The Symbol of Water in The Gospel of John

library of new testament studies
The Symbol of
Water in the
Gospel of John
Larry Paul Jones

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
145
Executive Editor
Stanley E. Porter
Editorial Board
David Catchpole, R. Alan Culpepper, Margaret Davies,
James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler,
Robert Jewett, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Robert W. Wall
Sheffield Academic Press

The Symbol of Water
in the Gospel of John
Larry Paul Jones
Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Supplement Series 145
To Rachel and Elizabeth
Gifts of God
Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

Mansion House
19 Kingfield Road
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library
EISBN 9781850756682
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 7
Abbreviations 8
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION 11
1. Water in the Gospel of John: Why Ask the Question? 11
2. A Definition of a Symbol 14
3. A Brief Look at Johannine Symbolism 20
4. The Sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel 26
5. A Brief Survey of Previous Studies of Water in the
Gospel of John and a Statement of the Methodology
of this Study 28
Chapter 2
WATER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 36
1. Narrative I: The Witness of John (1.19-34) 37
2. Narrative II: The Wedding in Cana (2.1-11) 51
3. Narrative III: Jesus and Nicodemus (3.1-21) 65
4. Narrative IV: Baptism and Controversy (3.22-30) 76
5. Summary of the Meaning and Function of Water in
John 1-3 85
Chapter 3
LIVING WATER AND TROUBLED WATERS 89
1. Narrative V: Jesus and the Woman of Samaria (4.1-42) 89
2. Narrative VI: Jesus and the Royal Official (4.46-54) 115
3. Narrative VII: Jesus and the Lame Man
at the Pool (5.1-18) 121
4. Narrative VIII: Jesus Walks on the Sea (6.16-21) 136
5. Excursus: Jesus, Bread (and Drink) of Life (6.22-59) 141
John 4-6 143
6 The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John
Chapter 4
LIVING WATER AND DIVIDED PEOPLE 147
1. Narrative IX: Jesus, the Water of Life (7.37-44) 148
2. Narrative X: Jesus, the Light of Life (9.1-41) 161
3. Summary of the Meaning and Function of Water
in John 7-9 176
Chapter 5
WATER AND THE HOUR 178
1. Narrative XI: Jesus Washes the Feet of the Disciples
(13.1-20) 179
2. Narrative XII: Blood and Water Flow from Jesus' Side
(19.28-37) 198
John 13-19 217
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION 219
1. The Meaning and Function of Water in the Gospel of John 219
2. Water, Baptism, and the Sacramentalism
of the Fourth Gospel 231
3. Final Observations 238
Bibliography 243
Index of References 256
Index of Authors 264
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although I bear full responsibility for the errors and inadequacies of

this work, I owe a tremendous debt to those who led me to it and helped
me complete it. Volumes of gratitude stand behind these brief words of
thanks.
I thank Dr Richard C. White, Dr Fernando F. Segovia, and the facul-
ties of Lexington Theological Seminary and Vanderbilt University
from whom I learned so much. Dick helped me to trust my abilities and
Fernando led me into a love affair with the Fourth Gospel. I also thank
Dr R. Alan Culpepper, who read the manuscript and made extensive and
helpful suggestions.
I thank special friends and colleagues on the faculty of Lexington
Theological Seminary, especially those who tolerated my antics while
completing this project. Some taught me more about the computer.
Others insisted that I be myself.
I thank my family, especially my daughters, Rachel and Elizabeth,
who encourage and inspire me constantly. Having two teenage daugh-
ters teaches even the most dense a lesson on point of view.
Finally, I thank God for the call to ministry in general and to the
place I now teach in particular. If it brings God any glory, this effort is
not in vain.
ABBREVIATIONS
AusBR Australian Biblical Review

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
Bib Biblica
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University
BR Biblical Research
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
B TB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
ExpTim Expository Times
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
LS Louvian Studies
LS J Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon
Neot Neotestamentica
NovT Novum Testamentum
NRT La nouvelle revue theologique
NTS New Testament Studies
RB Revue biblique
RevExp Review and Expositor
RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses
RevThom Revue thomiste
SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
TB T The Bible Today
TD Theology Digest
TS Theological Studies
TTod Theology Today
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
Abbreviations
WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WW Word and World
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1. Water in the Gospel of John: Why Ask the Question?

Each thing is full of dutie:
Waters united are our navigation;
Distinguished, our habitation;
Below, our drink; above, our meat;
Both are our cleanliness. Hath one such beautie?
Then how are all things neat?
George Herbert, 'Man'.
In the Fourth Gospel, water serves in nearly every capacity mentioned

by seventeenth-century poet George Herbert in his poem, 'Man'. Jesus
walks across the waters of the Sea of Galilee and enables his disciples to
navigate them successfully despite a storm (6.16-21). Water represents
a source of refreshment and more when Jesus turns it into wine at Cana
in Galilee (2.1-12), seeks it from and offers it to a woman of Samaria at
Jacob's Well (4.1-30), and promises to provide it to thirsty festival-
goers in Jerusalem (7.36-39). John the Baptist's baptism with water
helps to reveal Jesus (1.29-34), who himself uses water to baptize (3.22-
30; 4.1) and wash his disciples' feet (13.1-20). When Jesus heals the
lame man at the pool of Bethzatha, he reveals that he has greater power
than the water there (5.1-18), but he later employs the water of the pool
of Siloam to bring sight to a man born blind (9.1-41). In a much more
mysterious fashion, the Fourth Gospel depicts water, along with Spirit,
as an agent of birth into the realm of God (3.5). Finally, water flows,
along with blood, from Jesus' side during the crucifixion (19.34).l
1. Because of its diverse functions in the narrative, we can conclude that the
Fourth Gospel depicts water as what Mircea Eliade calls 'the fans et origo, the reser-
voir of all the potentialities of existence'. See M. Eliade, Images and Symbols:
Studies in Religious Symbolism (trans. P. Mairet; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1952),
pp. 151-53.
The use of water in these passages establishes it as a principal symbol

in the Fourth Gospel.2 Water takes its place among light, darkness,
bread, the true vine, the good shepherd, and other symbols the narrator
employs to give meaning to the text. This has not gone unnoticed in the
history of Johannine scholarship, but no major monograph has traced
the development of the motif of water through the narrative, related
the various passages in which water appears to one another, or drawn
specific conclusions about the function of the symbol in the narrative
as a whole. Without such an effort, however, we cannot determine
whether the meaning of the symbol increases or expands as the narra-
tive unfolds or whether it remains relatively fixed. More narrowly
focused theological studies of the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel
typically have not traced the development of a symbol through the
narrative and have not provided a concise definition of a symbol to
guide the investigation. In other words, they have not treated Johannine
symbols as literary devices. Most have not clearly distinguished symbols
from signs, metaphors, or allegories, but have employed those terms
as loosely synonymous.
Even such significant works on Johannine symbolism as those of
Stemberger, who distinguishes symbol from sign,3 Schneiders, whose
definition of a symbol both distinguishes it from sign and allegory and
delineates its unique function,4 and Culpepper and Koester, who do all
of that and add a distinction between personal and impersonal symbols5
and core and supporting symbols,6 have not noted a distinct difference
2. We could expect such prominence for the symbol of water in a religious

text. Most religions and faith communities associate water with creation, birth, divine
powers, rites of initiation, life, sexuality, wisdom, knowledge, and/or purity. See,
for example, J. Rudhardt, 'Water', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion
(trans. E. Meltzer; New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 350-58.
3. G. Stemberger, La symbolique de bien et du mal selon Saint Jean (Paris:
Editions du Seuil, 1970).
4. S.M. Schneiders, 'History and Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel', in M. de
Jonge (ed.), L'Evangile de Jean (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1977),
pp. 371-76; and 'Symbolism and the Sacramental Principle in the Fourth Gospel', in
P.-R. Tragan (ed.), Segni e sacramenti nel vangelo di Giovanni (Rome: Editrice
Anselmiana, 1977), pp. 221-35.
5. R.A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary
Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
6. C.R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery,
Community (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995).
1. Introduction 13
in the ways in which the narrator employs symbolic language. The

narrator makes extended use of symbols with overt opposites (for
example, light and darkness, from above and from below, and blindness
and sight). These closely linked symbols contrast the evangelist's per-
ception of the world with the realm of God and suggest that readers
who agree with the narrative would consider themselves alienated
from the dominant religious and political structures around them. Other
symbols, however, lack overt opposites (for example, water, bread,
wine, blood, and the true vine). This distinction invites the question of
whether the symbols without overt opposites have a distinct function.
Instead of forcing readers to identify themselves as either in the dark
or the light, blind or sighted, could they form a bridge that links the
new identity of Johannine believers with the past they must abandon?
If that distinction exists in the narrative, it may emerge most clearly
in the symbolic use of water, the symbol without an overt opposite that
appears most frequently.
These observations have potential implications for the debate over the
sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel. Much of that debate has centered
around whether bread, water, wine, and blood (none of which has an
overt opposite in the text) symbolize the Christian sacraments and an
impressive list of scholars has lined up on each side of the issue. A
study that approaches this question after defining symbol as a literary
term, noting when, how, and if Johannine symbols expand in meaning as
the narrative unfolds, and differentiating between the types of symbols
could enter this debate from a fresh perspective and, possibly, provide
new criteria for helping to determine the sacramental attitude of the
narrative as it now stands.
Therein lies the aim of this work. The pages that follow will attempt
to define a symbol as a literary term, note the symbolic meaning and
function of water in the narrative, and ask, in a preliminary fashion,
what that suggests about the narrator's expectations from the reader
and about the sacramentalism of the narrative.
In no way do I consider this a definitive, objective, or scientific
reading of the Fourth Gospel. Although I will attempt to base my con-
clusions on material within the text itself, other equally valid readings
can, do, and will exist. The fact that I am a white, Protestant, American,
male over forty years old, who was educated in a church-related
seminary and whose employment relates to the church, will influence
my reading both in ways of which I am aware and in ways beyond my
awareness. I intend to offer one way to interpret and understand the

symbol of water. I hope my interpretation will be informed and text-
related enough to have validity and I hope it will contribute to the on-
going use, understanding, and appreciation of this often-read literary
work.
2. A Definition of a Symbol
As this study begins, I face the challenge of defining a symbol as a
literary device. In very simple terms we can designate a symbol as 'an
object which refers to another object but which demands attention also
in its own right, as a presentation'.7 A symbol 'stands for something
other than, or at least more than, what it immediately is' 8 and also
participates in that for which it stands.9 In other words, a symbol both
points toward something other than itself and in some way presents
and represents that to which it points. To that basic definition we can
add that whereas an image or a metaphor usually appears once or only
a few times in a narrative, a symbol recurs persistently.10 As it recurs,
a symbol typically expands in meaning11 and that to which it points
becomes more clearly defined.
We can further distinguish a symbol from a metaphor by noting that
unlike a metaphor, which provides a tenor and a vehicle and leaves the
reader to discern the relationship between them, a symbol presents the
vehicle and leaves it to the reader to discern the tenor (meaning). The
literary context in which the symbol appears and any cultural influences
or background information shared by the reader and the narrator
must suffice to enable the reader to discern the meaning.12
7. R. Wellekand A. Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt,

Brace & Company, 1942), p. 193.
8. P. Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain: A Study in the Language of
Symbolism (Gloucaster, MA: Peter Smith, 1982), p. 6.
9. A.L. Mackler, 'Symbols, Reality, and God: Heschel's Rejection of a
Tillichian Understanding of Religious Symbols', Judaism 40 (1991), pp. 290-300
(292).
10. Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature, p. 194; Wheelwright, Burning
Fountain, v- H; idem, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1962), p. 93.
11. C.A. Holbrook, The Iconoclastic Deity: Biblical Images of God (London:
Associated University Presses, 1984), p. 61.
12. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 182-83.
1. Introduction 15
For example, 'love is a razor' is a metaphor. Readers know what

love is and what a razor is. By using that metaphor, the narrator
challenges readers to discern what the vehicle (a razor) can tell them
about the tenor (love). In contrast, in John Donne's poem, 'The Flea',
a flea the narrator plucks off his mistress functions as a symbol. The
fact that the flea serves as a vehicle is indicated in the opening words,
'Marke but this flea'. The tenor, however, is not apparent. Only by the
end of the poem, after the flea has been mentioned repeatedly and the
reader has discovered more about it and what it represents, can the
reader discern that it symbolizes both the union the narrator desires
with his mistress and his longing for that union.13 The context of the
poem and the longing for intimacy readers share with the narrator
make it possible to interpret and understand the symbol.
In a symbol, the tenor not only does not become immediately
known, but also remains somewhat mysterious. William Tindall refers
to a symbol as 'a visible sign of something invisible' and adds that 'the
symbol carries something indeterminate and, however we try, there
is a residual mystery that escapes our intellects'.14 A symbol gives
expression to a reality known or believed to be present, yet unseen
and usually unseeable. Harry Levin takes this a step further in calling
a symbol 'a connecting link between two spheres'15 and 'a sort of
excluded middle between what we know and what we do not know'.16
Unlike a sign, which can be understood only one way, a symbol defies
facile understanding and reveals something not initially perceptible17
as it allows readers to experience what they cannot objectively know.
Northrop Frye refers to a symbol as an intermediate between event
and idea, example and precept, ritual and dream',18 Michael Lawler
notes that a symbol points to something mysterious and 'postulated as
13. J. Donne, 'The Flea', in L.L. Martz (ed.), English Seventeenth-Century

