Fifth Sunday of
Easter
John 14:1-14
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
5 Easter A: Exegetical Notes for John 14:1-14
Note that the Gospel for next week, 6 Easter A (John 14:15-21),
continues this reading.
GENERAL COMMENTS
An outline of this section from Gail O'Day (_John_, New Interpreter's
Bible):
The Farewell Meal and Discourse (13:1-17:26)
The Farewell Meal (13:1-38)
The Farewell Discourse (14:1-16:33)
Jesus' Farewell Prayer (17:1-26)
Thus our texts for this week and next come from the "Farewell
Discourse". The text for the following week -- 7 Easter A (John
17:1-11) -- comes from the "Farewell Prayer".
Discourses by Jesus are found throughout the Gospel of John. However,
this one has a significant difference. Whereas the others are usually
given to interpret and explain a preceding event (e.g., chs. 5, 6,
&
9); this one is given in preparation, that is, before for the coming
events of his death, resurrection, and ascension. Jesus is preparing
the disciples for the time that he will not be with them -- but he
promises another paraclete will come.
However, our liturgical use of the texts comes after the events of
Good Friday and Easter. Within the narrative, what Jesus is preparing
is disciples for, we have already experienced (at least within the
church year calendar), but so had John's audience.
THE GENRE OF THE FAREWELL DISCOURSE
Jesus' farewell discourse contains most of the elements of other
farewell or last testament speeches in the Mediterranean world. O'Day
says the following about this:
In addition to identifying the formal characteristics of the
farewell speech in general, the most instructive comparison may be
between the Johannine Farewell Discourse and the farewell speeches
of Moses in Deuteronomy. Through the literary device of the farewell
speech in Deuteronomy, the traditions of Sinai and Moab are given a
fresh hearing, a "re-presentation," in a new setting, because they
are presented as being spoken in this moment for this people (cf. Dt
5:1-3; 8:1; 30:1-20). Deuteronomy was not written for a people about
to enter the promised land, however, but was written centuries after
Moses for a people who had long lived in the land. The farewell
speeches in Deuteronomy invite the readers of eighth- and
seventh-century BCE Israel to see themselves as if they were the
people on the plains of Moab. Moreover, by using this narrative
strategy, the author(s) of Deuteronomy give Mosaic sanction to their
interpretive work. [p. 738]
Jesus' words in the Farewell speech, on one level, are addressed to
the disciples in the upper room. On another level, they are addressed
to disciples living on the other side of the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Jesus. Among other issues, it answers the question, "Why
did Jesus leave?" Why couldn't Jesus have stayed around after the
resurrection and continued the ministry he started before his death?
This isn't a question the disciples in the upper room would have
asked, but it is a concern for the believers who came later.
DETAILED COMMENTS
V. 1: The command "Don't let your hearts be troubled," is one that not
even Jesus fulfilled. The same word is used of Jesus in 11:33; 12:27;
and 13:21. If at times Jesus had a troubled "soul" or "spirit," how
would we expect not to have troubled hearts? What troubled Jesus in
these three instances was the power of death. We, who live on the
other side of the resurrection, should not fear the power of death.
This command is difficult to put in English. The verb is a third
person singular imperative passive. We don't have such a mood in
English. The command is addressed to our heart. (It's also a bit
confusing because "your" is plural, but "heart" is singular, even if
NRSV has "hearts" -- a corporate heart?) The passive verb implies that
there is something that could trouble our heart, i.e., "Do not let
your heart be troubled by _______." The present tense implies
continuous or repeated actions, "Don't let your hearts continue to be
troubled by _______."
_pisteuete_ can be either an indicative or an imperative present tense
verb. As an indicative, it could give the reason why one should not be
troubled: "You are believing in God and you are believing in Jesus."
Belief (or trust) is something the people already have.
As an imperative, it continues the mood from the first verb: "Believe
in God and believe in Jesus." Stated this way, it seems that one
doesn't have faith and is commanded to get it. However, as a present
tense imperative, it could be translated: "Continue to believe" or
"Keep on believing." One already has faith, and is encouraged to keep
it through difficult times.
Malina & Rohrbaugh (_Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of
John_)
note: "John's peculiar way of phrasing it -- believing 'into' Jesus --
connotes being completely embedded in the group of which he is the
central personage" [p. 230].
Earlier, (commenting on 6:28-29,) they had written more about this
concept:
Believing "into" is a characteristic Johannine idiom. Many
commentators have pointed out that this construction implies trust
rather than simple intellectual assent. Given the collectivist
character of the relationships in ancient Mediterranean societies,
however, even more is implied. Collectivist persons become embedded
in one another. A unity and loyalty is involved that is extremely
deep. Since personal identity in collectivist cultures is always the
result of the groups in which one is embedded, that too is involved.
