The Nicodemus Discourse is set within an overarching nuptial-ecclesiological framework, in which baptism serves as the means by which we enter into the marriage covenant with Christ. To support my thesis I will begin by situating the Nicodemus Discourse within its overall context. In my opinion John 2:1 – 4:26 constitutes a single theological unit, consisting of five distinct narratives:
(1) Wedding at Cana (2:1-12)
(2) Temple Cleansing (2:13-25)
(3) Nicodemus Discourse (3:1-21)
(4) Testimony of John the Baptist (3:22-36)
(5) Samaritan Woman (4:1-26)
The theological implications of the author’s placement of the Nicodemus Discourse will become evident once we take into consideration the overarching nuptial and temple motifs. As many scholars have noted, the first chapter of John is a recapitulation of the Mosaic creation week. This is evident not only from the initial statement of John 1:1 (‘In the beginning…’), but also from an unusually high concentration of the transitional phrase the “next day” (vv. 29, 35, 43); compared with hardly any such usage in the rest of the Gospel. The Johannine creation week also concludes with a wedding feast on the “third day” (2:1); paralleling the marriage account in Genesis 2:18-25. Here I will compare the two texts side by side:
|
John 1-2 |
Genesis 1-3 |
|
1.1a: In the beginning was the Word… 1:3a: Through Him all things were made |
1.1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth |
|
1.4-5: In him was light… and the darkness could not overcome it |
1.3: And God said, “Let there be light” 1.4: and God separated the light from the darkness. |
|
1.29 “Next Day” (Tē epaurion) is used, implying there was a first day. |
1.5: And there was evening, and there was morning—day one (yom-'ehad). |
|
1.32: “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him” |
1.6-7: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…” |
|
1.35: Now the Third Day |
1.8: Second Day |
|
1.42: “You shall be called Cephas” |
1.9: “Let the dry land appear” |
|
1.43: Fourth Day |
1.13: Third day |
|
1.51: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
[n.b. angels are referred to as stars in the book of Revelation (cf. Rev 1:16, 20; 8:10, 12; 9:1; 12:14)] |
1.14 “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…” |
|
2.1: On the Third Day |
1.31: Sixth Day |
|
2:1: On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee 2.10: “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” |
2.23: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” |
|
2.4: “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” |
3.15: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” |
When the authors of the Old Testament speak of God’s covenant with Israel, they usually do so in nuptial terms (cf. Ezek 16:8; Jer 31:32). The Gospel of John is no different in this regard. Jesus begins his ministry at the Wedding at Cana by changing water into wine. Not only does Jesus fulfill a role typically reserved for the bridegroom (2.9-10); he supplies an overabundance of wine (120 – 180 gallons worth), indicating to the audience that the messianic banquet had begun. As Dr. Brant Pitre notes,
When Jesus’ miracle is interpreted in the light of these ancient Jewish expectations of the superabundant wine of God's banquet [Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18], and ancient Jewish hopes for the future, we can see that in providing hundreds of gallons of wine for this small country wedding at Cana, Jesus is signaling to those who have the eyes to see that the ancient Jewish hope for the superabundant wine of the age of salvation is beginning to be fulfilled in himself.[1]
Jesus’ identity as the divine bridegroom is reinforced by John the Baptist’s testimony at Aenon (3:29), as well as his interaction with the Samaritan woman (4:16-18). The piercing of Christ’s side (19:34) is also imbued with edenic-nuptial imagery. The edenic imagery is supported by events surrounding the Crucifixion which point to an Edenic backdrop, e.g., Jesus praying in the garden (18:1-11), Pilate’s unintentional double entendre (19:5; ‘behold the man’), Jesus’ burial in the garden (19:41), and Jesus’ act breathing on his disciples (20:19-23; cf. Gen 2:7). The Crucifixion narrative also shares several textual parallels with the Mosaic creation account:
|
John 19 |
Genesis 2-3 |
|
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!” |
2.23: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” |
|
19.30: “It is finished” |
2.3: And on the seventh day God finished his work |
|
19.30: and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. |
2.21: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh |
|
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. |
2.21: while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh |
|
19.19: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” |
1.28: have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air |
|
19.23: But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom |
2.15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. (cf. Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14) |
Besides the common Edenic backdrop, the Crucifixion also shares several textual parallels with the Wedding at Cana. For example, both events occur on the Sabbath (2:1; 19:31), both allude to Mary as the “woman” of Genesis 3 (2:4; 19:26), and both incorporate elements of water and wine (or blood).
