is not impossible that the Fourth Evangelist and his community were aware of this (or some other similar) earlier use of father/son imagery in connection with the Logos, although this cannot be proved. However, it is at least clear from this passage that the principle that a son imitates his father was widely accepted - Philo does not argue for it, but simply appeals to it as the basis for his assertion about the creative activity of the Logos.[liii] Philo’s use of this principle in this context at the very least shows that to argue on this basis for the legitimacy of a particular figure’s participation in divine activities or functions would not have appeared ludicrous, and would perhaps even have been reasonably convincing to those who shared certain presuppositions.

            Thus, to sum up, the Fourth Evangelist has in this chapter taken up an element of earlier tradition, namely the idea that Jesus is God ’s Son and agent . In his use of it to defend the Christian view that Jesus carries out divine functions, the Evangelist has developed the motif(s) in a number of ways:

(1) In emphasizing that Jesus does these things precisely as God ’s agent  and obedient Son, the Evangelist has stressed at the same time both the obedience and submission of the Son to the Father, and the equality of the authority of the Son (as agent) to that of the Father. The resulting portrait sets up a tension between equality language and subordination language that would exert a great influence on the course of later christological development. It also lays much greater stress on Jesus as life-giver and judge than did earlier works.

(2) The Evangelist has also brought the idea of the human Jesus as God ’s agent  into connection with the idea of Jesus as the one as whom God’s supreme agent, the Logos , has ‘become flesh’. The concept of the Logos as agent was known in the community, and this would have lent still more weight to the Evangelist’s argument: because the human being Jesus is one with the Logos, the attribution of divine activities to Jesus is not to be considered in any way  more problematic than the similar assertions made by many Jews about God’s Word/Wisdom/Spirit . This line of argument would have been most convincing to Christians, who already accepted that Jesus was the Messiah  in whom God’s Spirit, Word or Wisdom dwelt. Nonetheless, Jews who accepted the truthfulness of contemporary Jewish portraits of the Messiah as indwelt by God’s Spirit or Wisdom may also have found John’s portrayal convincing. At any rate, in John the agency motif is expanded and developed, and moved onto another plane by being integrated into the Evangelist’s Logos Christology. Just how well integrated it was, and whether John had thought through in any detail the relationship between the sending of Jesus and the sending of the Logos from heaven, are interesting and important questions which we shall address later (in chapter 15 below).

We may now proceed to consider the development made in this passage of another important motif, namely the use of the designation ‘Son of Man’. Once again, we have already seen that John is aware of and has inherited aspects of earlier Jewish and Christian thought concerning the ‘Son of Man’. On one level, it may seem that what the Evangelist does with the Son of Man motif here, while an attempt to legitimate a certain belief, is not particularly significant. The line of argument, on first reading, appears to be as follows: the apocalyptic Son of Man was widely accepted to carry out the role of judge, and if Jesus is the Son of Man, then he is rightly regarded as occupying the role of judge.[liv] This is certainly part of what the Fourth Evangelist is arguing here, since the Evangelist is clearly appealing to the well-known apocalyptic traditions concerning the ‘Son of Man’. This can hardly be denied, as in the immediate context we find:

(1) The use of ‘son of man ’ (the anarthrous form of which, in the view of some scholars, is a direct allusion to Daniel 7.13).[lv]

(2) Reference to his being given authority (to judge).[lvi]

(3) Mention in the immediate context of the resurrection of some to life and others to condemnation.[lvii]

This makes it seem quite likely that the Fourth Evangelist has in mind the Danielic figure as he was understood in contemporary Judaism and Christianity, to which he could appeal to defend his belief that Jesus rightly and legitimately fulfills the divine prerogative of judgment.[lviii] However, there may be a further aspect to John’s usage, as we shall now see.