John's peculiar idiom (the Greek tense used connotes ongoing or
continuous action) suggests exactly this kind of long-term
solidarity with Jesus. [p. 130]
As I will point out later, I think that this section is primarily
about relationships -- and that begins with John's idiomatic phrase
"believing into".
What might cause hearts to be troubled? What might cause the people to
stop believing? On one level it would be Jesus' upcoming death. On
another level it would be the persecution of Christians that perhaps
John's community was suffering. (Note the connection of "troubled" and
"afraid" in 14:27.) On a third level, we need to determine what those
"faith-threatening" things are in our lives and repeat Jesus'
commands: "Don't be troubled! Keep on believing!"
About this time nine years ago, there had been the tragic killing of
14 youth and one adult in Littleton, CO. Since then there have been a
few other "school shootings" and more murdered students and suicides.
Anyone whose heart was not troubled by such a senseless killing
probably has no heart. Children continue to be murdered in our
country. We should be troubled.
We have experienced the destruction of thousands in the Twin Towers
attack. Shouldn't we be troubled by that – and a continuing threat of
terrorism? There are victims in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are times, I believe, that our hearts should be troubled, but it
should not be about our own future lives.
V. 2 also has some translation difficulties.
Should _oikia_ be translated "house" -- a physical structure (as in
11:31 & 12:3) or "household" -- a community of people (as in 4:53
&
8:35)?
In 2:16, the temple is called "My Father's house (_oikos_)". Jesus
declares that he will replace the structure with himself!
The same ambiguity exists with _mone_. It means a "place where one may
remain or dwell," It can mean a physical structure, but its only other
use in the NT, John 14:23, "Those who love me will keep my word, and
my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our *home*
with them," seems to imply an abiding *relationship* between people
and God. This noun is related to the verb _meno_ -- "to remain, to
abide," a word that occurs often in the Farewell Discourse (14:10, 17,
25; 15:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16) -- often referring to the relationship
between God and Jesus or God and us.
Another reference with this meaning of _meno_ is 8:35 (where _oikia_
also occurs): "The slave does not *remain* in the *house* (or
*household/family*) forever, the son *remains* forever." Do the words
"remain" and "house" refer to a physical place or to a relational
state? My sons remain my sons forever, even though they may not be
living in our house. The relationship remains. The physical presence
may not.
From Brown (_The Gospel According to John_, Anchor Bible):
This special house or household where the son has a permanent
dwelling place suggests a union with the Father reserved for Jesus
the Son and for all those who are begotten as God's children by the
Spirit that Jesus gives. Thus there would be some precedent for
reinterpreting "many dwelling places in my Father's house"
parabolically as possibilities for permanent union (_mone/meno_)
with the Father in and through Jesus. (Gundry, has independently
proposed a similar interpretation: ". . . not mansions in the sky,
but spiritual positions in Christ.") [p. 627]
From O'Day (_John_, New Interpreter's Bible):
Jewish traditions that identify the 'Father's house' with a heavenly
dwelling place clearly lie behind the imagery of v. 2a (e.g., Pss
2:4; 66:1; 113:5-6; 123:1; Is 66:1), but it is critical to the
interpretation of Jesus' words here that the reference to 'my
Father's house" not be taken as a synonym for heaven. Instead, this
reference to the Father's house needs to be read first in the
context of the mutual indwelling of God and Jesus, a form of
'residence' that has been repeatedly stressed from the opening
verses of the Gospel (e.g., 1:1, 18). Throughout the Gospel,
location has consistently been a symbol for relationship. ... to
know where Jesus is from is to know his relationship with God. [p.
740]
She goes on to state: "Jesus uses the domestic imagery to say, 'My
return to God will make it possible for you to join in the
relationship that the Father and I share' (cf. 20:18)." [p. 741]
Given this understanding, "the place" Jesus is preparing is not a spot
in a physical dwelling, but a "place" in God's family -- a "place"
where one can be related to and *remain* with the Father as closely as
Jesus, the Son, does.
The _hoti_ in v. 2 creates some translation difficulties -- see
footnotes in NRSV and compare the NRSV with NIV. In either case, it
answers the question, "Why did Jesus have to leave?" He goes to
prepare a place for us.
V. 3 supports the "relational" interpretation better than the
"house-in-the-sky" understanding. Jesus says: "I will take you to
*myself*, so that where I am you also might be." As I mentioned
earlier, in ch. 2, Jesus had redefined the temple to be his body.
Would "entering the temple" then mean "coming to Jesus" = "being in
relationship with Jesus" = "believing *into* Jesus"?
*Where* is Jesus? The issue of "where" is an important one in John.
Pilate asks, "*Where* do you come from?" On one level the answer is
Nazareth. On another level the answer is "from God." The "where" can
be a place or it can be the intimate relationship Jesus has with God.