Verse, I (New York: Norton, 1969), pp. 60-61.
14. W.Y. Tindall, The Literary Symbol (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1955), p. 5.
15. H. Levin, 'Symbolism and Fiction', in R. Scholes (ed.), Learners and
Discerners (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964), pp. 3-27 (17).
16. Levin, 'Symbolism and Fiction', pp. 3-27 (13).
17. O. Gachter and A. Quack, 'Symbol, Magic and Religion', TD 37 (1990),
pp. 109-14(111-12).
18. N. Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1957), p. 243.
existing', 19 and Erich Kahler concludes that a symbol 'originates in

the split of existence, the confrontation and communication of an inner
with an outer reality, whereby a meaning detaches itself, from sheer
existence'.20 Culpepper uses simpler words to note that symbols 'often
span the gap between knowledge, or sensible reality, and mystery' and
that they both 'call for explanation and simultaneously resist it'.21 A
symbol has an elusive meaning because it points to and represents some-
thing elusive. The author does not intend vagueness or ambiguity, but
rather struggles to give expression to something nearly beyond the
expressible. In the words of Lawler, knowledge that results from the
use of a symbol 'seems vague and opaque... not in the sense that its
meaning is obscure or that it is empty, but rather in the sense that its
depth of meaning is unfathomable'.22
Thomas Fawcett contributes to the definition of a symbol in suggest-
ing that instead of denoting things already understood, symbols 'attempt
to push forward the frontiers of knowledge and to grasp the reality of
things, the real nature of life'.23 That further distinguishes symbols,
which point 'beyond the empirical to meaning and value', from signs,
which refer to 'the observable and measurable aspects of human experi-
ence'.24 Paul Ricoeur comes to a similar conclusion when he describes
signs and metaphors as 'bound to the cosmos', but symbols as 'a free
invention of the discourse'.25 Symbols defy objective proof.
In his poem, 'The Flower', for example, George Herbert uses a
flower, which blooms in Spring only to die after a frost and then
returns again following the next Spring's rain, to ponder human exis-
tence before God. The narrator uses the growth, death, and return of
the flower to ponder human need for new beginnings and, ultimately,
our absolute need for God. The narrator cannot prove this dependence
on God, but through the symbol of the flower declares it part of the
19. M.G. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental

Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), p. 18.
20. E. Kahler, The Nature of the Symbol', in R. May (ed.), Symbolism in
Religion and Literature (New York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 50-74 (53).
22. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament, p. 19.
23. T. Fawcett, The Symbolic Language of Religion (London: SCM Press,
1970), p. 30.
24. Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 30.
25. P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning
(Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), p. 61.
1. Introduction 17
nature of life and the meaning of human existence.

As suggested by the previous illustration, a symbol 'bears some
inherent analogical relationship to that which it symbolizes' ,26 A symbol
does not merely point to the reality it represents, but also in some way
renders that reality present. In the words of William Tindall, a symbol
'is what it symbolizes'; that is, it 'always partakes of the reality which
it renders intelligible' and 'abides itself as a living part in that unity of
which it is the representation'.27 Dorothy Lee states that a symbol 'is
not a decorative or pedagogical device to enhance an abstract concept'
or 'a secret language to be decoded', but rather that a symbol 'bears
or conveys within itself the realities to which it points'.28 To return to
the examples of symbols cited above, the flea in Donne's poem not
only represents the desire of the poet and his mistress for one another
and the union they seek, but in fact, because it has bitten both of them
and thus in it their 'two bloods mingled be', it manifests that desire and
union. Similarly, the flower in Herbert's poem not only suggests some-
thing about the death and rebirth (baptism, confession, and repentance)
before God that the narrator considers central to life, but also mani-
fests that truth because it is short-lived and dependent on the cycle of
dying and rising and the showers (grace of God) to continue life.
Sandra Schneiders brings much of this together by defining a symbol
as '1) a sensible reality 2) which renders present to and 3) involves a
person subjectively in 4) a transforming experience 5) of the mystery
of the Transcendent'.29 A symbol, something a reader can see and com-
prehend, renders present something transcendent,30 brings the reader
into a 'subject-to-subject relationship' with that transcendent reality,31
and involves the reader in a transforming experience with that which
it reveals.32 Whereas Schneiders refers primarily to God as the tran-

27. Tindall, Literary Symbol, pp. 13, 39.
28. D.A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 95;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p. 29.
29. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 221-35 (223). Cf. Schneiders, 'History and
Symbolism', pp. 371-76 (372).
30. Cf. P. Tillich, 'The Religious Symbol', in R. May (ed.), Symbolism in
Religion and Culture (New York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 75-98 (75);
Wheelwright, Burning Fountain, p. 92.
31. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 221-35 (224). Cf. Fawcett, Symbolic
Language, p. 28; Wheelwright, Burning Fountain, pp. 9-10.
32. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 221-35 (225-26). Cf. Lawler, Symbol and
scendent reality to which a symbol points, she adds to its function as a

literary term by noting that 'only the personal can be symbolized, either
a person himself or herself, or some aspect of personal existence such
as life, truth, or love'.33 C.R. Koester echoes Schneiders as he attempts
to bring together literary, socio-historical, and theological aspects by
defining a symbol as 'an image, an action, or a person that is under-
stood to have transcendent significance.' He adds that symbols 'span
the chasm between what is "from above" and what is "from below"
without collapsing the distinction.34 Symbols have a transforming
function because as they render a greater reality present they 'become
the focal point of thinking, emotions and actions that stand in relation-
ship' to that greater reality.35 This conveyance of the transcendent by
and within the symbol invites the reader not only to respond to it, but
also to participate in it.36 Symbols evoke thought, emotion, and action.
Symbols involve whole persons and not just the intellect.37
All of this leads to the conclusion that a reader cannot remain neutral
toward a symbol, but must accept or reject as valid the reality it pre-
sents and represents. A symbol may inspire or burden us, make us feel
forgiveness or guilt, but it will not leave us unaffected. According to
Erwin Goodenough, '[w]e may love the symbol, we may hate it, but so
long as it is a symbol we register its message, feel its power'.38 If the
reader accepts the symbol, something in the reader's life must change.
To return to the examples used earlier, if the mistress reading the
poem agrees with the narrator, she will yield to his desires, and if
readers of 'The Flower' agree with the narrator, they will admit the
need for confession, repentance, and faith in God. A symbol calls the
reader to make a decision.
I noted earlier that a symbol becomes more clearly defined and
Sacrament, p. 18; Lee, Symbolic Narratives, p. 29. For a similar discussion of the
definition and function of a symbol see S.M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text:
Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1991), pp. 35-36.
33. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 221-35 (226).
34. Koester, Symbolism, p. 4.
35. Gachter and Quack, 'Symbol', pp. 109-10.
36. Lee, Symbolic Narratives, p. 29.
37. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament, p. 18.
38. E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. IV. The
Problem of Method: Symbols from Jewish Cult (New York: Pantheon Books, 1954),
p. 33.
1. Introduction 19
expands in meaning as a narrative progresses.39 From E.K. Brown's

investigation into the 'expanding symbol',40 we can note that this
relates to a symbol's ability to call for a decision. Brown argues that a
symbol persuades the reader to believe that 'beyond the verse of what
he [sic] can express, there is an area which can be glimpsed, never
surveyed' and that 'this area has an order of its own which we should
care greatly to know'.41 He maintains that a symbol does not merely
inform the reader of the character and nature of the realities sym-
bolized, but that 'it sings of their existence'.42 As a symbol recurs and
its meaning expands, that to which it points not only becomes clearer
but also increases in significance. If the narrator has established credi-
bility with the reader and is persuasive, the reader will believe in and
long for that to which a symbol points and which it renders present.
A two-fold definition of a symbol emerges from this. First, we can
define a symbol as a literary device that points beyond itself to some-
thing that defies clear and definitive perceptual expression, that is, it
points to something far greater than itself. Secondly, a symbol in some
way 'embodies' that which it represents, that is, it does not merely
bear revelation, it is revelation itself.
Herman Melville's Moby Dick illustrates this. The white whale in
this classic novel clearly stands for more than a fish or nature. It
represents the human quest for ultimate truth about good and evil and
the world in which we encounter them.43 By the end of the novel, for
Ahab, and for readers who identify with his compulsion to seek the
great white whale, the whale becomes that quest. Just as Ahab must
seek the whale or fail to be himself, so the reader must accept the quest
for ultimate truth or fail to be alive.44
39. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 182-83; Holbrook, Iconoclastic Deity, p. 61;

R. Scholes and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (London: Oxford University
Press, 1966), p. 107; Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature, p. 194; Wheelwright,
Burning Fountain, p. 11, and idem, Metaphor and Reality, pp. 92-93.
40. E.K. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel (repr.; London: Oxford University
Press, 1950), pp. 50-60.
41. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel, p. 59.
42. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel, p. 59.
43. Cf. C.C. Walcutt, Introduction to Moby Dick, by Herman Melville (Toronto:
Bantam Books, 1981), pp. xi-xii.
44. For a sustained application of the quest motif to the Fourth Gospel, see
J. Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the
Johannine Community, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1993).
3. A Brief Look at Johannine Symbolism

Most studies of the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel respond in some
way to the work of C.H. Dodd, who referred to the 'explicit use of
symbolism [as] an obvious characteristic of this gospel' and concluded
that the discourses that follow various narratives in the text are proof
that it is meant to be interpreted symbolically.45 Dodd noted that the
narrator uses symbols from daily life that have close association with
the Hebrew Bible and apocalyptic literature. Although these symbols
come from daily life, Dodd maintained that they 'derive relatively
little of their significance from the part they play in such experience'
primarily because the 'symbol is almost absorbed into the thing
signified'.46 He argues, for example, that the narrator fuses the iden-
tity of the good shepherd in John 14 with that of Jesus and that else-
where the images of bread and water 'retire behind the realities for
which they stand, and derive their significance from a background of
thought in which they had already served as symbols for religious con-
ceptions'.47 Dodd concluded that the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel
reflects the fundamental Weltanschauung of the writer, a view of the
world in which 'things and events—are a living and moving image of
the eternal, and not a veil of illusion to hide it, a world in which the
Word is made flesh'.48 This symbolism binds the entire work together.
In Dodd's view, the physical and perceivable characteristics of the
vehicle of the symbol have less to offer in discerning its tenor than the
religious images already associated with it. From a literary perspective,
however, this leaves little, if any, room for readers to associate a
fresh or novel image with the vehicle as the narrative unfolds. It would
also render the tenor of the symbol virtually indiscernible to readers
who do not share or lack awareness of the religious conceptions the
author took for granted. While it certainly will benefit readers to know
as much as possible about the world in which the author lived, unless
we limit ability to interpret the text to the few with that knowledge,
we can also expect the ordinary and commonplace features of the
45. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (repr.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1953), pp. 133-43.
46. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 137; cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 185.
47. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 137.
48. Dodd, Interpretation, $. 143.
1. Introduction 21
symbolic vehicle, along with its narrative context, to provide insights

into and parameters for interpretation and understanding. Thus, while
we cannot possibly arrive at the reading of the text, it is possible to
offer a reading.49
Although not everyone has agreed that readers can readily find sym-
bolism in the Fourth Gospel,50 most scholars after Dodd have found it
present. Stemberger distinguishes symbols, which are always signs,
from signs, which are not always symbols. Whereas signs stand for
something that is absent, symbols manifest something present.51 Like
Dodd, Stemberger considers most of the symbols Christological and
finds such symbolism throughout the narrative. He concludes that the
various symbols, all of which denote the same ethical realities, reveal
the mystery of the Christ to the reader and call the reader to choose to
have faith in him.52
Similarly, Xavier Leon-Dufour argues that the symbolism of the
Fourth Gospel 'is the result of a consciously established relationship
between the Son of God living in the Christian community and Jesus
who in other times lived in Nazareth and spoke to his contemporaries' .53
That gives the symbolism of the gospel the effect of bringing 'past
49. Cf. E.D. Hirsch, Jr, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1967), pp. 5-6, 13, 26, 170.
50. Because of the lack of agreement on what readers can consider symbolic
and other hermeneutical problems, extreme caution when approaching Johannine
symboiism is encouraged by D.W. Wead, The Literary Devices in John's Gospel
(Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1970), p. 26. Schneiders, 'History and Symbolism',
pp. 371-72, suggests that some hesitate to interpret the Fourth Gospel symbolically
because they want to consider it historically accurate, while other exegetes confine
themselves to historical and theological questions and leave symbolism 'to the spiritual
writers and homilists.'.
51. Stemberger, La symbolique, p. 14. See also Schneiders, 'History and
Symbolism', p. 372; and idem, 'Symbolism', p. 223.
52. Stemberger, La symbolique, p. 22. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 227-29,
adds that the choice leads to the transformation of readers into children of God. J.E.
Bruns, The Art and Thought of John (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), pp. 20-
21, claims that the symbolism of John emphasizes the particular hermeneutic of the
author. E. Richard, 'Expressions of Double Meaning and Their Function in the
Gospel of John', NTS 31 (1985), pp. 96-112 (107), concludes that the symbols
must lead or give way to faith.
53. X. Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel',
NTS 27 (1981), pp. 439-56 (454).
time into our reality' ,54 Leon-Dufour examines the 'symbolic operation'
of the narratives more than the meaning or function of the symbols
themselves,55 which foreshadowed later works that would examine the
relation between symbolism and narrative structure.56
John Painter also considers the Johannine symbols Christologically
oriented and views them as focal points in the narrative conflict between
Jesus and Judaism.57 He adds that the symbolic discourses clarify the
miracles Jesus performs in order to help the reader understand his
identity and mission, which stands consistent with the general purpose
of symbols in the narrative: correcting false notions of God and
replacing them with a more correct understanding.58 Painter's interest
in these symbols reflects theological more than literary concerns.
Although he does not consider it so patently Christological, Wayne
Meeks also finds symbolism throughout the narrative. He observes that
even the geographic framework of the gospel functions symbolically.
Jerusalem symbolizes rejection of Jesus while Galilee and Samaria sym-
bolize acceptance, both of which, of course, reflect the situation of the
community for and to which the text was written.59 In a later work,
Meeks used the ascent-descent motif to explore Johannine symbolism
and speak of the symbolism of the text in terms of the conflicts of
the community with its origin in Judaism.60 On the basis of this, he
calls the gospel 'a book for insiders' and concludes that it 'provided a
symbolic universe which gave religious legitimacy, a theodicy, to the
group's actual isolation from the larger society'.61 All of this reflects
the call to a decision characteristic of a symbol.
This holds even more true in the work of Culpepper, who systemati-
cally applies current narrative theory and the tools of literary criticism
54. Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic Reading', p. 454.

55. Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic Reading', pp. 440-41.
56. Lee, Symbolic Narratives', G.R. O'Day, 'Narrative Mode and Theological
Claim: A Study in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 105 (1986), pp. 657-88.
57. J. Painter, John: Witness and Theologian (London: SPCK, 1975), pp. 21-
22.
58. Painter, John, pp. 24, 140-41.
59. W.A. Meeks, 'Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 85 (1966),
pp. 159-69.
60. W.A. Meeks, 'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism', in
J. Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986),
pp. 141-65.
61. Meeks, 'Galilee and Judea', p. 163.
1. Introduction 23
to the Fourth Gospel.62 He moves firmly into a literary approach to the

gospel by reading John with an eye toward such issues as the narrator's
point of view, narrative time, plot, and characterization and questions
how the author used misunderstandings, irony, and symbolism. He
maintains that the use of symbols drawn from Judaism 'suggests that
established symbols are being given new meaning in order that they
might retain their viability and provide continuity in a context of pro-
found crisis and change.'63 Following Dodd, Culpepper concludes that
symbols 'often carry the principal burden of the narrative and provide
implicit commentary and directional signals for the reader'.64 These
symbols link the concrete realities of daily life in the world below
with the mystery of life in the world above which they symbolize. In
so doing they make the reality to which they point more immediate,
approachable, and perceptible without robbing it of its mystery.65
As already noted, Schneiders has also explored the issue of Johannine
symbolism and defined a symbol as '1) a sensible reality 2) which
renders present to and 3) involves a person subjectively in 4) a trans-
forming experience 5) of the mystery of the Transcendent.'66 The
symbols in the Fourth Gospel bring the reader into an immediate and
transforming relationship with God,67 which fulfills the gospel's pur-
poses of revealing Jesus (the revealer) to the reader and using Jesus as
a symbol of God, who calls the reader to faith.68 Schneiders focuses
on the second part of the definition of a symbol offered here. She has
interest in how symbols embody that which they represent and, most
significantly for her, in how the contact between the symbol and the
reader impacts the life of the reader.
Lee has a similar interest in the effect of the narrative on the reader.
She observes that, 'Narrative structures, with their attendant rhetorical
devices, are indispensable bearers of meaning, creating a reader and
62. Culpepper, Anatomy; see also The Narrator in the Fourth Gospel:
Intratextual Relationships', in K.H. Richards (ed.), SBL 1982 Seminar Papers: One
Hundred Eighteenth Annual Meeting (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 81-96;
and 'Story and History in the Gospels', RevExp 81 (1984), pp. 467-78.
63. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 184.
64. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 181, cf. Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 142-43.
66. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', p. 223, cf. 'History and Symbolism', p. 372.
67. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', pp. 224-26.
68. Schneiders, 'History and Symbolism', pp. 373, 376.
giving rise to faith as an authentic reader response'.69 She declares

that the symbolic nature of the Johannine narrative makes it strikingly
apparent that 'form and meaning belong intimately together' and tests
her theory in a study of six narratives from the Fourth Gospel in
which she explores the relationship between symbol and narrative,
investigates how the structure of the passages validates the relationship
between narrative and symbol, and questions how literary form relates
to theological meaning.70 Lee concludes that when readers accept Jesus
as a symbol of God (the essential function of all Johannine symbolism),
they embrace not only God but also their own identity.71 Like
Schneiders, her ultimate interest lies in the impact of the narrative on
and in the life of the reader. For that as well as other reasons, she
focuses on the symbolic nature of Johannine narrative more than on a
specific symbol within the narrative.
Koester has conducted the most extensive recent study of Johannine
symbolism. Beginning with the assumption that the symbols of the
Fourth Gospel both attract attention and make interpretation difficult,
he attempts to explore the literary, socio-historical, and theological
aspects of the text as it responds to the central issue of how people
know God. Like Dodd, Koester notes that most Johannine symbols
come from daily life. That reflects the theological framework of the
narrative. Because God created the earth, earthly images can bear
witness to divine realities. Thus the reader enters a paradoxical situa-
tion in which the divine becomes known through the earthly and the
universal becomes disclosed through the particular. As a result,
Johannine symbolism has a 'dialectical quality that conveys transcen-
dent reality without finally delimiting it.' Using the words of the
definition I have proposed, Johannine symbols point to and embody a
reality that defies clear and definitive perceptual expression.
Koester concludes that symbols draw the reader into a process of
reflection on this reality and, as noted previously, 'span the chasm
between what is "from above" and what is "from below" without
collapsing the distinction'. In another paradox, Jesus lies at the heart
of every Johannine symbol because he reveals God and every symbol
69. Lee, Symbolic Narratives, p. 24. See also p. 231, where Lee concludes
that the narratives invite the reader to experience the birth 'from above' of which the
narrative speaks and to which it calls.
70. Lee, Symbolic Narratives, pp. 20-22, 29.
71. Lee, Symbolic Narratives, p. 231.
1. Introduction 25
at the same time points in some way to who Jesus is.72

Koester distinguishes core symbols from supporting symbols. The
latter support the former, which occur most frequently, appear in the
most significant contexts, and contribute the most to the message. As
literary devices, symbols consist of an image (vehicle), a referent
(tenor), and an interpreter, someone in the narrative to whom the
symbol means something. Theologically, Johannine symbols have a
two-fold structure: a primary level of meaning that points to the
identity of Jesus and a secondary level that defines discipleship to him.
The socio-historical dynamics of the symbol relate to what it brings to
mind in the reader, associations with it that come from the ethnic and
religious heritage of the reader and from the reading of the narrative,
and the emotions associated with all of this.73
Because of the polyvalent character of the symbols of the Fourth
Gospel, any interpretation of them must pay close attention to their
literary context and give some attention to the cultural and social setting
in which the narrative was composed. Even these criteria, Koester
warns, will not lead to a definitive understanding of a Johannine symbol.
Since the symbols refer to Jesus and ultimately only those drawn from
above can come to him, final verification of a symbol lies beyond human
ability.74 I have taken account of this in my definition of a symbol.
Despite these and other studies, ample room remains for study of
the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel. Culpepper, for one, has called
for treatment of Johannine symbolism that '(1) is based on adequate
definitions, (2) is sensitive to movement and development in the gospel,
(3) relates the metaphors, symbols, and motifs to one another, and
(4) analyses their function within the gospel as a literary whole'. 75
The works of Schneiders and Lee invite further investigation into the
function of Johannine symbolism, particularly as that is reflected and
illustrated in the development and meaning of one specific symbol, an
aim which lay outside their studies.
The following pages will not explore all of those issues, but they
hope to contribute to the on-going discussions of which they are a part.
Using the proposed definition of a symbol, I will examine one symbol
and its meaning and function as it recurs within the gospel narrative.
72. Koester, Symbolism, pp. xi, 1-5.

73. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 5-8, 13, 16-17.
74. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 24-27, 31.
Because symbols call for a decision, during the process of .this explora-
tion I will ponder to what the symbol of water calls the reader and
how that relates to the world in which we live. These modest but
important steps will lead toward a more complete understanding of
the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel.
4. The Sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel

Any study of the meaning and function of water in the Gospel of John
must at least address the topic of baptism, especially a study of water
as a symbol. Does baptismal imagery add to the development of water
as a symbol? Do the appearances of the symbol of water support or
refute a sacramental understanding of baptism? Does the text appear to
have interest in such questions? Although not central to this study, these
questions certainly are valid and appropriate to ask in the course of it.
Readers of the Fourth Gospel are by no means unanimous on the
question of its sacramentalism.76 One interpreter has declared that the
author of the Gospel of John went farther than any other evangelist 'in
insisting upon the necessity of the saving sacraments of the church'.77
On the other end of the continuum, another reader has concluded that
the evangelist did not even know the tradition of the sacraments.78
Someone stands at nearly every place between these extremes79 and a
76. Cf. K. Matsunaga, 'Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental?—A New Solution

in the Light of the Evangelist's Milieu', NTS 27 (1981), pp. 516-24. Matsunaga
divides previous studies of Johannine sacramentalism into four categories and gives
examples of each.
77. C.T. Craig, 'Sacramental Interest in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 58 (1939),
pp. 31-41 (34-35); cf. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study
of the Relation ofSt John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1960), p. 58.
78. R. Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976), p. 108.
79. C.K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982),
p. 97, finds no polemic against sacraments in the text, but concludes that the author
would consider any sacrament ineffective without faith in the descending and ascend-
ing Son of Man. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 83.
R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1966, 1970), p. CXIV, who considers John sacramental at points, notes
that although the sacraments are not linked to any single saying or deed of Jesus, this
stands consistent with the intent of the Gospel to root the institutions of Christian life
in the entirety of Jesus' ministry. For a listing of the passages he finds sacramental
1. Introduction 27
few have declared the question impossible to answer because it is

senseless to ask.80
An initial problem in discussing the sacramentalism of the Gospel of
John is deciding how to determine whether or not a narrative is sacra-
mental. Francis Moloney offers four criteria for discovering the sacra-
mental teaching of the Fourth Gospel.81 The first criterion is to locate
elements in the text which indicate that the author is referring to a
sacramental ritual or symbol. The second is to find evidence that the text
was used in the liturgy, literature, and art of the early church. The third
is to locate a polemical tone that signifies a break with the synagogue.
The final criterion is an implicit presentation of Jesus as the revelation
of God.
The final three criteria offer little help in this study. Use of a narra-
tive for sacramental purposes by the early church indicates that some-
one interpreted it as sacramental, but that interpretation does not bind
other readers. Without denying the validity of those readings in their
time, modern interpreters have the right to disagree with them on the
basis of their readings of the text. The existence of polemical tone by
itself could make the cleansing of the temple (2.13-21) and the healing
of the man born blind (ch. 9) as sacramental as birth from above
(3.1-10) and the offer of living water (4.1-15). The on-going conflict
between Jesus and the Jewish authorities fills the narrative with pole-
mical scenes. Using the presentation of Jesus as the revelation of God
and non-sacramental see R.E. Brown, The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered',

TS 23 (1962), pp. 182-206 (206).
R.W. Paschal, 'Sacramental Symbolism and Physical Imagery in the Gospel of
John', TynBul 32 (1981), pp. 151-76 (155), considers the Fourth Gospel thoroughly
sacramental, but adds that the aim of the gospel is to examine the meaning of faith in
Christ and the implications of that for life. If the sacraments were significant to the
author, it was as they contributed to that task. Similarly, D. Rensberger, Johannine
Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 64-
66, suggests that where the sacraments are present their significance is not theologi-
cal as much as it is social; that is, their significance abides in how sacramental prac-
tices bonded the community together against the outside world.
80. B. Lindars, 'Word and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel', SJT 20 (1970),
pp. 49-63 (54), sees no reason to ask the question because the New Testament does
not know the word 'sacrament'; cf. Barrett, Essays on John, p. 81.
81. F.J. Moloney, 'When Is John Talking about Sacraments?', AusBR 30
(1982), pp. 10-33 (16-23). The first two of these criteria are also suggested by
Brown, 'Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered', p. 197.
would make the entire narrative sacramental, because the narrator pre-
sents Jesus as such from the prologue to the epilogue. The first criterion
seems the most helpful, but it is not sufficient by itself to declare a text
sacramental in any definitive way. Readers too often find precisely
what they seek.82
If a sacrament is defined as a specific rite of the church to which the
author attaches some extraordinary significance, it could be argued
that only the footwashing is depicted as a sacrament. The narrator pre-
sents it as an act Jesus does deliberately83 and commands his disciples
to imitate (13.12-17). If a sacrament is considered to be a practice that
renders God accessible and visible, the narrative includes a number of
possibilities. If water functions symbolically, it seems very possible
that this reading of the narrative will find the sacrament of baptism
implied. I will not limit this study in that way and, given the lack of
criteria by which to judge the validity of interpretation, I will not con-
sider that function of the symbol primary.
5. A Brief Survey of Previous Studies of Water in the Gospel

of John and a Statement of the Methodology of this Study
Although there has been no study exclusively on the motif of water in
the Fourth Gospel, many interpreters have noted the appearance and
significance of scenes involving water. R.H. Lightfoot commented four
decades ago that 'the theme of water runs like a silver thread through
the early chapters of this gospel'.84 He added that although water
recurs less frequently in the later chapters, it still appears in important
narratives. Readers of John before and after Lightfoot also have
observed that water appears often in the early chapters and in signifi-
cant scenes thereafter.
For some, water in the Gospel of John, as in Jewish and other ancient
Near Eastern literature, denotes primarily the reproductive process
and therefore refers, implicitly or explicitly, to the contrast between
82. Cf. Brown, 'Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered', pp. 183-84;