            E. M. Sidebottom  and Robert Rhea  have both made the interesting suggestion that John 5.27 shows knowledge of the Jewish work known as the Testament of Abraham .[lix] In this work, Abel the ‘son of Adam (= Man)’ is presented as ‘the frightful man who is seated on the throne...he sits here to judge the entire creation, examining both righteous and sinners.’ The reasoning behind Abel fulfilling this role is given in the form of a statement attributed to God : ‘For God said, “I do not judge you, but every man is judged by man”’ (T. Abr. A 12.2-3). The attempt to relate the Johannine use of the phrase ui¥o\j a)nqrw¢pou in this passage specifically to Abel, ben Adam, ‘the Son of Man/Adam’, seems unnecessarily far-fetched, given that there is no other evidence for the idea of Jesus as ‘Abel reincarnate’ in the Fourth Gospel.[lx] Nonetheless, the principle that human beings shall be judged by a human being appears to antedate this work, since it is cited by the author not only as authoritative, but also as a divine oracle. The author of Acts may also show an awareness of this idea in Acts 17.31, where we find a similar emphasis on God demonstrating his justice by appointing a human being as judge.[lxi] Perhaps also relevant is Heb. 2.17, where Jesus’ high priesthood is related to his humanity, which makes him able to sympathize with those for whom he intercedes. In Heb. 4.15-16, the enthroned Jesus is explicitly mentioned in connection with this idea, perhaps suggesting that the author was aware of a tradition concerning the human Jesus as righteous and merciful judge, which he has, for the most part, adapted to his own portrait of Christ  in high priestly categories. It thus becomes plausible that the Evangelist may also have in mind here the most basic meaning of the designation ‘son of man ’, i.e. human being, and be alluding to a tradition which held that God would judge humankind justly by allowing one of their own kind to judge them.[lxii]

            This suggestion need not be understood to preclude the possibility that the phrase here also refers to the figure of the ‘Son of Man’ known from apocalyptic literature.[lxiii] In fact, in the case of Testament of Abraham , the reference to Abel as ‘that...man’ seated on a throne as judge surely intends to identify Abel with ‘that Son of Man’, i.e. that specific, enthroned human figure of apocalyptic expectation. These were not two mutually exclusive traditions; rather, Testament of Abraham has Abraham ask the identity of the one Daniel and Enoch  saw, and the answer which he is given is that ‘that Son of Man’ is Abel, the Son of Adam.[lxiv] The Fourth Evangelist frequently used words and phrases with more than one shade of meaning, and thus it would not be surprising to find him doing so here, using ‘Son of Man’ with overtones of both apocalyptic expectation and humanity.[lxv] This would also explain the lack of the definite article, so distinctive of this verse, and a feature that a few scholars have interpreted to indicate an emphasis on Jesus’ humanity.[lxvi] The background which we have posited would also explain the fact that there is an imbalance in v27: whereas all the other functions mentioned in John 5.19-30 are shared by both Father and Son, judgment is delegated wholly to the Son.[lxvii] The best explanation for this fact is our suggestion that John knew a tradition which said that God  would not judge, but would entrust the judgment of human beings to a human being.

            Thus while John has not excluded (and had no wish to exclude) the concept of the apocalyptic ‘Son of Man’ as judge, the Evangelist also appears to wish the reader to recall the principle that God  will show his justice by appointing a human figure as judge. This would serve to further demonstrate the legitimacy of claiming such a role for Jesus: as a human being, and as that particular human being mentioned in Daniel 7 and subsequent writings, Jesus can rightly be regarded as God’s designated judge. To claim that the human being Jesus will judge in no way represents an illegitimate appropriation by him of a divine prerogative, because Jewish tradition provides justification for a human figure being appointed as judge, and one stream of tradition emphasizes that by doing this God demonstrates his justice.[lxviii] In Carson ’s view, it is the fact that Jesus is both the apocalyptic Son of Man and a genuine human being which are here regarded as making him uniquely qualified to judge.[lxix]