|
Textual Parallels |
|
|
Wedding at Cana (2:1-11) |
Crucifixion (19:17-37) |
|
2.1: On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee |
19:31: Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. (Crucifixion took place on the sixth day of the week.) |
|
2.9: When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine |
19.34: But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. |
|
2.4: And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? |
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!” |
|
2.11: and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him |
19.35: his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe |
|
2.11 This, the beginning of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee |
19.30: “It is finished” |
Many scholars have argued based on the textual parallels displayed by the two narratives that the piercing of Christ’s side should be interpreted in light of the Wedding at Cana, as the consummation of the marriage feast begun at Cana. The water and blood, therefore, serve as visible signs of the new covenant between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church. In my article on the chiastic structure of the Johannine signs, [2] I argue that the flux of water and blood constitutes the seventh and final Johannine sign. Not only does the seventh sign point to some deeper Christological truth, the water and blood also serve as visible signs of the marriage covenant. Here, I take the water and blood to be symbolic representations of the two great Christian sacraments, viz. — baptism and the Eucharist. These two sacraments replace circumcision and the Passover as the sign(s) of the new covenant. Jesus himself indicates as much during the Last Supper where he institutes the Eucharist as the sign of the New Covenant (Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20; Heb 9:20). St. Paul also says that baptism replaces circumcision (cf. Col 2:11-14).
The Temple imagery of John 19:34 also supports a sacramental interpretation of the water and blood. The Gospel of John consistently depicts Jesus in ecclesiological terms; from his implicit identification as the OT Tabernacle in John 1:14a, to him being the proverbial house of God in John 1:51 and 3:13-15.[3] During the Temple Cleansing, Jesus describes his death in terms of destroying the temple of his body (2:18-21). He also cites the prophecy of Zechariah 14:22 regarding there being no more trader in the Lord’s house (John 2:16). In the same chapter of Zechariah we find another prophecy regarding living waters flowing from Jerusalem on the future day, “On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter (Zech 14:8). This coincides with descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple in the Mishnah, “At the south-western corner [of the altar] there were two holes like two narrow nostrils by which the blood that was poured over the western based and the southern base used to run down and mingle in the water-channel and flow out into the brook Kidron.”[4] Zechariah’s prophecy of the pierced Messiah also connects the Temple-river imagery with the notion of the Spirit being poured out (cf. John 19:37).
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born (Zech 12:10).
Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus incorporates both elements of water and Spirit in relation to Jesus’ future crucifixion (3:5, 14). The “water” in John 3:5 cannot be merely synonymous with the Spirit otherwise there would be no need to distinguish the two. 1 John 5:8 also necessitates against equating the water with the Spirit. Nor can it be a reference to John’s baptism because the exhortation to be born of water and the Spirit is given in perpetuity. The only possible meaning of the water contextually is the water poured out at the crucifixion (19:34), which I argued was a visible sign of the new covenant.
a) Centrality of Divine Adoption in the Prologue
Many Johannine scholars have argued that the Prologue of John (vv. 1-18) is arranged chiastically.[5] Some have even speculated that the climatic point of the Prologue is surprisingly not the Incarnation of the Word (1:14), but our adoption as children of God (vv. 12-13). I do not intend on defending that thesis here,[6] but will merely lay out the schema suggested by various scholars. Following the division of Fr. Raymond E. Brown, Brad McCoy arranges the Prologue according to this pattern: [7]
A: The Word with God the Father (1:1–2)
B: The Word’s role in creation (1:3)
C: God’s Grace to mankind (1:4–5)
D: Witness of John the Baptist (1:6–8)
E: The Incarnation of the Word (1:9–11)
X: Saving Faith in the Incarnate Word (1:12–13)
E’: The Incarnation of the Word (1:14)
D’: Witness of John the Baptist (1:15)
C’: God’s Grace to mankind (1:16)
B’: The Word’s role in re-creation (1:17)
A’: The Word with God the Father (1:18)
Dr. Jeffrey L. Staley[8] provides a more simplified version of the chiasm:
A (vv 1-5)
B (vv 6-8)
C (vv 9-11)
D (vv 12-13)
C’ (vv 14)
B’ (vv 15)
A’ (vv 16-18)
If this schema is correct, then we should expect the theme of divine adoption to pervade the entire Gospel of John. Unsurprisingly, that’s exactly what we find. From Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (3:1-8), to his final words to John (19:26-27; ‘behold your mother’) and Mary Magdalene (20:17; ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father’), the theme of divine adoption plays a central role in John’s theology. Yet the theme of divine adoption cannot be separated from baptism. We see this especially in Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus, where the necessity of being born of water and the Spirit is emphasized (3:5).