Rensberger, Johannine Faith, p. 65.
83. The narrator begins the scene noting what was on Jesus' mind, Jesus' self-
understanding, and the steps Jesus took in preparation for the footwashing. The giving
of such attention to these details suggests that the act to come has extraordinary
significance.
84. R.H. Lightfoot, StJohn 's Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956),p. 121.
1. Introduction 29
birth into the world and new birth into faith.85 This relates closely to
the conclusions of those who associate water, especially 'living water',
with eschatological hopes and expectations of a better future.86 In
these instances water stands for that new birth or eschatological hope,
but does little to inform the reader about their nature. In terms of our
definition of a symbol, these studies describe and treat water as a sign
more than as a symbol.
Other studies link water with purification or relate it to wisdom and
Scripture.87 Such studies note the theological significance of the scenes
in which water appears: narratives involving baptismal scenes (1.19-
34; 3.23-24); items or discussions of purification (2.1-11; 3.22-30);
significant interaction between Jesus and a Jewish leader (3.1-21), Jesus
and worshippers at a festival (7.37-44), and Jesus and his disciples
(13.1-20); healings (5.1-18; 9.1-41); and the crucifixion (19.31-37).
In each of these, water clearly points to a reality beyond itself. Olsson
observes that 'the terms and ceremonies dealing with water almost
always have some kind of transferred meaning in these texts'. 88 His
study and others that draw similar conclusions, however, make no
systematic attempt to identify from narrative section to narrative section
to what water refers or how it functions as a literary device.
Many commentators have associated water in the Fourth Gospel with
the Spirit, often referring to it as a metaphor or a symbol. Allison
links the water Jesus offers with the Spirit and concludes that water
serves as a metaphor for the reality of the Spirit that became available
with Jesus' ministry.89 Stemberger also relates water to the Spirit and
suggests that it symbolizes primarily an action, the struggle against
85. H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contempo-

raneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929), pp. 54-71; B. Witherington, The Waters of Birth:
John 3.5 and 1 John 5.6-8', NTS 35 (1989), pp. 155-60.
86. D.C. Allison, Jr, 'The Living Water', St Vladimir's Quarterly 30 (1986),
pp. 143-57 (145); B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-
Linguistic Analysis of John 2.1-11 and 4.1-42 (trans. J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1974),
p. 212; Stemberger, La symbolique, p. 151.
87. A. Jaubert, Approches de Vevangile de Jean (Paris: Editions du Seuil,
1967), pp. 140-46; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, pp. 53, 215. Cf. Dodd,
Interpretation, pp. 137-38.
88. Olsson, Structure and Meaning, p. 54.
89. Allison, The Living Water,' pp. 152-54.
sin. 90 Dodd broadly describes water as a symbol of purification,

scripture, life, and the Spirit.91 As already noted, he concludes that this
use reflects previous employment of water as a religious symbol and
does not investigate how or whether the symbol functions differently.
None of these studies dealt with the symbol of water using literary
critical methodology. Before turning to the efforts of Culpepper, who
subtitled his ground-breaking book on the Fourth Gospel, 'A Study in
Literary Design', 92 let me place that work within the movement of
which it is a part.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scholars began to experiment with
two new approaches to biblical studies. In addition to the historical
critical methods that had dominated biblical studies for several decades,
some began to experiment with literary and social world criticism.93
Among the first to employ the methods of literary criticism were
Amos Wilder, who concerned himself with the rhetorical forms and
the various genres present in the New Testament,94 and J.D. Crossan,
who analyzed the parables of Jesus from a literary perspective.95 A
handbook also appeared to help scholars explore and implement this
new method.96
Although those interested in these new approaches did not desire to
do away with historical critical methods, they took vastly different
approaches to biblical narratives. Interpreting biblical narratives from
a literary critical perspective called for a new set of questions.97 It
90. Stemberger, La symbolique, pp. 151, 170.

91. Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 137-38.
92. Culpepper, Anatomy.
93. A variety of feminist criticisms would later join these methodologies.
94. A.N. Wilder, The Language of the Gospel: Early Christian Rhetoric (New
York: Harper & Row, 1971).
95. J.D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New
York: Harper & Row, 1973).
96. W.A. Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1969). Interest in and use of literary critical methodology expanded
so rapidly that a second handbook appeared less than a decade later: N.R. Petersen,
Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
Within the next decade a guide that provided a literary introduction to each book of
the Bible joined the resources available: R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds.), The Literary
Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).
97. For an engaging discussion of the different kinds of questions raised by
recent literary studies of the gospels and Acts, see S.D. Moore, Literary Criticism
1. Introduction 31
involved a shift from uncovering the various historical layers of a text

or attempting to recover a single best or most reliable text to a focus
on the text as we now have it.98 It moved away from meticulous studies
that investigated a biblical work verse by verse and toward studies that
looked at the larger unit. Readers stepped back to gain a view of the
literary forest instead of bringing out their microscopes to dissect tiny
fragments of individual trees." Instead of searching exclusively for
the meaning behind the text, hidden somewhere in the Sitz im Leben
of the community in and to which it was written, scholars began to
pay closer attention to the literary structures present in the text and
what they meant.100
All of these questions imply a different understanding of how to
derive meaning from literary texts. A literary critical approach assumes
that the form of a text both expresses and creates meaning. This con-
cept did not spring into the field of biblical interpretation ex nihilo.
Form and composition critics had already noted that certain types of
narratives followed general rules of construction and therein expressed
and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989).
98. This does necessitate neglect of the past. Some attempt to read text with an
eye to the literary conventions of period within which it was written in order to set it
within its own historical milieu. See, for example, M.A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel:
Mark's World in a Literary-Historical Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1989). Note also that Koester, Symbolism, pp. 26-27, advises giving attention to the
cultural and social setting of the Fourth Gospel when interpreting its symbols.
99. Characteristic of this is the work of C. Talbert, who advises that he 'does
not follow the word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, verse-by-verse method of traditional
commentaries' but 'is concerned to understand large thought units and their relation-
ship to Johannine thought as a whole*: C.H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and
Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New
York: Crossroad, 1992), p. 3. See also O.C. Edwards, Jr, Luke's Story of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981); R.A. Edwards, Matthew's Story of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); W. Kelber, Mark's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979); R. Kysar, John's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984); C.H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary
on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987); C.H. Talbert, Reading
Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York:
Crossroad, 1982).
100. For a discussion of the different questions this brings to Johannine studies,
see F.F. Segovia, Towards a New Direction in Johannine Scholarship', Semeia 53
(1991), pp. 1-22 (13-17).
meaning. Literary critics, however, attempted to ask not only how a

given literary form expresses meaning, but also how it gives rise to
meaning.
Murray Krieger described this dynamic using the images of a window
and a mirror. We can consider a literary text a window through which
the reader can view the world and community of the person or persons
who created the text. With this approach we discover meaning behind
the text. That, however, neglects any relationship between the text and
the reader. We can also consider a literary text a set of mirrors reflect-
ing back and forth within itself. Meaning unfolds as a reader experi-
ences and responds to these reflections.101 In simpler terms, Scholes and
Kellogg described meaning as 'a function of the relationship between
two worlds: the fictional world created by the author and the "real"
world, the apprehendable universe'. Understanding a narrative, then,
means finding 'a satisfactory relationship or set of relationships between
these two worlds'.102 Instead of calling for a reader only to act upon a
text, literary critical methods invite the reader to interact with the text.
Literary critical approaches focus on a narrative as a piece of litera-
ture and ask how its literary forms and devices impact the reader.
Thus literary critics have interest in, among other features, the plot of
the narrative, how the story unfolds;103 the characterization, how
characters are depicted and developed;104 the point of view of the narra-
tive and the rhetorical strategies that affect the relationship between the
narrator (or implied author)105 and the reader;106 the use of metaphors,
101. M. Krieger, A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare's Sonnets and Modern

Poetics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 1-70; cf. Culpepper,
Anatomy, pp. 3-5. For a brief description of the factors influencing the transmission of
a narrative to a reader, see Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 6-8. Culpepper depends heavily
on the literary theories of S. Chatman and the communication model of R. Jakobson.
102. R. Scholes and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (London: Oxford
University Press, 1966), p. 82.
103. For example, F.F. Segovia, The Journey (s) of the Word of God: AReading
of the Plot of the Fourth Gospel', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 23-54.
104. For example, J.A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the
Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1992); N.R. Petersen, The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light:
Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge: Trinity Press
International, 1993); J.L. Staley, 'Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light:
Reading Character in John 5 and 9', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 55-80.
105. Staley defines implied author as 'the unifying sense that the reader makes
1. Introduction 33
irony, and other literary devices;107 the use of repetition, type-scenes,

and other literary conventions;108 and narrative time, what receives the
most time and what occurs most frequently.109 In each case the reader
explores the text as we have received it, how it works, and the impact it
has on the reader.
As it applies to this study, that means that I will need to go beyond
discovering what water could mean in the narrative as a result of
previous understandings and uses of it. Any previous understandings
uncovered will help to inform this reading, but I cannot stop there.
My aim is to use a careful examination of the text, any applicable
literary critical tools, and insights gleaned from the theories of sym-
bolism previously discussed to present a reading that addresses the
meaning of the symbol of water in the narrative and the impact it has
on the reader.
From a literary perspective, Culpepper has conducted the most
detailed investigation to date of water as a symbol. In his use of the
tools of literary criticism to investigate the Fourth Gospel, he calls
water 4a dominant motif and expanding core symbol'. He observes not
only the frequent appearance of water, but also its expanding meaning
and significance as the narrative unfolds. Early in the narrative water
is associated with baptism and cleansing. Both of these, however, are
identified by the text as secondary to the promise of cleansing by the
Spirit. Water is then contrasted with the living water offered by Jesus,
who is presented as one whose powers surpass that of water. As the
of a narrative, irrespective of how many real authors or editors may lie behind it.'
J.L. Staley, The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader
in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 27. This builds on
W. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd
edn., 1983), pp. 73-74.
106. For example, Staley, Print's First Kiss.
107. For example, R. Kysar, 'Johannine Metaphor—Meaning and Function: A
Literary Case Study of John 10.1-18', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 81-111.
108. For an overview of literary conventions in the Hebrew Bible, see R. Alter,
The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). For studies that make
use of the type-scene of the farewell or testament of a dying hero, see F.F. Segovia,
The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991), and idem, 'The Final Farewell of Jesus: A Reading of John 20.30-
21.25', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 167-90.
109. For example, G.R. O'Day, '"I Have Overcome the World" (John 16:33):
Narrative Time in John 13-17', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 153-66.
narrative progresses water represents Jesus, revelation, new life, and

the means of access to them all, the Spirit.110
Even the work of Culpepper, however, does not offer a close exami-
nation of water in the context of the narrative sections in which it
appears or a detailed account of how the meaning and function of water
expand as the narrative progresses. He certainly broke new ground in
Johannine studies, but much room remains for a thorough, linear study
of the symbol of water, which examines how it functions symbolically.
Koester built on the work of Culpepper in his investigation of water
as one of the primary symbols of the Fourth Gospel.111 He notes that
the significance of water almost always relates to washing and drinking
and concludes that the water Jesus provides is both revelation and the
Spirit. During the ministry narrated in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus offers
living water. Following that ministry (the time of the reading), the
Spirit extends that revelation to others. Koester traces the expanding
meaning of water through the narrative and notes how each successive
appearance of water helps to interpret the others until the climatic final
appearance in report of the crucifixion.
In the pages that follow, I will attempt to remain aware of the
realities water has symbolized in the past, but to focus primarily on its
meaning and function as a literary device within the narrative. Like
Koester, but in greater detail, I will examine the narrative sections
involving water in the order in which they appear, attempting to remain
sensitive to the movement of the narrative and to any deepening or
broadening meaning and function of water in the text. As the study
progresses through the narrative, I will attempt to take note of how
the meaning of the symbol is reflected back and forth within the text.
Rather than distilling the meaning and function of the symbol to one
particular or primary referent, I hope to indicate not only what it
presents most vividly but also the breadth of that which it symbolizes.
This seems particularly appropriate in light of the theories that suggest
that a symbol expands or deepens in meaning as a narrative unfolds.
In the midst of that, I will ponder the effect the symbol has on readers,
that is, the decision(s) to which it calls us. This is, of course, a sub-
jective process. Who, what, where, and when I am as a reader will
affect my relationship with and understanding of this text. Every
reader must make a similar acknowledgement. What follows will be a

111. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 155-84.
1. Introduction 35
reading of the text and an understanding of the meaning and function

of the symbol of water, not a final or definitive word. Such is the
honest limitation and the joyful freedom of a literary study.
The exegetical portion of this study will be presented in four
chapters. The following chapter will examine the narrative sections
involving water at beginning of Jesus' ministry (1.19-34; 2.1-11; 3.1-
21; 3.22-30). Chapter 3 will examine the narrative sections in which
water appears in the initial journeys from Galilee and Jerusalem, scenes
in which Jesus' ministry becomes increasingly controversial (4.1-42;
4.46-54; 5.1-18; 6.16-21). Chapter 4 will examine the two narrative
sections in which water appears in the final journey to Jerusalem
(7.37-44; 9.1-44). The final exegetical chapter will examine the narra-
tive sections in which water appears during the narrative of the 'hour',
the final and climatic acts of Jesus' earthly ministry (13.1-20; 19.28-
37). The study of each narrative section will include three steps: a des-
cription of its narrative context, an examination of its literary structure
and development, and an investigation of the meaning and function of
water within it.
The final chapter will summarize the meaning and function of water
within the narrative sections examined, paying close attention to how
(and whether) it functions symbolically. Then I will attempt briefly to
identify the value of this work for reading and understanding the Gospel
of John at this particular point in time.
Chapter 2
WATER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS
The Fourth Gospel can be divided into major narrative blocks that
reflect Jesus' journeys from Galilee to Jerusalem and the lengthy
narrative of his crucifixion.1 The Gospel opens with a prologue (1.1-
18), which identifies the central character and primary themes of the
narrative, and closes with an epilogue (21.1-25), which recounts a post-
resurrection appearance of Jesus in Galilee. The series of journeys
comprises the first major block of the gospel narrative (1.19-17.26).
Four separate journey narratives can be distinguished: the beginning
of Jesus' ministry (1.19-3.36); a second journey to Jerusalem (4.1-
5.47); the remainder of the middle portion of Jesus' ministry (6.1-
10.42); and the final journey to Jerusalem (11.1-17.26).2 The narrative
of Jesus' death, frequently referred to as his 'hour', and resurrection
follows this (18.1-20.31).
This study will begin with four narrative sections found in the
account of Jesus' initial journey to Jerusalem. This segment begins and
ends with narrations of the witness borne by John that reveal Jesus to
Israel (1.19-34) and declare that John, having completed his mission,
will now disappear from public view while Jesus attracts a steadily
increasing following (3.22-36). Between those narratives Jesus sets his
1. Segovia, 'Journey(s) of the Word', pp. 23-54 (35-51); Staley, Print's

First Kiss, pp. 50-73.
The narrative has also been divided into five dramatic stages (chs. 2-4; 5-10; 11-
12; 13-19; 20), surrounded by a prologue (ch. 1) and an epilogue (ch. 21), by
M.W.G. Stibbe, John's Gospel (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 35-36.
In the past, commentators typically have divided the Gospel into two major sec-
tions, a 'Book of Signs' (1.19-12.50) and a 'Book of Glory' (13.1-20.31), which
occur between the prologue (1.1-18) and epilogue (21.1-25).
2. Similar outlines of the journey narratives can be found in Segovia,
'Journey(s) of the Word', p. 50; and Staley, Print's First Kiss, pp. 72-73.
2. Water and the Beginning of the Ministry of Jesus 37
ministry in motion by calling his first disciples (1.35-51), performing

his first signs (2.1-25), and entering into his first extended dialogue
(3.1-21).
The motif of water appears first in the initial witness of John (1.19-
34), during which John declares the purpose of his baptism with water
(1.31) and draws contrasts between that baptism and the Holy Spirit
baptism to be offered by the one whose coming he announces (1.33).
The second appearance occurs in the narration of Jesus' initial sign,
when he turns water into wine at a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee
(2.1-11). The third mention of water comes during the dialogue
between Jesus and Nicodemus (3.1-21), during which Jesus states that
only those born of water and Spirit gain entrance into the realm of
God (3.5). The final appearance of water during the first journey to
Jerusalem takes place in the context of a brief discussion of the simul-
taneous ministries of Jesus and John (3.22-30). These initial appear-
ances of water link it with the issues of baptism and purification and
with the promise and presence of the Spirit.
1. Narrative I: The Witness of John (1.19-34)

The initial mention of water in the Fourth Gospel occurs in the narra-
tion of the witness given by John as he responds to questions asked by
a delegation sent from the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem. John rejects
identification as an expected messianic forerunner, but declares that he
has come to prepare the way for the one to come. In the latter half of
his witness, he identifies that coming one as Jesus, whom he calls 'the
lamb of God' (1.29).
The Context of John 1.19-34

The verses immediately prior to John's testimony comprise the pro-
logue, eighteen verses that provide not only an introduction to the world
of the Fourth Gospel but also a microcosm of that world. Like the pro-
logue of a Greek tragedy, these verses lay before the reader the central
character, primary themes, and important relationships that will dom-
inate the narrative as it unfolds.3 The prologue establishes Jesus as the
Word, the Christ, the true light, and the Only Son; describes and
3. For a discussion of this comparison and other features of the Fourth Gospel
that follow the general format of a classical Greek tragedy, see Bruns, Art and
Thought, p. 43.
legitimates the message and function of John as one who bears witness
to Jesus; and characterizes the opponents of Jesus as those who neither
knew nor received him. It opens and closes with statements that delin-
eate the relationship between God and the one sent by God (1.1-2 and
1.18), thus forming one of the many inclusios in the Gospel and
setting the initial section apart from the testimony given by John.
The verses subsequent to the initial testimony of John describe the
call and response of Jesus' first disciples. John repeats a portion of his
witness at the beginning of this section, but then quickly disappears
from the narrative as two of his disciples leave him to follow the one
he has identified. The temporal marker, rrj ercavpiov, in 1.35 further
separates the verses to follow from those which preceded them.4
The narrative appears to divide the work of John into three (possibly
symbolic) days.5 As already observed, however, John makes only an
abbreviated statement of his witness on the day which begins at 1.35
and then steps aside as Jesus moves to center stage and invites two of
the disciples of his forerunner to 'come and see' (1.39) where he is
staying. In 1.19 the narrator introduces the material to follow with the
words, 'this is the witness [juapjUDpia] of John', and in 1.34 John
declares, 'I have borne witness' (|H£|LiapTi)pr|Ka). This announcement
of testimony or witness to come, followed by the perfect tense declara-
tion that John has given his witness,6 clearly delineates the boundaries
of an independent narrative unit.
John 1.19-34 as a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and

Development
Having established the boundaries of the narrative section, we can
examine more closely its structure and development. The passage
readily divides into two primary units. In the initial unit, 1.19-28,
4. This same temporal marker appears earlier in 1.29, but here, for reasons
detailed below, it appears to function merely as an indication of a minor break within
a single passage rather than of a sign of the beginning of a new passage.
5. Distinctive days begin in vv. 19, 29, and 35. Those who find at least a hint
of symbolism in this include Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.45; M. Sawicki,
'How to Teach Christ's Disciples', Lexington Theological Quarterly 21 (1986),
pp. 14-26 (19); and S.S. Smalley, 'Salvation Proclaimed VIII. John 1.29-34',
ExpTim 93 (1982), pp. 324-29 (325).
6. Cf. K. Barth, Witness to the Word: A Commentary on John 1 (ed. W.
Furst; trans. G.W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 143.
John identifies himself to a delegation from Jerusalem. He first declares

who he is not and who he is and then relates his identity to his baptismal
activity. In the second unit, 1.29-34, John identifies Jesus to an unspeci-
fied audience, calling Jesus the 'lamb of God' (1.29) and stating that he
has 'seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God' (1.34). The
temporal marker, xfj erccnipiov, in 1.29 and the fact that the opening
sentence and final clause of the first unit mention John, whereas the
opening sentence and final clause of the second one focus on Jesus,
further distinguish these two units. The narrative begins by drawing
attention to John as he bears his initial witness to a yet unnamed figure
and then, in the second unit, identifies the one of whom John speaks
and shifts the attention to him.
This arrangement, declaration of his own identity followed by
witness to the identity of Jesus, has a profound effect on the reader.
The emphatic denial by John of any claim to be the Christ (1.20) and
his subsequent denials that he is either Elijah or 'the prophet' (1.21),
limit John's role exclusively to making ready 'the way of the Lord'
(1.23). This follows the agenda established for John by the prologue
(1.6-8) and, thus, enhances his credibility in the eyes of the reader as
he begins his witness to those sent to question him. John comes on a
divine mission and defines himself solely within the parameters of that
mission. This lends authority to his voice when he makes his initial
statement about Jesus.
Beyond that, Culpepper has suggested that by beginning with the
witness of John rather than the baptism of Jesus the author makes the
baptism secondary to the witness.7 John came to bear witness to Jesus
and the baptism of Jesus by John, which the narrative may imply but
does not describe, has meaning only as it enables him to achieve that
end. Culpepper adds that by having baptism first mentioned in the
words of John, and not by the narrator, the text depicts John as the
one who declares the superiority of Jesus and, consequently, his own
inferiority.8 This sequence of events does, in fact, compel the reader
to agree with the point of view of the narrator. In order to reject the
notion that Jesus stands superior to John the reader would have to take
issue not with the narrator, but with the forerunner himself and,
ultimately, with the Scripture (1.23) and divine initiative (1.6-8, 15)
through which he defines himself.

Even a brief overview reveals that this narrative section confines

the role and identity of John within tightly defined boundaries and
quickly subordinates him and his activity to Jesus. The investigation of
the units that comprise the text will underscore that conclusion at
nearly every point.
I have divided this narrative section into the following units and sub-
units, which I shall examine individually before drawing general con-
clusions about the text as a whole. Each of the two primary narrative
units: John's identification of himself (1.19-28) and John's identifica-
tion of Jesus (1.29-34), consists of four sub-units. John's identification
of himself includes: (a) an introduction (1.19a); (b) his dialogue with
those sent from Jerusalem (1.19b-23), which consists of a statement of
his limitations (1.19b-21) and an affirmation of his identity (1.22-23);
(c) his dialogue with those sent from the Pharisees (1.24-27), which
consists of an affirmation of his actions (1.24-26b) and a statement of
his limitations (1.26c-27); and (d) a conclusion (1.28). John's identifica-
tion of Jesus (1.29-34) consists of (a) a confessional statement (1.29),
(b) his witness to and defense of his message (1.30-31), (c) his witness
to and defense of what he has seen (1.32-33), and (d) a second con-
fessional statement (1.34).
1.19-28 John identifies himself In this narrative unit John focuses on

his personal identity, refusing to accept recognition as the Christ,
Elijah, or 'the prophet' (1.19b-21). He cites a passage from Isaiah as
the model on which he bases his ministry (1.22-23), and defends and
defines the purpose of his baptismal activity (1.24-27). Brief state-
ments of introduction (1.19a) and conclusion (1.28) frame the main
body of the unit.
(a) 1.19a Introduction. A terse introductory sentence indicates that
the prologue has ended and the first scene in the drama it outlined will
now begin. Impersonal pronouns serve as the subjects in both the
introductory and concluding sentences of this unit. This further dis-
tinguishes them from the main body, in which the primary sentences
and the secondary clauses have personal nouns or pronouns as subjects.
Although the introduction identifies the material to follow only as
'the witness of John' and provides no hint of the content of that
witness, the reader knows from the prologue that it will have as its
aim bringing people to believe in the one to whom John will point. As
noted above, this places the message and actions of John within tightly
defined boundaries.
A reader familiar with the Christian community might also note

that the narrator does not distinguish John as 'the baptizer'.9 This
omission tacitly suggests a limited role for John. That which follows
will focus solely on the witness John bears. Any personal details about
John himself or about the followers he attracted will stand in the
shadow of that objective.
(b) 1.19b-23 John and those sent from Jerusalem. The first sub-unit
within this unit of the passage describes the dialogue between John and a
delegation sent from Jerusalem to question him. This sub-unit divides
readily into two parts: (1) 1.19b-21, in which John states his limitations
by declaring who he is not, and (2) 1.22-23, in which John quotes
Scripture to affirm and to define his identity. In each case, the direct
discourse of the witness of John begins with the personal pronoun eycb
(1.20 and 1.23). These verses make no implicit reference to the
baptismal activity of John, adding more strength to the conclusion that
such activity stands subordinate to the witness John bears,
(b.l) 1.19b-21 John states his limitations. The initial dialogue of the
Fourth Gospel takes place when a group of priests and Levites from
Jerusalem announces that they have been sent to ascertain what claims
John makes for and about himself. John begins his witness by declaring
his limits. He denies, without explicitly being questioned about it, the
title of Christ for himself and then, when specifically asked whether
he is Elijah or 'the prophet', rejects those titles as well. The reader
knows John and has some appreciation of him from the prologue, but
here John himself provides the proper (and modest) perspective from
which to view his ministry. These verses distinguish John from both
the delegation that comes to question his identity and from the coming
one, whom he himself will identify.
The narrator explains that the events to follow took place when the
Jews of Jerusalem 'sent' (aneoxEiXav) (1.19) priests and Levites to
question John. The classification of someone as 'sent' will have increas-
ing importance as the Gospel unfolds,10 but even without the benefit of
those later references the reader can perceive here a contrast between
this delegation sent by the Jews and John, whom the prologue declared
9. In contrast with Mk 1.4 and Mt. 3.1 and with exception to the conclusions
drawn by J. Marsh, Saint John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 117.
10. See, for example, Dodd, Interpretation, p. 357; E. Haenchen, John. II. A
Commentary on the Gospel of John (trans. R.W. Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984), p. 38; and R. Kysar, John (Minneapolis: Ausburg), p. 149.
'sent from God' (dTceaxaîxevoq rcapd 6eo\5) (1.6). John operates

