5TH SUNDAY OF LENT (B)

Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.

Jn 12:20-33 

v. 20. Now there were some Greeks among those who had come up to worship at the feast.

It is worth noting that with the coming of the Greeks Jesus has no further dealings with Israel alone. This marks the beginning of the transition to the universality his death and resurrection is to achieve. The Greeks mentioned were not Greek-speaking Jews, but Greeks who had become proselytes (cf. Acts 8:27; 17:4 for other foreign worshippers) and would be permitted within the court of the Gentiles - where the synoptists placed the Temple Cleansing.

v. 21. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.”

Philip, like Andrew, had a Greek name, and, in the view of John, came from 'Galilee of the Gentiles', though Bethsaida was really in Gaulonitis. 

To see Jesus means to seek an interview with him. Perhaps one of the things John is saying through this narrative is that until Jesus has died and risen again no one can really see him.

v. 23. Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

Them:

Clearly Philip and Andrew. There was apparently no direct meeting with the Greeks. 

It is noteworthy that, in coming to speak of his death, Jesus uses the term “Son of man” rather than “Messiah” or “Son of God”. The term characteristically belongs to Jesus' own thought of his triumph through the cross. It is also characteristic for John to refer to the glorification of Jesus, including both death and resurrection in that term.

vv. 24-26. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be. The Father will honor whoever serves me.

It seems as if the parabolic use of the seed which must die to bear fruit is used in three stages. First, the natural truth is stated. Continuation of the species of the seed is only possible if the seed die, i.e, if it ceases to be 'seed'. 

This is next applied to the life of Israel as God's people. What is true of seed is true of him who has come to offer the continuation of the life of God's people - he must die (i.e. cease to be the one true human embodiment of the life of God's people) if he is to keep that divine life forever. 

 But the same truth applies to all his disciples. They must all pass to their own inheritance in the etemal life of God's people, by sharing in the death of their Lord, and subsequently in his resurrection. The disciple must follow his Lord, and that will eventually take him to the place where his Lord finally dwells. So to serve Jesus Christ is to receive the honor of the Father, which is to be made manifest in the glorification of the Son.

v. 27. “I am troubled* now. Yet what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.

John has probably gone independently of the synoptists to Psalm 42 for his quotation from the Septuagint. The quotation shows with what real disquiet Jesus approached the path ahead of him, but it also discloses that for him, as for all the evangelists, what was to take place was something placing even this supreme agony well within the purposes of God for securing the life of his people. 

It may well depict the cost to Jesus in his distress: 'My soul is cast down within me ... all thy waves and thy billows have gone over me'. But it also speaks of present help: 'By day the Lord commands his steadfast love, and at night his song is with me'. And it looks to an assured future: 'Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my help and my God.'

v. 28. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.”

In spite of disquiet, the dominant attitude of Jesus is of humble obedience: 'Father, glorify thy name.' The voice from heaven says that God has already glorified it, and the reference is to the signs that have, in John's theological understanding, revealed God's glory. Cf. especially 2:11; 5:41. 44; 9:3 (though the word here is 'works' rather than glory of God); and 11:4. 

God's glory is deliberately associated with the first sign, in which the evangelist shows how the future of Israel is not in the way of the old rituals and lustrations, but in the new purification achieved in the giving of the blood of the Son of man, which is the manifestation of God's glory. 

It is in the same way associated with the last 'sign', the raising of Lazarus, where Jesus announces and proves himself to be the true life of the new Israel, bringing to God's people a life over which death has no power.

The heavenly voice also says that God will glorify his name again. The cross will be the actual purificatory action which the first sign prefigured. It will be the actual passage of the new Son or Israel of God from this world where his glory can only be seen in ambiguity, to the realm where it can be displayed in its full authority and reality. 

The cross will actualize in the central event of all history what the sign of Cana and the sign of Bethany have prefigured.

v. 29. The crowd there heard it and said it was thunder; but others said, “An angel has spoken to him.”

Natural man, even the natural man among the people of God, can make of the divine intimation only two things: it can be taken for a natural event pure and simple - some said it thundered; or it can be given a spiritual interpretation, and then it is deemed to be a word spoken to Jesus for his help.

v. 30. Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come for my sake but for yours.

Jesus reveals the real purpose of the voice, viz. that the members of the old Israel might be led to recognize both the signs that Jesus had done for what they were, and the sign that he was about to enact for what it would be.

v. 31. Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.