            It may be worth noting the echoes that are found in John 5.27 of other important New Testament christological statements. Showing particular affinity are Philippians  2.6-11 and Matthew  28.18.[lxx] The former is close in particular because it is the only other New Testament occurrence of the terminology of equality with God .[lxxi] The latter is significant inasmuch as it also echoes the language of ‘giving authority’ found in Daniel 7.14.[lxxii] For our purposes we may simply note that the Fourth Evangelist is here probably indebted to a strong current in earlier Christian tradition, one which emphasized that Jesus did not grasp at authority, but was given authority by God.[lxxiii] Thus John’s portrait, while distinctive in important ways, is also strongly traditional. Were this not the case the Fourth Evangelist’s attempt to legitimate his community’s beliefs using these motifs would have been far less effective.[lxxiv]

            To sum up, John has used the single phrase ui¥oV  anqrw¢pou to make a double appeal: the author brings together two strands of authoritative tradition which could be used to defend the Christian standpoint that presented Jesus as carrying out the divine function of judgment. Perhaps the most significant development which is made in the process is the emphasis on the humanity of the one whom John elsewhere describes as pre-existent, and the connecting of these two emphases to the single designation, ‘Son of Man’.[lxxv] This development, while closely linked to earlier ideas about the Son of Man, nonetheless brought into sharp focus an uncertainty or difficulty which existed in this conceptuality, and which later christological formulations would need to seek to resolve. The Evangelist also uses motifs traditionally associated with the state of the exalted Jesus to defend the authority attributed to the earthly Jesus, thereby making another alteration to the tradition which represents a subtle but nonetheless significant development.[lxxvi]

John has thus far emphasized the legitimacy of the attribution of particular functions to an agent  appointed by God . In 5.31-47 the Evangelist seeks to present arguments that Jesus is in fact God’s agent. Witnesses are thus called in. John appeals to the witness  of John the Baptist (who was apparently widely respected among Jews in the first century) and that of the Father (whose works Jesus does, thus making this an appeal to signs/miracles as evidence of his agency, as is also done in Mark  2.6-12). The testimony of the Scriptures is at the same time part of the witness of the Father (whose revelation it is) and of Moses  (who wrote it). John thus seeks to shift the onus back onto his opponents: have they taken seriously enough the evidence of the miracles attributed to Jesus, of the arguments from Scripture provided by Christians and of the positive witness which John the Baptist bore to Jesus? At least for the Johannine Christians , who already accept these testimonies, these points would strengthen the argument made here. Not only are the status and functions attributed to Jesus by Christians not blasphemous if attributed to God’s appointed agent, but a sufficient number of witnesses attest to the fact that Jesus was in fact God’s agent, thus – as far as the Evangelist is concerned - clinching the case and proving that Jesus is in fact who the Johannine Christians believe him to be.

To sum up our argument in this chapter on John 5:

(1)        First, we examined the traditions which form the background to John 5.1-18, the narrative which provides the starting point for Jesus’ monologue in 5.19-47, and found that the issue in the earlier traditions is essentially the same as that being discussed in John, namely that of Jesus doing what it has traditionally been believed that only God  can or should do.

(2)        Second, we considered the Johannine response to the objections raised by ‘the Jews’, and found that in them the traditional motifs of Jesus as God ’s Son and Agent, and of Jesus as the Son of Man, were developed in a number of distinctive ways. Aspects of these concepts were intensified. The idea of Jesus as agent  was brought into connection with the idea of Jesus as the Word-made-flesh, and the agency aspect of this latter conceptuality was brought to the fore. Humanity and pre-existence were brought into direct relation with one another through their mutual connection with the designation ‘Son of Man.’

(3)        Third, we noted points of connection between the issue being addressed in this part of John and the specific developments made by the Evangelist. Given that these distinctive developments occur in the context of a response to Jewish objections, it is logical to conclude that the developments are the result of the process of legitimation. The distinctive way John uses the traditions he inherited, the way he combines various traditional motifs and ideas, and the implications he draws from them, are the result of his use of them as part of an attempt to defend his community’s beliefs about Jesus.