under the auspices of a direct divine commission. Those who question
him have substantially less lofty credentials. The narrative has not yet
clearly established Jerusalem and the Jews as opponents of God,11 but
they certainly do not stand equal to the one who sends John. Staley has
concluded that by designating the group from Jerusalem as 'sent' the
narrator places them in a position of authority and thereby weakens
the portrayal of John.12 As indicated, I consider it more valid to find
here a contrast that strengthens the depiction of John. John acts under
the authority of God and the delegation from Jerusalem, by forcing
him to witness to himself, actually impedes the witness God ordained
John to make. This self-testimony does weaken the portrayal of John
in comparison with the one whose way he prepares, but at the same
time it elevates John above those from Jerusalem. They can only ask
questions.13 John can provide answers. In the verse that follows, they
seek a response to give to those who sent them (1.22). John, on the
other hand, seeks to evoke a faith response to the one to whom God
sent him to bear witness (1.7).
As indicated, however, the narrative has at its core not the favorable
depiction of John vis-a-vis those from Jerusalem, but the presentation
of his limitations in contrast with the one whose coming he announces.
The narrator prefaces John's initial words in this section, 'I am not the
Christ' (1.20), with a series of verbs that Brown calls 'tautological even
for John',14 'he confessed, he did not deny, he confessed' (co|Lio^6yT|aev
Kai oi)K f|pvT|aaTO, Kai cb|Lio^6YTiaev). Through this verbal sequence
the narrator stresses one of the essential features of this testimony. The
reader must by no means confuse John with Jesus.
While we might expect that distinction, the remaining verses of this
section further limit the status of John. By also rejecting the titles of
Elijah and 'the prophet', John makes no claim to personal authority15
11. An alert reader might equate 'the Jews' of 1.19 with the 'his own' in 1.11
who rejected Jesus. At this point, however, that portrayal is only tacitly suggested.
Later chapters will declare it more bluntly.
12. Staley, Print's First Kiss, pp. 76-77.
13. This lack of knowledge is especially derogatory in light of 1.10-11. See
also R.A. Whitacre, Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology
(Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 27.
14. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.43.
15. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (ed. F.N. Davey; London: Faber &
Faber, 1947), p. 174.
and disavows any standing as 'a social reformer in his own right'.16
Through these denials, John imposes rigid limits on himself. He
emphatically denies that he is the Christ and, with comparatively terse
responses, rejects other honorific titles as well.
(b.2) 1.22-23 John affirms his identity. The limitations described above
do not leave John bereft of significance. When the Jerusalem delega-
tion presses for a positive statement of his identity, John has a ready
and commendable response. He reaches into scripture and recites, 'I
am a voice of one shouting in the desert, "Make straight the way of the
Lord'" (1.23).17 This reinforces the fact that John operates under the
authority of God and answers to God whereas the priests and Levites
answer to those in Jerusalem. This gives John even greater credibility
in the eyes of the reader. John acts on behalf of God—he claims
nothing more, but certainly nothing less.
(c) 1.24-27 John and those sent from the Pharisees. As the narrative
progresses, those who question John become a party sent (dTceaxaA,-
HEvoi) from the Pharisees whose queries finally refer to his baptismal
activity. We can divide the unit into the same general headings as
those used above, although they appear here in the reverse order. John
first affirms his actions (1.24-26b) and then restates his limitations
(1.26c-27).
(c.l) 1.24-26b John affirms his actions. By again identifying the ques-
tioners of John as 'sent' (1.24), the narrator once more draws a con-
trast between their commission and that of John. That these inquisitors
come from the Pharisees rather than the more general designation
'from Jerusalem' does not appear to have immediate significance.18
From wherever or whomever, they remain unknowing and their ques-
tions provide John an opportunity to bear witness to what he knows.
Aware that John has rejected identification as the Christ, Elijah, and
'the prophet', this delegation asks why, then, John baptizes. Although
16. B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972),
p. 104.
17. Isa. 40.3.
18. As has been noted, the implied authority of the Pharisees certainly reflects
the situation of the community to which the evangelist wrote and not that of the time
in which the narrative is set. See, for example, P.F. Ellis, The Genius of John:
A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1984), pp. 32-33.
they do not receive a definitive answer to their question until 1.31,

John does affirm his actions.
The question asked by the representatives of the Pharisees in 1.25
repeats, in the same order, the three possibilities for the identity of
John introduced in 1.20-21. In this way the narrative twice asserts
first that John is not the Christ and then that he also is neither Elijah
nor 'the prophet'. This repetition moves the reader toward the con-
clusion that no one in Jerusalem has perceived John's true identity,
which diminishes their standing in the eyes of the reader, who has the
benefit of the prologue and thus knows the answer to their query.
Instead of explaining why he baptizes, John states simply, 'I baptize
with water' (1.26). The presence of the emphatic pronoun eycb suggests
that another will appear who will offer a different baptism19 and that
John intends to shift the focus of attention away from himself. John does
baptize—the Jewish authorities have that much right—but John does not
intend to dwell on that. His words imply that a new character will soon
come on stage.
(c.2) 1.26c-27 John states his limitations. Having affirmed his baptis-
mal activity, John declares that those sent from the Pharisees not only
fail to perceive his identity but also, and more significantly, fail to
recognize one who stands in their very midst. John does not yet reveal
this unknown one to the Jewish authorities, but the fact that he at least
discerns his existence again elevates him above them.
As John continues, however, he reiterates his inferior status relative
to the one who comes. His words allude to his announcement in the
prologue that the one to come actually ranks above him (1.15). To this
John adds that he does not feel worthy even to loosen the straps of his
sandals, a menial task typically performed by a slave. This erases any
residual doubt of John's subordination to the one who comes after him.
These words also add drama to the narrative and heighten the curiosity
of the reader. John directs attention so adroitly to the one who comes
that he himself fades into the background. John has fulfilled at least
part of his purpose (cf. 1.7). He has directed the reader's gaze toward
a still unknown one to come and now needs only to reveal his identity
and bear witness to him in terms that lead the reader to accept him.
This completes John's initial witness in a way that leaves no doubt
about his role and purpose. Disclosures that focus on his limitations
19. F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 50.
(1.19b-21; 1.26c-27) surround his affirmations about himself and his

activity (1.22-23 and 1.24-26b). John clearly stands superior to the
authorities who come to question him and certainly has a firm under-
standing of his role and identity. At the same time, he willingly accepts
an inferior status to the one who comes after him. The reader now
knows John sufficiently well and anticipates a more complete intro-
duction to the central character of the Gospel.
(d) 1.28 Conclusion. The concluding verse of this section identifies
the Bethany beyond the Jordan as the site of the preceding narrative
events.20 The subject of this sentence, the impersonal pronoun xama,
refers in general to the contents of the preceding verses and specifi-
cally to the witness of 1.19. All the words and actions of John narrated
thus far comprise his testimony. Although the narrative has included
brief comments about John's baptismal activity, this activity stands sub-
ordinate to the witness he bears.21 To this point, however, that witness
remains incomplete. John has thoroughly identified himself, but has
left the reader anxiously anticipating an equally thorough identification
of the unknown one to come.
1.29-34 John identifies Jesus. The temporal marker, 'the next day'
(1.29), indicates the beginning of new material. Since the narrator has
not implied that John's witness has come to an end, the reader expects
that to continue in whatever follows. John meets that expectation
through (a) a confessional statement that identifies Jesus as 'the lamb
of God' (1.29), (b) witness to and defense of the message he has pro-
claimed (1.30-31); (c) witness to and defense of what he has seen
(1.32-33); and (d) a second confessional statement that identifies Jesus
as'the Son of God'(1.34).
(a) 1.29 Confessional statement. Although the shadow of their pre-
sence remains, those sent from Jerusalem now disappear. That does
not, however, leave John on stage alone. After announcing the change
in time, the narrator depicts John catching sight of Jesus and declaring
20. This is distinct from the Bethany of ch. 11 and its precise location is not
known. See, for example, Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.44.
21. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 94; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, pp. 97-
98; and R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (trans. K. Smith; 3
vols.; New York: Crossroad), 1.294.
with startling alacrity, 'Behold the lamb of God'. John, thus, ends the
suspense over the identity of the one to come while simultaneously
creating new curiosity by using a title not previously applied to him in
the narrative.
The text does not declare explicitly to what this title refers. It may
refer to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, which seems particularly
appropriate in the light of John's previous use of a statement of Isaiah
to define his role (1.23), and/or to the paschal lamb of Jewish tradi-
tion, which also seems appropriate in light of the explanation that this
lamb will 'take away the sin of the world'. Or the lamb may evoke an
even wider array of images. Some consider the image of a sin-removing
lamb an indication that Jesus will die an atoning death on behalf of his
people.22 Others maintain that, although implied, this does not stand at
the center of Johannine theology23 or that it is inconsistent with
Johannine theology.24 Since neither the narrator nor John clarifies the
precise meaning of this image, the reader must patiently await further
development in the narrative before determining whether or not it has
peculiar significance. Far more important in this context is the fact
that John makes this declaration so quickly and triumphantly. The
reader can sense in the excitement conveyed in and through this
confession that John has disclosed the reason behind all his activity.
His baptismal ministry has significance primarily (and possibly solely)
as it directs attention to Jesus.
(b) 1.30-31 John witnesses to and defends his message. Having made a
startling declaration about Jesus, John now claims that this declaration
stands consistent with all he has previously said and done. He first
repeats his earlier words about Jesus and then explains the foundation
on which they rest.
(b.l) 1.30 John declares his message. John declares that this lamb of
God, Jesus, is the one he previously identified as coming after him but
ranking before him (1.15). These words attribute the description of
the pre-existent Logos detailed in the prologue to Jesus and thus again
increase John's credibility in the eyes of the reader. They also rein-
force the fact that John stands subordinate to Jesus. Every statement
John has made thus far verifies not only the legitimacy of his message
22. E.g., Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 109.

23. S.S. Smalley, 'Salvation Proclaimed VIII. John 1:29-34', ExpTim 93
(1982), p. 326.
24. Kysar, John, p. 36.
and actions but also his subservience to the one God commissioned
him to make known.
(b.2) 1.31 John defends his message. John now declares that he him-
self did not know Jesus, yet he came with his baptism ev i38axi for the
sole purpose of revealing him to Israel. Although these words imply a
defense of the message of John, they also continue two themes already
predominant in the narrative.
First, by announcing that he himself did not know the precise iden-
tity of the one to come, John links himself with those he addressed in
1.26, who did not know the one who stood in their midst. Despite his
commission from God to bear witness to the light (1.8), John remained
in the dark until God chose to reveal that light to him. John not only
stands subordinate to Jesus, but also does not even know him. He must
depend utterly on God for such knowledge. Secondly, John clearly
states that his baptismal activity has no significance apart from iden-
tifying the coming one, that is, as John stands subordinate to Jesus, so
does his baptism stand subordinate to the witness he bears.25
All of this enhances the dramatic appeal of the narrative. The reader
now knows that John must depend on God to discern the identity of
the one to come and further knows that this discernment in some way
relates to his baptismal activities, but does not know how all of this
will come together. Although John does the talking, the sequence of
events directs all attention to Jesus. This leaves the reader anxious and
ready for John to complete his witness: to reveal how he recognized
Jesus and how his baptism relates to him.
(c) 1.32-33 John witnesses to and defends what he has seen. John now
shifts his remarks from what he has said to what he has seen. As above,
he first bears witness to his experience and then offers a defense of it.
The primary verb in this sentence, eiaaprupTioev, harkens back to the
initial verse of the passage and the jiapTUpia announced as the aim of
that to follow.
(c.l) 1.32 John declares what he has seen. John avows that he saw the
Spirit descend from heaven as a dove and remain26 on Jesus. He does
not, however, declare when that happened. A reader familiar with the
Synoptic Gospels or the Christian story may quite naturally assume
25. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.65; L. Bouyer, The Fourth Gospel
(trans. P. Byrne; Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1984), p. 60.
26. The verb translated 'remain', jieveiv, does not lack significance. See, for
example, Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.510-12.
that these words refer to the baptism of Jesus by John, but this narra-
tive does not provide such information. While not necessarily standing
as a corrective to the synoptic tradition, this omission quietly posits a
different emphasis for the baptism. Not reporting the baptism at the
very least avoids making Jesus subject in any way to John. It may also
imply that the baptism has significance only for John, as the means by
which he recognized Jesus, and not for Jesus or for anyone else.
(c.2) 1.33 John defends what he has seen. John defends what he has
seen by once more stating that he did not know Jesus and that the one
who sent him to baptize told him that the one on whom he saw the
Spirit descend and remain would baptize 'with the Holy Spirit'. The
repeated assertion by John that he did not know Jesus again links him
with the unknowing Jews of 1.26 and connotes his subservient status to
Jesus. But in addition to that familiar theme, the reader receives some
new information.
John acquired his ability to recognize Jesus directly from God. On
the one hand this gives the Jews in 1.26 an excuse for not knowing one
who stood in their midst, but on the other hand it tacitly suggests that
complete recognition of Jesus must entail the involvement of more
than mere human agency. Even John, the one commissioned to reveal
Jesus to Israel, had to depend on God to discern the identity of the one
whose coming he proclaimed. How much greater, then, must be the
dependency of those who lack such a commission?
Note also the contrast between John's baptism 'with water' (ev i)5axi)
and Jesus' baptism 'with the Holy Spirit' (ev nvz\)\iax\ dyicp).27 More
than simply positing John's inferiority, this contrast anticipates the
arrival of something utterly different than him. The narrative does
not detail what this will be, but, as John's activity introduced some-
thing beyond the understanding of the Jewish authorities, so now the
reader expects something different from and greater than John,
(d) 1.34 Confessional statement. The passage comes to a close with
John making a second confession, now declaring Jesus 'the Son of
27. John makes a distinction that may intrigue readers familiar with Jewish
scripture. Baptism, cleansing, and a holy spirit come together in Isa. 32.15; 44.3;
59.21; Ezek. 36.25-26; 37.5-6; 39.29; Zech. 13.1-3; and Joel 3.1ff. See E.R. Bolen,
'Purity and Pollution in the Fourth Gospel' (PhD dissertation, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1993), p. 144; Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.51;
Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St. John, 1.294. For a helpful bibliography for
water rituals and ceremonies, see Bolen, 'Purity and Polution', pp. 131-34.
God'. The confessional statements surrounding John's witness show

that whatever its impact on others, it has led him to believe. John has
completed his purpose, fulfilling what the prologue said of him. In so
doing, he has also clearly made his ministry subservient to that of
Jesus. When the reader meets John again at the end of chapter three,
the question of his relationship with Jesus will resurface, but this
narrative has already established the answer. John has borne witness.
All that remains to be seen is who will believe through it.
John 1.19-34 and the Meaning and Function of Water