b) Textual Parallels between John 1 and John 3
We find several textual parallels between John 1:12-14 and John 3:3-6, 11. First, the author contrasts those who receive the testimony of Jesus (1:12) with those do not receive it (3:11). Second, Jesus makes it clear that spiritual rebirth cannot be obtained through human effort (1:13; 3:6). Third, the Greek phrase ‘born of the Spirit’ (3:8) is analogous to the Prologue’s ‘born… of God’ in John 1:13. The Prologue’s transition from giving us the power to become children of God in vv. 12-13, to Jesus being the only begotten Son from the Father in v. 14c is peculiar. An argument can be made given the implicit baptismal allusion of vv. 12-13 (cf. 3:1-8), that the transition underlies the means by which we are to enter into a filial relationship with the Father, viz. – through a participation in the Incarnate Word, which according to St. Paul, occurs through baptism (Rom 6:3-4). Through our participation in Christ, who is the proverbial house of God (cf. 1:51), we enter into God’s household as his children (cf. 2:16; 14:2-3; 19:26-27; 20:17). Jesus even alludes to his identity as Bethel in his discourse with Nicodemus, “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man” (3:13; cf. 1:51).
There are also other textual parallels between John 1 and 3. The first thing I would point out is the time of day Nicodemus approaches Jesus. The text says that Nicodemus approaches Jesus during the night (3:2), which in Johannine typology is synonymous with darkness. This is reinforced by Jesus’ concluding words to Nicodemus,
19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
Contrast this with John the Baptist’s testimony of Jesus being the light of the world (1:5-8).
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
Jesus puts a proverbial spotlight on Nicodemus’ night-time inquiry by emphasizing the necessity of being born from above to see (Gk. idein) the kingdom of God (3:3). Although Nicodemus saw the signs Jesus performed at Jerusalem (3:2), he did not perceive their deeper meaning. The same Greek root verb ‘to see’ is also found in John the Baptist’s testimony of Jesus, which occurs in the context of baptism, “‘He on whom you see (Gk. idēs) the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen (Gk. heōraka) and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (1:33-34). Here, we have a direct connection between baptism and spiritual illumination, which we also found in the restoration of the blind man’s sight (9:1-12). After anointing the blind man’s eyes with dirt and spittle, Jesus tells him to go wash in the Pool of Siloam (9:7). After washing in the pool, the man affirms Jesus’ identity as the Son of Man (9:35-38), paralleling John’s testimony at Bethany (1:34). The baptismal allusion is reinforced by Jesus’ subsequent discourse with the Pharisees, where he identifies himself as the ‘Son of God’ (10:36; cf 1:34), and then immediately departs to Bethany where John first baptized (10:40; cf. 1:28).
The healing of the blind man also shares several textual parallels with the Nicodemus Discourse, e.g., references to the night (9:4; cf. 3:2), Jesus’ self-identification as the light of the world (9:4-5; cf. 3:19), and the contrast between darkness/blindness and light/sight (9:39-41; cf. 3:20-21).
|
2 This man came to Jesus by night |
4 We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. |
|
19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. |
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” |
|
20 For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God. |
39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. |
c) Parallels between John 5:1-15 & 9:1-34
The narrative for the restoration of the blind man’s sight (9:1-34) shares several verbal and conceptual parallels with the healing of the paralytic (5:1-15). For example, the paralytic is said to have been in paralyzed for 38 years, while the blind man had been born without sight. Typologically, the number 38 is associated with the number of years Israel wandered in the wilderness (Jn 5:5; cf. Deut 2:14). The cause of Israel’s wandering was obstinacy in sin (Num 26:25), paralleling the cause of the paralytic’s infirmity (5:14). This is contrasted with the blind man’s condition, which is not attributed to personal sin but is said to be from birth (9:1) The use of dirt and spittle in the healing of the blind man points us to the Mosaic creation account (9:6; cf. Gen 2:7). It is within this Edenic backdrop that the blind man typologically represents fallen humanity, who is born in blindness as result of original sin. As St. Augustine notes, “Blindness came upon the first man by reason of sin: and from him we all derive it: i.e. man is blind from his birth.”[9] In John’s gospel, the remedy for both spiritual death and blindness is baptism, which is alluded to by the five porticoes (5:2) and the pool of Siloam (9:7). The theological implication being that baptism is both spiritually regenerative and illuminative.