The word 'now' hastens the great crisis of the world on the moment of the crucifixion. At this point the old creation is corning to its end, and the new creation begins to be. The passage from the one to the other is not a simple physical process, but moral and spiritual. Hence, the need to assert that the moment of crisis is one of judgment. 

Just as, earlier, Jesus had indicated that the authorities had passed judgment on themselves by their treatment of the man born blind and healed by Jesus, so now he asserts that the world will pass judgment on itself by its killing of him (cf. also 3:18; 'He who does not believe is condemned already'). Jesus sees the moment of his elevation on the cross as the moment when he ascends his throne, and so dethrones the usurper who now presumptuously claims command of the world.

v. 32. And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

'Lifted up' is deliberately ambiguous, referring both to the elevation on the cross and the exaltation to glory.

v. 33. He said this indicating the kind of death he would die.

This is also and perhaps inevitably ambiguous. By what death may mean the mode of death, i.e. crucifixion, or the sort of death, i.e. one that leads, not to the silence of Sheol, but to the glory to be shared with the Father.

4th SUNDAY OF LENT (B)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. 

Jn 3:14-21

v. 15. So that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Eternal life is a peculiarly Johannine phrase, though it is used by the Synoptists. It is interesting to recall that the rich young ruler asked Jesus the question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” On the lips of such a typical Jew (and so therefore to the ears of Nicodemus) the phrase was really equivalent to “the life of the age to come”, i.e. life in that divine order that would supervene upon this when history was brought to its close by God. 

But for the fourth evangelist the outstanding and characteristic thing is that eternal life need not be waited for until this age ceases, but can be, and indeed is, the gift of God within the present temporal order. Hence the present tense is used in the next verse, and often afterwards in the gospel, in speaking about begetting eternal life. This is part of John's “realized eschatology”.

The Synoptics sometimes speak of  “life” absolutely: “The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life” (Mt 7:14). It need not be accompanied by the adjective eternal. But what does eternal mean? Not “everlasting” in the sense that it always goes on, but eternal in the sense that its quality is unassailable by corruption or decay. The emphasis is on the quality, not the duration, of the life. And the quality is that which the divine life itself has, which God himself is. John will have much more to say about it as his gospel continues.

v. 16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

God so loved the world:

“The world” is intentionally ambiguous in usage here, meaning that God has a universal love for his whole creation; but that property to reciprocate that love is the gift of God to man.

v. 17. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world:

The verb translated sent is associated in Greek with the noun “apostle”. In John it is a basic idea that Jesus has been sent (he is the great apostle) and that he sends his disciples as he himself was sent (20:21).

Not to condemn:

The thought is often reflected in Paul: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

v. 19. And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.

And this is the verdict:

Or “the condemnation”. Here the evangelist makes it plain that it is a reflex of the act of God's love that men may condemn themselves, and not a separate and posterior act of God's judicial condemnation. Even this judgment speaks his love.

v. 21. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.

But whoever lives the truth :

Or “he who does what is true”. Truth = reality; the reality is the act of God. To do the truth is thus to do God's will. Such actions are "done in God". We are not their sole authors. 

"And every virtue we possess,

And every victory won

And every thought of holiness

Are his alone."

3rd SUNDAY OF LENT (B)

He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area.

Jn 2: 13-25

v. 13. Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

The Passover of the Jews:

This is thought by many commentators to be a form of words used by John because he also knew of a 'Christian' Passover.

Jesus went up to Jerusalem:

The verb went up is used in all probability on two levels, as it seems to be in Luke. It reflects the common way of talking about going to the capital city, in the same way that modern Englishmen speak of trains going to London as 'up' trains.It also reflects, in all probability, the early Christian usage of referring to Christ's 'going up' at his ascension.

v. 15. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables….

He made a whip out of cords:

These details are not in the synoptic record. The whip was probably one used for driving cattle.

He drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen:

The “all” in the Greek is masculine, and the preposition with is therefore rightly supplied in English.

He spilled the coins of the money-changers:

Temple dues had to be paid in Tyrian coinage, and the money-changers were thus an essential part of the temple traffic. By driving out the animals and disposing of the moneys required, Jesus has, at least for a time, and so as a symbol, made the sacrifices of the temple impossible.

v. 16. And to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”

My Father's house:

The phrase constitutes the highest claim.

v. 17. His disciples recalled the words of scripture, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Zeal for your house will consume me:

The disciples recall a Psalm regarded as Messianic, thus picking up the Messianic allusions of 1:43ff. The verb consume can also mean destroy', and so prepares for the transition to the death and resurrection.

v. 20. The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”

This temple has been under construction for forty-six years:

The number forty-six presents difficulties. The sentence grammatically means that from the start to the finish of the building of the temple forty-six years elapsed. 