What meaning and function does water have within and as a result of
this narration of the witness John bears? Water appears three times in
this passage (vv. 26, 31, 33), each time in the instrumental dative form,
i)8aTi, preceded by the preposition ev and in association with the verb
Parciiêiv, which has John as its implied subject. John baptizes with
water (1.26) and attributes the employment of water to instructions
that came directly from God (1.31, 33).
Throughout his witness, John makes no reference to the efficacy of
his water baptism for those who submit to it. Baptism with water
naturally brings to mind the rites of cleansing, purification, and/or
initiation of which the first century world had an abundance.28 Judaism
knew lustrations for purification and removal or ritual taboos, as well
as proselyte baptism.29 The cult of Enki in Babylon, the Osiris myth
in Egypt, Mandaean rituals, and the Orphic tablets, among others, all
attribute purifying properties to water and some associate baptism with
immortality.30 Others considered water baptism a necessary prepara-
tion for sacred tasks, prayer, worship, marriage, and death.31 While
those images may surface in the mind of the reader, John limits the
purpose of his baptism exclusively to enabling him to reveal Jesus to
28. G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan,

1962); W.F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK,
1948); R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought ofSt Paul (trans. G.R. Beasley-
Murray; New York: Herder & Herder, 1964); G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the
Pagan Mysteries (trans. J.P. Smith; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967).
29. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 106; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to
StJohn, 1.293.
30. M. Meslin, 'Baptism', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion
(trans. J.C. Hought and A.S. Mahler; New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 59-63.
31. H.J.W. Drijvers, 'Ablutions', in Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion,
pp. 9-13.
Israel. In fact, the verb (JaTcxiêiv never has a direct object in these
verses. Neither the narrator nor John makes reference to the baptism
of John as a precursor of Christian baptism, to a declaration of a
baptism for repentance, or to any other impact on those baptized. While
such silence does not refute or eliminate any of those possibilities, it
does give them a secondary status at best.
Nor does the narrative provide any indication that the initiation of
Jesus' ministry in some way depended on his baptism at the hands of
John. Jesus stands utterly superior to John and everything John does
stands subservient to Jesus. This even applies to his baptism, which
serves exclusively to enable John to recognize Jesus and to continue to
distinguish John from Jesus. Regardless of whether Jesus delayed the
start of his ministry until meeting John, in this narrative only John has
an eye-opening experience when the two first come together.
The water baptism of John also has some relationship with baptism
in the Holy Spirit. Schnackenburg finds here a contrast that anticipates
the connection between water and rebirth in the dialogue with
Nicodemus in chapter three and links that discussion with the power
of Jesus to make people become children of God described in the pro-
logue (1.12-13).32 It seems premature, however, to draw such aconclu-
sion at this point, especially since John's witness lacks reference to the
efficacy of baptism other than as the means by which he identifies Jesus.
In all of this, John's water baptism announces the arrival of some-
thing new in the world; that is, it facilitates his work of preparing 'the
way of the Lord' (1.23). The narrative focuses on this function in a
way that diminishes, if not excludes, any purification or initiation of
the baptisands.
This applies as well to the relationship of water baptism with the
Spirit baptism Jesus will offer. The narrative clearly places the empha-
sis on the baptism in the Spirit. The new development represented by
the water baptism of John leads him to the discovery and the revela-
tion of the one on whom the Spirit descended and remained,33 the one
who would impart that same Spirit to others with a baptism of his own.
Thus far in the narrative, water does little more that signify the
32. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 1.305.

33. As Koester, Symbolism, p. 159, has noted, the descent of the Spirit iden-
tifies Jesus as God's anointed, as predicted in Isa. 11.2; 61.1; and other places.
Jesus, however, will not only receive that Spirit but also impart it to others. That is
part of the new reality to which water points.
arrival of something new. John's water baptism indicates the imminent

appearance of one far superior to John, one who will conduct his own
baptism in the Holy Spirit. Yet, a sense of mystery pervades the text
because John leaves open precisely how his water baptism made his
recognition of Jesus possible.34 In a subtle way, water points to
an experience of John that lies beyond perceptual expression in the
narrative.
Water lacks, however, an intimate relationship with this new deve-
lopment. Neither the narrator nor John infers that water baptism had
any effect on Jesus or on anyone baptized by John. In other words,
using the second half of my definition of a symbol, water does not
here embody the new beginning it represents. It functions more as a
sign than as a symbol because it stands for more than it renders pre-
sent something absent in the text.35 But, since symbols characteristi-
cally gain meaning and vibrancy not immediately but as a narrative
unfolds,36 perhaps we should not expect more than that in the initial
appearance in the narrative.
2. Narrative II: The Wedding in Cana (2.1-11)

The second appearance of water in the Fourth Gospel takes place in
the narrative of a wedding celebrated in Cana of Galilee. Jesus and his
disciples join his mother at this marriage banquet, during which Jesus
performs his initial sign.

The opening chapter of the Fourth Gospel comes to a close with Jesus
calling individuals to discipleship on two consecutive days (1.35-42
and 1.43-51). Barrett and Marsh consider the account of the wedding
in Cana closely connected with those narratives, positing that the tem-
34. John declares that God had told him the one on whom he would see the
Spirit descend and remain would be the lamb of God, but he does not explicitly state
that he had such a vision while baptizing Jesus. The reader does not know precisely
when the vision took place.
35. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 182; Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 14; Gachter
and Quack, 'Symbol', p. 112; Schneiders, 'History and Symbolism', p. 372.
36. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 182-83; Holbrook, Iconoclastic Deity, p. 61;
Welleck and Warren, Theory of Literature, p. 193; Wheelwright, Burning Fountain,
p. 93.
poral marker, 'the third day' (2.1), ends a series of four notes of time
which deal with the calling of disciples37 and concluding that the
miracle performed at the wedding brings the summoning of disciples
to a climax with the narrative announcement that those called now
believe in him (2.II). 38
By distinguishing Cana as in Galilee (2.1), the narrator links these
verses with the earlier decision of Jesus to travel there (1.43). Since
the narrator does not cite the exact location of the call of Philip and
Nathanael, we could consider Cana the first stop on that journey. I find
it difficult, however, to find here a climax in the calling of disciples
because of the elaborate confession made by Nathanael in 1.49 and the
response of Jesus to those words in 1.50-51. The 'manifestation of his
glory' (2.11) and the related belief of the disciples do indicate that the
miracle Jesus performed at the wedding had a profound impact on
them, but they have yet to see 'heaven opened and the angels of God
ascending and descending on the Son of Man' (1.51). Having stated in
1.50-51 what will be a pinnacle experience for the disciples, the narra-
tor begins in the account of the wedding to relate the series of events
that the reader assumes will climax with the fulfillment of that promise.
It also seems advisable to use caution when assessing the significance
of 'on the third day' (2.1). The narrator has used the temporal marker,
'the next day', on three occasions (1.29, 35, 43), which leaves the
reader wondering, 'The third day from what?' This confusion in narra-
tive time suggests that 'the third day' may have primarily a symbolic
meaning, a possibility the following discussion of the composition of
the passage will explore. For now let it suffice to note that 'the third
day' at least indicates a minor change in the focus of the narrative and
may denote the beginning of an entirely new series of narrative events.
The verses that follow the account of the miracle performed at Cana
describe the cleansing of temple (2.13-22). Genuyt considers these two
accounts so closely related that we cannot interpret them apart from
each other.39 The request for a sign indicating the authority of Jesus to
take such actions in the temple (2.18), the purification motif present in
both texts,40 and the fact that both acts eventually prompt belief on the
37. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 189.

38. Marsh, John, p. 141.
39. F. Genuyt, 'Les noces de Cana et la purification de temple: Analyse du
chapitre 2 de l'evangile de Jean', Semiotique et Bible 31 (1983), pp. 14-33 (16).
40. The Cana narrative includes stone jars used KCXT& TOY Ka0apiaji6v TCDV
part of the disciples (2.10 and 2.22) indicate a close relationship

between these two passages. It does not, however, appear imperative
to interpret them as one. The scene shifts from a wedding at Cana in
Galilee to a Passover at the temple in Jerusalem and a brief interlude
in Capernaum separates the two (2.12). In addition to that, the conclu-
sion of the latter narrative makes no reference to the former. We have
here two closely related passages that can nonetheless stand alone.
I have not included 2.12 within the boundaries of this passage
because it merely removes Jesus and his entourage from Cana without
interpreting or adding to the events there. In both 2.1 and 2.11 the
narrator notes that these events took place in Cana. That seems suffi-
cient reason to regard them as the beginning and ending of an indepen-
dent narrative section and to consider 2.12 a transitional verse between
that section and the one to follow.41
John 2. I'll as a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and Development

Few passages in the Fourth Gospel have received more attention than
this one. It has found its way into the marriage ceremonies used by
clergy from a variety of traditions and its apparent invitation to sym-
bolic interpretation42 has led some consider it an over-flowing cup of
metaphors and images.43 This abundance of attention, however, has
not rendered the text less difficult to interpret.
The problems begin with attempting to distinguish the component
parts of the text. The narrative does not fit together well.44 Between
'Io\)5aicGv and the temple narrative features actions traditionally interpreted as a

'cleansing'.
41. A similar understanding of this verse can be found in Brown, Gospel
according to John, 1.112-113; Kysar, John, p. 48; and Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 1.341-343.
42. R.F. Collins, 'Cana (Jn. 2.1-12)—The First of His Signs or the Key to
His Signs?' ITQ 47 (1980), pp. 79-95 (80), and Staley, Print's First Kiss, p. 90.
43. See, for example, D. Foster, 'John Come Lately: The Belated Evangelist',
in F. McConnell (ed.), The Bible and the Narrative Tradition (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1986), pp. 113-31 (114); and W. Roth, 'Scripture Coding in the
Fourth Gospel', BR 32 (1987), pp. 6-29 (11).
44. This has been noted, among others, by Collins, 'Cana (Jn. 2.1-12)',
pp. 81-82, and has given rise to a creative interpretation that considers the text an
adaptation of Judaic haggadic traditions on the feast of Ahasuerus in the book of
Esther in R. Aus, Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptism: Early
Jewish-Christian Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2.1-11 and Mark 6.17-29
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
the easily distinguished opening and closing verses the reader finds a
series of events only roughly connected with one another. Rather than
attempting to force this sequence of events into a neatly constructed
framework, I have divided the main body of the narrative into com-
ponent parts by noting the changes in characters. Ancient dramatists
and storytellers typically limited the dialogue within their works to
two characters at a time and the author of the Fourth Gospel appears
on occasion to follow that general rule.45 If we consider the servants a
single character, two primary characters nearly always share the stage
in this narrative. Verse 6 stands as an obvious exception, but since it
contains no dialogue we can deem it an informational interlude which
prepares the way for the ensuing interaction between the characters.
Thus, noting the changes in dialogue partners provides a helpful way
to divide this passage into its component parts. Between the introduction
(2.1-2) and the conclusion (2.11), we find the main body (2.3-10),
which consists of the following sub-units: (a) Jesus and his Mother (2.3-
4), (b) the Mother of Jesus and the Servants (2.5), (c) an Informational
Interlude (2.6), (d) Jesus and the Servants (2.7-8), and e) the Steward
and the Bridegroom (2.9-10).
2.7-2 Introduction. The first two verses of the narrative set the scene,
announcing that Jesus and his disciples received an invitation to attend
a wedding in Cana of Galilee. The narrator does not indicate when
Jesus joined the festivities, but notes that his mother46 arrived ahead of
him. Nor does the narrator identify the principals of the wedding,
which suggests, as we would expect, that the presence of Jesus at the
wedding has greater significance than the wedding itself.47
45. Ellis, The Genius of John, p. 8; J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in
the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1979), pp. 26-27;
G. Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Rome:
Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1987), p. 115; and G.R. O'Day, The Word Disclosed:
John's Story and Narrative Preacing (St Louis, MI: CBP Press, 1987), pp. 55-56.
46. The narrator speaks only of 'the mother of Jesus' and never refers to her by
name. That, in and of itself, does not seem disparaging and may in fact imply honor;
cf. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.98.
47. The text may not reveal the full significance of this until a chapter later, as
shall be seen in the discussion of Jn 3.22-30. Stibbe, John's Gospel, p. 67, suggests
that by opening the narrative with a wedding, an episode with a happy ending, the
narrator portrays Jesus from the beginning as one who marks the arrival of God's
triumphant last day.
As observed earlier, this wedding took place on 'the third day', a