|
Paralytic (Jn 5:1-15) |
Blind Man (Jn 9:1-34) |
|
|
Length of Illness |
38 years (Jn 5:5) |
Born without sight (Jn 9:1) |
|
Cause of Illness |
Sin (Jn 5:14) |
Not sin (Jn 9:3) |
|
Day of the Week |
Sabbath (Jn 5:16 ) |
Sabbath (Jn 9:14, 16) |
|
Close association with water |
Jesus heals the paralytic near the sheep gate and the 5 porticoes (Jn 5:2) |
Jesus sends the blind man to wash in the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7) |
|
Mention of works |
Jesus mentions the works He must accomplish (Jn 5:36) |
Jesus mentions the works He must accomplish (Jn 9:4 and 10:25) |
|
Pharisees investigate |
“Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk’?” 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 (Jn 5:12-13). |
“Where is he?” He said, “I do not know” (Jn 9:12). |
d) Covenantal Backdrop of John 3
In his article, “The Meaning of ‘Born of Water and the Spirit’ in John 3:5,” Protestant professor of the Old Testament, Robert McCabe, offers six different interpretations of the Johannine phrase ‘born of water and the Sprit’.[10] McCabe believes the phrase should be interpreted in light of Ezekiel’s prophecy (36:25-27) as a metaphor for the cleansing and transformative activity of the Holy Spirit. Although I don’t doubt the subtle Old Testament allusion, part of the problem with Protestant hermeneutics is a dichotomous (either/or) tendency which limits the multi-layered meaning of a text.
We also see a dramatic identification of Jesus and the Temple in John 7 – 10:21. There, the backdrop is the festival celebrating the building of the Temple (Tabernacles), during which the priests daily poured out water from the Pool of Siloam on the alter steps and kept the Temple courts illuminated twenty-four hours a day in anticipation of the eschatological prophesies. In the midst of this, Jesus claims himself to be the true source of water and light, and brings light to a blind man through the waters of Siloam, thus supporting his claim to be the true Temple.
In John 10:22-42, during the Feast of Dedication, which commemorates the re-consecration of the Temple by the Maccabees, Jesus describes himself as the one "consecrated" by the Father and sent into the world -- that is, he calls himself the new sanctuary. In John 14:2-3, Jesus again refers to his "Father's house," a Temple reference alluding to John 2:16 and supported by other Temple references -- the house with many "rooms" is probably the many-chambered Temple of Ezekiel 41-43; and the place he goes to prepare connotes the "sacred place" of the Temple. In the final analysis, this passage describes Jesus' departure to be prepared as a Temple wherein his disciples will "dwell."
Finally, in the climax of this Temple symbolism, in John 19:34, the evangelist records the flow of blood and water from the side of Christ, which is to be understood against the background of the river prophesied to flow from the eschatological Temple as well as the blood and water which flowed from the Temple altar in Jerusalem.[11]
According to professor of the Old Testament, Robert McCabe (DBTS), [12] the phrase ‘born of water and the Sprit’ should be interpreted in light of Ezekiel’s prophecy (36:25-27) which is set in a new covenant context. The prophecy reads,
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statues, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
e) Ecclesial Dimension of the Foot Washing (13:1-20)
We also find the theme of cleansing in the Foot Washing episode (13:1-20). What is not readily apparent, however, is the ecclesial dimension surrounding the event. The ecclesial dimension of the Foot Washing episode is indicated in Jesus’ allusion to the Temple in John 14:2 (cf. 2:16). There are additional considerations which connect the Temple Cleansing with the Last Supper. In the context of the Last Supper, Judas is cast out of the Upper Room (13:26-27; cf. 12:31), just as the money changers were cast of the Temple (2:15). In a sense, Judas symbolically represents the money changers since he was given charge over the money box (12:6).