Numerous times Jesus indicated that *where* he is or *where* he is
going, others can't come (7:34, 36; 8:21, 22; 13:33, 36). In the first
four references, Jesus is speaking to Jews. The last two he is
speaking to his disciples. The last reference, Jesus says that the
disciples can't come now, but they will later.
In contrast to these, Jesus says in 12:26: "Whoever serves me must
follow me, and *where* I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever
serves me, the Father will honor."
If the "where" is the intimate relationship between Jesus and the
Father, Jesus' going away and the sending of the Spirit opens up the
possibility that "where Jesus is, we might also be" -- that is, in
this intimate relationship with the Father.
There is a shift in v. 4 from the "destination" to the "way".
In typical Johannine fashion, this word (_hodos_) has levels of
meaning. It can be a geographical road or path. It can be a
non-geographical *means* of getting somewhere. In John's gospel,
"knowing the way" means "knowing Jesus". As v. 6 indicates, Jesus is
the way. Like Thomas indicates, if one doesn't know where Jesus is
going, one can't know the way.
If the "where" is the unity with the Father, the *way* to that place
is Jesus.
Vv. 6-11 stress the connection between Jesus and "the Father". Ten
times in these verses _pater_ is used.
Two quotes from O'Day on this section:
This is the heart of the good news for the Fourth Evangelist, that
in Jesus, the incarnate word, the Son of God, one can see and know
God in a manner never before possible. [p. 743]
In many ways, John 14:6 is both truism and tautology, because,
following John 1:18, it is indeed only through the incarnation that
the identity of God as Father is revealed. John 14:6 is not a
general metaphysical statement about 'God'; Jesus does not say 'No
one comes to God except through me,' but 'No one comes to the
*Father* except through me,' and the specificity of that theological
nomenclature needs to be taken seriously. John 14:6 is the very
concrete and specific affirmation of a faith community about the God
who is known to them because of the incarnation. . . . 'God' is not
a generic deity here; God is the One whom the disciples come to
recognize in the life and death of Jesus. When Jesus says 'no one,'
he means 'none of you.' In John 14:6, then, Jesus defines God for
his disciples; the Fourth Evangelist defines God for the members of
his faith community. [p.744]
Vv. 10-11 shifts the focus from Jesus as revelation of God to the
disciples acceptance of it through faith.
The section begins with a question from Philip (v. 8). (Similarly,
Thomas had asked a question in v. 5, and Judas (not Iscariot) will ask
one in v. 22.) The "yous" in Jesus' answer jump back and forth between
plural (y'all) and singular (you).
"For such a long time I have been with y'all
and you have not known me, Philip?
The one having seen me has seen the father.
How are you saying, 'Show us the father?'
Do you not believe that I am in the father and the father is in me?
The words which I am saying to y'all I am not speaking from myself,
but the father dwelling in me is doing his works.
[Y'all] Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me;
but if not, [y'all] believe through the works themselves."
The imperatives to believe in Jesus' words, or at least his works
(from the Father dwelling in him) is addressed to all believers.
Given the fact that Jesus repeatedly stated that he did not come to
judge (_krino_) (3:17; 8:15; 12:47) -- and in the instance when the
adulteress deserved condemnation (_katakrino_) Jesus refused to
condemn her (8:10-11), why have so many used 14:1-11 as a tool of
judgment? Is there another way to understand these verses that isn't
so judgmental towards those who do not see Jesus as the way and yet
remains honest with this text?
I like O'Day's approach to this issue: "The particularism of John
14:6-7 does _de facto_ establish boundaries; it says, 'This is who we
are. We are the people who believe in the God who has been revealed to
us decisively in Jesus Christ.'" [p. 744]
Rather than using it as a means of condemning others, it should be
seen as a doxological statement of who we are as children of the
Father through Jesus.
Vv. 12-14 have a new emphasis that parallels what went before. As
Jesus' work was God's work, so the works of the believers is Jesus'
work. We share in the revealing work of Jesus to point to the Father.
How are our works greater than Jesus'? Ours come after the
crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Ours come within the new,
eschatological age ushered in by Jesus' "hour" of glory.
However, vv. 13-14 indicate that *our* works, are really Jesus actions
in response to our asking. Perhaps two limiting factors to our asking.
(1) Our requests are "in Jesus' name," meaning asking for what Jesus
would want -- which may not be the same as we would want. (2) Our
requests are answered with Jesus' promise: "I will do it" -- I doubt
that what Jesus "will do" will be any different from what he "did do"
during his earthly ministry. While Jesus performed signs and miracles,
Jesus' glorification of the Father also led him to suffering and the
cross. I'm not sure that I am willing to ask Jesus: "Would you do
through me whatever it costs to glorify the Father?" I want to limit
the "whatever" to "the miraculous" and the "costs" to "not too much".
Jesus' doing included the suffering that cost him his life.
Jesus has promised greater works, I'm not sure we are ready to pay the
price.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com