But Herod's temple was begun in 20/19 B.C., and not finished until about A.D. 63. Forty-six years takes the time interval to A.D. 27/28, which would be a not unsuitable year for the conversation recorded here.

Before considering various possibilities it must be pointed out that the evangelist is writing some time after the conversation, and some time even after the completion of the temple, and indeed of its destruction. The possibility of inaccuracy in reference to its dates is thus increased. 

Three possibilities seem open: (1) In spite of the plain grammar of the sentence it must be taken to refer, not to the completion of the building, but to the length of time building so far has taken.

(2) The sentence may be held compatible with some inter- mediate stage being reached, which could account for the phrase implying completeness. In this connection it may be useful to note that the word used in vv. 19-21 for temple differs from that in vv. 14-15. The word used here means the sanctuary or holy place; in vv. 14-15, the word employed refers to the whole complex of buildings.

(3) The author, writing at a later date, may have been misinformed by his source or have made a miscalculation himself. 

On the whole it seems best to adopt the second of these possibilities, since this recognized a not unimportant or unfamiliar theological distinction in the narrative which identifies the person of Jesus with that central body of the temple buildings where the specific sacrifices of Judaism took place. Jesus will, in his own self-giving, replace that and them.

Will you raise it up in three days?:

Another reminder that John is writing his gospel from the perspective of the completed synoptic story. By the time he wrote, the phrase ‘on the third day' had become almost a technical term to refer to the time of the resurrection.

v. 21. But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

John knows that the disciples came to see that the real temple of God, the real place where he dwelt was not in the Jewish temple made with hands, but in the body of their Lord. His body, his flesh, was the place where God dwelt. The Father was in him and he in the Father. Moreover his flesh thus regarded, was the food upon which his followers lived. And in their becoming one with him, so that the Father could be in them and they in the Father, they came to be reckoned as part of his body. Paul also makes use of the figure of the Body of Christ (e.g. Rm 12:4. 5; 1 Cor. 12:27) and of the temple in speaking of believers (I Cor 3:16f; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph. 2:21). The resurrection was not just an event that had happened to Jesus. It was an experience through which every believer passed. Paul similarly interprets Christian baptism (Rom. 6:3. 4; Col. 2:12).

v. 22. Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.

They came to believe the scripture:

The singular scripture normally refers to one particular passage, which the evangelist quotes (e.g. 10:35; 13:18; 19:24). But here, and at 20:9, the evangelist fails to quote the particular scripture foretelling the resurrection. It must be assumed either that the scripture in question was so well known as to make its quotation superfluous, or that the evangelist implies that it is the whole Old Testament together to which the Christian looks as the divinely inspired predicter of the resurrection.

v. 23. While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.

For the feast of Passover:

The Greek, literally translated, reads 'at the Passover, at the feast', almost an hendiadys. Joachim Jeremias has made a useful and interesting suggestion that the phrase really means 'in the festival crowd', to give the rendering ‘While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover in the festival crowd….’

Hendiadys: the expression of an idea by the use of usually two independent words connected by and (as nice and warm) instead of the usual combination of independent word and its modifier (as nicely warm).

Many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.:

For full belief there must be more than a positive response to the wonders which he worked, a response that might eventuate merely in an assertion of thaumaturgic powers. Full belief requires belief in the scripture and in Christ's word (2:22) - a point which Luke also made (cf. Luke 24:6; 25ff; 44ff) at the time of the resurrection. The belief that derives from and confines itself to the works that he did in the world of space and time, in our history, is not the belief in the truth that really sets men free. 

The fact of Christ is not something which is seen simply by observation (cf. Luke 17:20). It requires, for its proper discernment, the witness of scripture and of the Spirit, whether mediated through the witness of man or given by divine inspiration. 

Much of John is concerned to clarify what can be seen, and what, in contrast, cannot be seen. The eternal Word has become flesh in the person of Jesus. So everyone who met him had something to see. Yet what was manifested was not' flesh ' alone, but the glory that belongs to the eternal Father; not everyone 'saw' that.