However, the ecclesial dimension of the Foot Washing episode comes into full view when related to the anointing of Jesus’ feet (12:1-8). According to Catholic theologian Mary L. Coloe,
Echoes of the building of the tabernacle and Temple pervade the episode in John 12. As "the hour" approaches, God's glory, now to be seen in the flesh of Jesus (1:14), will be present with the disciples for six days, leading up to the full manifestation of his glory on the cross. As part of the preparation for this full manifestation, Mary repeats the actions of Moses. Just as Moses took specially prepared oil and anointed the tabernacle, Mary anoints Jesus, whose flesh is the tabernacle of God's presence. The wiping of the feet with Mary's hair also carries an allusion to Exodus. The tabernacle was covered with curtains made from goats' hair (Exodus 26:7), woven by those of "generous heart" (Exodus 35:6) and made by women whose hearts were moved to use their skill (Exodus 35:26). Mary covers Jesus' feet with her own hair as she wipes away the perfumed oil poured out in generous abundance. The extended discourse we find in John 13-16, when Jesus instructs his disciples who will be formed into the new dwelling place of God (19:25-27), has some parallel with the extended instructions given for the building for the tabernacle (Exodus 25-31).
The description of the spices used to make the anointing oil for the tabernacle emphasizes their purity and abundance. "Take the finest spices... (Ex 30:23). John 12 similarly emphasizes the purity of the ointment ("pure nard"), the large amount, and its expense (12:3, 5). Finally, the expression unique to the Fourth Gospel, "and the household was filled with the fragrance of the ointment," recalls the description of God's glory filling the tabernacle (Exodus 40:35) and particularly the description of the Temple in Chronicles, where "the house of the LORD was filled with the cloud of glory." These words also extend the anointing beyond the person of Jesus to include the entire household. The house and its household are enveloped in the pervasive aroma of perfumed oils, in marked contrast with the pervasive odor of death feared when the tomb of Lazarus was opened (11:39). In these various echoes of Exodus, the scent of the anointing continues to allude to the Christological imagery of tabernacle and Temple presented earlier in the gospel (1:14; 2:19-21).[13]
f) Sacramental Dimension of the Foot Washing (13:1-20)
Granting Coloe’s interpretation, we should interpret Jesus’ act of foot washing in John 13 in light of his identity as the Tabernacle in John 12:1-8. In other words, we should see the Foot Washing episode as a type of ordination ceremony (13:14-15), in which the disciples are consecrated as priests in service of the New Tabernacle / Temple (14:2). This coincides with the Mosaic Law concerning ritual purity required for Levitical priests (Ex 30:17-21). Catholic theologian John Bergsma comments on the priestly character of the foot washing episode:
The foot washing episode in John 13 is full of motifs from the Day of Atonement and priestly ordination rituals. The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple and made atonement for all the people. Theologian Leroy Huizenga, himself a convert from Protestantism, notes the following:
In John 13 we find parallels to Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement ritual. Leviticus 16:23-24 reads, "Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall..." Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. In John 13, Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples' feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must wash them -- ordain them as priests -- lest they have "no part" in his priesthood.
The washing of feet also connotes the role of the priesthood, because the priests had to wash their feet to perform any ministry in the sanctuary (Exod 30:19-21). Prior to this, at their ordination, they had a full bath (Lev 8:6). We see Peter and Jesus discussing the full bath versus the washing of the feet in John 13:6-10. In the same passage, Jesus insists Peter must submit the washing in order to have a "part" (Greek meris) in Jesus. This word meris is used several times in the Pentateuch to refer to the fact that the Levitical priests have no "part" in the land because their "part" is God alone (Num 18:20; Deut 10:9, 12:12, 14:27, 29; Josh 18:7). The analogy is clear: Peter is being prepared for a new kind of priesthood wherein his "part" is going to be God alone, that is to say, Jesus alone.[14]
Bergsma continues,
Jesus' prayer in John 17 is also full of Day of Atonement and priesthood motifs. We read in Leviticus 16:17 that the Day of Atonement ritual consisted of three parts: atonement for the High Priest himself, for his house (i.e., the rest of the priests), and for the entire people. We find that John 17 is structured the same way: first Jesus prays for himself (vv. 1-5), then the apostles (i.e., the rest of the priests; vv. 6-19), and then for the entire church (vv. 20-26).
Finally, Jesus speaks of "consecrating" or "sanctifying" the apostles in John 17:17-19. This is the Greek word hagiao, which is applied to male human beings in the Old Testament almost exclusively in the context of priestly ordination. The sense is that the apostles are being "ordained" to serve as priests of the New Testament. Thus, the beginning and end of the Last Supper Discourse in John is marked by themes of the Day of Atonement and of priestly ordination and service. Then, Jesus and the apostles leave the Upper Room and the Passion ensues. When they reconvene in the Upper Room after the Resurrection in John 20:19-23, Jesus completes their "ordination" by bestowing on them the Holy Spirit, which will empower them to perform the priestly role of the mediation of forgiveness of sins.[15]
Jesus’ act of foot washing is not merely a metaphor for the cleansing and transformative activity of the Holy Spirit, but in reality a conferral of a sacrament.
g) Nuptial Dimension of the Foot Washing (13:1-20)
By anointing Jesus’ feet with her hair (and thus making indirect contact with her head), Mary reveals Jesus’ role as the head of the church. As St. Paul writes, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23). The ecclesial-nuptial implications of Mary’s act come into full view when placed in relation to the empty tomb narrative. Upon entering the empty tomb, Peter finds the burial cloth rolled up; while the napkin that was supposed to cover Jesus’ head comes up missing (20:6-7). The missing head cloth implies Jesus’ headship over his mystical body, the church.
h) Familial Adoption in the Last Supper
The concept of the church as the house of God is alluded to in John 14:2-3:
In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also (14:2-3).
The Greek phrase ‘my Father’s house’ (οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός μου; oikon tou Patros mou) is also only used during the Temple Cleansing episode as a reference to the Jerusalem Temple (2:16). The phrase ‘many rooms’ reaffirms the temple allusion, given the implicit reference to Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple with many chambers (Ezek 41:6-7). The depiction of the Upper Room as the house of God coincides with the Prologue’s emphasis on familial adoption (1:12-13) and the necessity of being baptized with water and the Spirit (3:3-5; cf. 1:33).
[1] Brant Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love Story Ever Told (New York: Image, 2014), 43.
[2] http://holycatholicreligion.blogspot.com/2019/12/chiastic-structure-of-johannine-signs.html
[3] http://holycatholicreligion.blogspot.com/2020/01/johannine-ecclesiology.html
[4] Mishnah Middoth [Measurements] 3:2. Cf. Mishnah tractates Yoma [Day of Atonement] 5:6; Zebahim [Sacrifices] 8:7; Temurah [Exchange] 7:6; Tamid [Always] 5:5; Mishnah Meliah [Sacrilege] 3:3.
[5] R. A. Culpepper, “The Pivot of John's Prologue,” NTS 27 (1980-81) 1-31,
[6] Peter M. Phillips, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, The Library of New Testament Studies 294 (Bloomsbury Publishing 2006).
[7] Brad McCoy, "Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9, no. 2 (2003), 29
[8] Jeffrey Staley, “The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel's Narrative Structure,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986), 245-246.
[9] Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Gospel of John.
[10] Robert McCabe, "The Meaning of 'Born of Water and the Spirit' in John 3:5," DBSJ 4 (Fall 1999): 85–107.
[11] Ibid., 114. (reference note 49, "At the south-western corner [of the altar] there were two holes like two narrow nostrils by which the blood that was poured over the western based and the southern base used to run down and mingle in the water-channel and flow out into the brook Kidron." (Mishnah Middoth [Measurements] 3:2). For other mentions of this drainage channel, see Mishnah tractates Yoma [Day of Atonement] 5:6; Zebahim [Sacrifices] 8:7; Temurah [Exchange] 7:6; Tamid [Always] 5:5. The same channel that was used to drain the blood into the river was also used for pouring out drink offerings of wine. See Mishnah Meliah [Sacrilege] 3:3. Texts in the Mishnah, trans. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford Iniversity, 1933); Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University, 1988). McCaffery, Kerr, Hoskins, and many other commentators link John 7:37-39 with 19:34. Coloe demurs (God Dwells With Is, 208-209).
[12] Robert McCabe, "The Meaning of 'Born of Water and the Spirit' in John 3:5," DBSJ 4 (Fall 1999): 85–107.
[13] Mary L. Coloe, Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007)
[14] John S. Bergsma, Stunned by Scripture: How the Bible Made Me Catholic (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2018), 92-93.
[15] Ibid., 93.
No comments:
Post a Comment