temporal marker made ambiguous by the fact that the previous narra-
tive has already made note of at least three specific days (1.29, 35, 43).
Although the time references in the Fourth Gospel seldom have sym-
bolic meaning,48 a reader familiar with the Christian tradition could
find here a subtle allusion to the resurrection of Jesus on the third day.
The mention of his 'hour' by Jesus in verse four strengthens that
possibility, since the 'hour' will refer later (13.1) to the passion.49
Such nuances of meaning, however, would pass unnoticed by a first-
time reader and do not seem imperative for an interpretation of the
narrative. If the narrator did intend the numeration of days to convey
a symbolic meaning, he or she did little to enhance it.
At this point the reader knows only that Jesus has received an invita-
tion to a wedding attended by his mother. That information provides
sufficient preparation for the series of dialogues which comprise the
main body of the narrative.
2.3-10 Main body. Even though it does not flow smoothly, the main
body of the narrative contains sufficient information to keep the
reader aware of the changing events and to add drama and mystery to
the story. The brief dialogue between Jesus and his mother (2.3-4)
introduces the need Jesus will eventually meet, but in a way that makes
the reader initially uneasy with his attitude toward her and unsure that
he will respond favorably to her. Her subsequent instructions to the
servants (2.5) indicate that, despite his preliminary negative response,
she fully expects him to do something. At that point the narrator
interrupts the story to provide additional information about the setting
(2.6). This break in the narrative, which occurs without explanation,
invites the reader to ponder its significance. Jesus then gives the instruc-
tions to the servants that pave the way for the miracle which the text
does not explicitly describe (2.7-8). In the final scene of the main
body (2.9-10), the comments made by the steward of the feast reveal
that a miracle has occurred and his extended comments in an otherwise
48. Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 68; Kysar, John, p. 44.

49. I disagree with Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 69, and Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 1.325, who consider 'the third day' an indication of the
prompt fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus in 1.50-51. The events at Cana do
manifest the glory of Jesus, but the text makes no explicit reference to the opening of
the heavens or to ascending or descending angels.
terse narrative again invite interpretation.

(a) 2.3-4 Jesus and his mother. The mother of Jesus initiates the only
true dialogue in this narrative by informing him that the consumption
of wine at the wedding has exceeded the supply. Although she does not
explicitly request that he do something about that, her observation
suggests that she expects some response.50 Some have posited that she
brought the shortage to Jesus' attention because the arrival of his party
caused a strain on the wine supply which he, as a mendicant preacher,
would have lacked the means to remedy.51 Such an observation seems
purely speculative. The narrator has interest only in his response and
not in why the supply of wine failed.52
The wine itself, however, does appear of interest to the narrator,
who mentions the shortage in both the genitive absolute with which
v. 3 begins and in the direct discourse of the mother of Jesus with
which it ends. Numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible and the
Pseudepigrapha depict an abundance of wine as a symbol of the
messianic age.53 The narrator thus places Jesus in a situation in which
he can perform an act symbolic of the arrival of messianic times. This
becomes all the more plausible in light of the huge amount of water
later turned to wine (2.6ff.) and similar association of messianic days
with nuptial ceremonies.54 Without making exaggerated claims about
that which the wine represents,55 the reader can observe that the
narrator draws attention to its shortage and suggests through his
mother that Jesus has the means of providing for the need.
At first, however, Jesus appears unwilling to respond and answers
his mother with words that modern readers may consider disrespectful:
'What is that to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come'
(2.4). The initial portion of Jesus' response sounds, at the very least,
50. E. Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1-6

(trans. R.W. Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 172.
51. G.R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987),
p. 34; J.D.M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1970), pp. 228-30.
53. For example, Gen. 49.10-12; Isa. 29.17; Jer. 31.5, 12; Hos. 14.7; Amos
9.13-14; Joel 4.18; 1 Enoch 10.19, Bar. 29.5.
54. Ellis, Genius of John, p. 43.
55. K.T. Cooper, The Best Wine: John 2.1-11', WTJ 41 (1979), pp. 364-80
(376-79).
'unusual and astonishing'.56 The phrase appears frequently in both

biblical material and Greek literature57 and typically indicates refusal
of a request.58 Most commentators agree, however, that here it implies
no disrespect or lack of affection.59 Collins has supported this by
noting that in contexts of 'friendship and ... some intimacy' the phrase
indicates a bond which joins two people together.60 In the present
context, Jesus' words indicate that human ties cannot determine how
he will act. As he will at other places in the Fourth Gospel,61 Jesus
here affirms his sovereignty.62 If he responds to this need, he will do
so not because of the intercession of his mother but because he himself
has determined action appropriate.
Brown considers the fact that Jesus refers to his mother as 'woman'
(yuvai) and not as 'mother' an indication that yovai must have sym-
bolic meaning.63 Nothing in the narrative supports such an interpre-
tation, however, and the use by Jesus of the same word to identify the
Samaritan woman at the well (4.21) and Mary Magdalene at the tomb
(20.15) further weakens it.
The reference of Jesus to his 'hour', however, does invite symbolic
interpretation. The Johannine Jesus often uses that term to refer to his
passion64 and a reader familiar with the Gospel and/or the tradition
behind it would find here an anticipation of the climax of his ministry.
But even an uninitiated reader would find the term striking. Although
it has not appeared previously in the narrative, it firmly suggests that
Jesus responds to some greater plan or authority and not merely to the
bidding of others.
At this point it remains uncertain whether or not Jesus will meet the
need brought to his attention by his mother. If he does, he will do so

57. E. Delebecque, 'Les Deux Vins de Cana (Jean, II, 3-4)', RevThom 85
(1985), pp. 242-52 (243-46).
58. C.P. Ceroke, T h e Problem of Ambiguity in John 2,4', CBQ 21 (1959),
pp. 316-40(319).
59. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.99; Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 69;
Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 116-17; Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 173.
60. Collins, 'Cana (Jn 2.1-12)', p. 84.
61. Cf. 4.49-50; 7.3-10; 11.1-6.
62. M.M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 72.
64. Cf. 7.30; 8.20; 12.23; 13.1; 17.1.
because he considers the need significant beyond the present context,

that is, his words indicate that the exigency of the situation has to do
with more than merely providing wine for a wedding feast.
(b) 2.5 The mother of Jesus and the servants. Jesus' less than enthusi-
astic response to her tacit request leaves his mother undaunted. Rather
than continuing her discussion with him, she abruptly turns to the
servants and tells them to follow whatever instructions he gives them.
She obviously does not feel rejected and has confidence he will make
an appropriate response to the situation.
It seems superfluous to consider her words to the servants an indica-
tion that the mother of Jesus was a distinguished guest at the wedding.65
Although she will appear again in ch. 19, the evangelist does not
develop her as a major character. In this passage, she illustrates first
the fact that Jesus distances himself from traditional human ties, as
observed earlier, and secondly, in this verse, the appropriate response
of faith. She does not know what he will do, but she has confidence he
will do something. As John's disciples earlier responded to his invita-
tion to 'come and see' (1.39), so, too, the mother of Jesus is willing to
'wait and see' what he will do. The narrator thus invites the readers,
who identify with her because of her relationship with Jesus, to expect
a response along with her.
(c) 2.6 Informational interlude. After the servants receive vague
instructions from the mother of Jesus, the narrator interrupts the story
with an informational aside that notes the availability of 'six stone
water jars' at the scene. Such asides appear frequently in the Fourth
Gospel66 and this one clearly suggests not only that the water jars will
play a part in the ensuing narrative but also that they bear significance
in and of themselves. In contrast to the terse statements in the sur-
rounding material, the narrator provides a thorough description of
these vessels, indicating that they were stone, that they served to hold
water, that they related to 'the purification rites of the Jews' (icaid
TOV KaOapiajxov xcov 'Io\)5aia)v), and that they held twenty to thirty
gallons each. Each of these characteristics merits attention.
Barrett considers it possible for the number 'six' to have symbolic
meaning since it is one less than perfection and thus could refer to the
65. Contra F.S. Parnham, T h e Miracle at Cana', EvQ 42 (1970), pp. 107-109
(108).
66. A comprehensive list can be found in G.C. Nicholson, Death as Departure:
The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 33.
Jewish dispensation. He notes, however, that the absence of a seventh

vessel provided by Jesus weakens this possibility.67 Nor does it seem
appropriate to find here a symbol of the days of creation followed and
consummated by the Sabbath.68 As noted earlier, numbers seldom have
symbolic meaning in the Fourth Gospel.69 Nothing in the narrative
reinforces a symbolic meaning for the number six. That does not hold
true, however, for the remaining characteristics of the water jars.
Regardless whether water jars of such dimensions normally70 or
never71 stood in or around a Jewish house, Jesus' later employment of
them in his miracle has a profound impact on the reader.72 The mother
of Jesus has noted that the wine had stopped flowing. That statement,
followed by the subtle suggestion of the narrator that six huge water
jars awaited use in solving this problem, strengthens the earlier suspi-
cion that this narrative has to do with more than merely a Galilean
wedding. Even if the week of nuptial ceremonies had just begun, one
could scarcely imagine the need for such exaggerated quantities of
wine. Readers steeped in Jewish tradition could easily recall the pro-
phetic depictions of the end times as characterized by an abundance of
wine. 73 Even those lacking such background could suspect more at
work here than meets the eye. Jesus promised in the closing verses of
the previous narrative that the disciples would see 'greater things'
(1.50). The presence of these enormous water jars suggests he may
soon fulfill that promise.
The composition and purpose of the water jars also seem important.
Scholars frequently note that under Levitical law stone jars could not
become contaminated.74 Thus the observation that the water jars were
made of stone, along with the note of their use in purification rites,
invites the reader to ponder the relationship of Jesus to the issue of
67. Barrett, Gospel according to StJohn, p. 191.

69. Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 68; Kysar, John, p. 44.
70. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 35; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St
John, 1.332.
71. Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 173.
72. Aus, Water into Wine, p. 19; Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 173;
Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 189; contra Kysar, John, p. 46.
73. Jer. 31.12; Hos. 14.7; Amos 9.13-14. See also Brown, Gospel of John,
1.105; and Olsson, Structure and Meaning, p. 101.
74. See, amongst others, Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 191; Brown,
Gospel of John, 1.100; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 1.332.
purification.75 We will return to this in the following discussion of the

meaning and function of water in this passage and again in the exami-
nation of Jn 3.22-30, but we can see here a clear inference that what
Jesus does has bearing on the issue of purification,
(d) 2.7-8 Jesus and the servants. Following the informative aside, the
narrative again moves quickly and without excessive detail. As his
mother anticipated, Jesus does have instructions for the servants. He
first tells them to fill the water jars with water, and then, after they
have filled them to the brim, he commands, 'Now draw some and take
it to the steward76 of the feast' (2.8).
Some interpreters have observed that the verb dvxA,eco usually
implies drawing water from a well.77 While that may hold true else-
where, it does not seem appropriate here. By noting that the servants
filled the water jars 'to the brim', the narrator leads the reader to
conclude that they contained only water when Jesus gave his instructions
to the servants. Such detail would prove superfluous and, thus, out of
character with the surrounding narrative unless one of those water jars
provided the substance the servants carried to the steward. Otherwise
water jars filled to the brim would have no connection with the need
stated in the passage. The water jars, once merely an aid to ritual
purification, gain new significance as Jesus uses them to respond on
one level to the need expressed in the story and on another level to the
deeper realities the story symbolizes. Yet, the narrative focuses not on
the water jars, which will lack significance in the passage once the
miracle is revealed, but on Jesus, who has used them.
If a miracle has occurred by this point, the narrator has not expli-
citly informed the reader of it. The servants apparently have no aware-
ness of drawing anything except water (2.9). The narrator directs the
attention of the reader not to the miracle, but to the one who works it,
the one to whom it points.
75. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 191; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel,

p. 189; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, p. 101.
76. I have accepted the traditional translation of dp%ixpiKA,ivo<; as 'steward'.
This individual presided over the banquet. For an interesting hypothesis regarding
the derivation of the word, see Aus, Water into Wine, p. 16.
77. Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 71; B.M. Newman and E.A. Nida, A
Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John (London: United Bible Societies,
1980), p. 58; Parnham, The Miracle at Cana', p. 108.
(e) 2.9-70 The steward and the bridegroom. Jesus and, apart from an
aside in v. 9, the servants now fade from view and the narrative
features the steward and the bridegroom. The steward, after tasting
the water which has become wine, finds it so impressive that he calls
the bridegroom and notes that people typically serve wine of such
quality at the beginning of a feast, not near the end.
With the steward, the narrator once again introduces a person des-
cribed as 'unknowing'. The steward does not know from whence the
wine came. This reminds the reader of the Jews in the previous pass-
age who did not know John. Such lack of knowledge of origins
characterizes a number of people in the Fourth Gospel78 and indicates
their inability and/or unwillingness to believe in Jesus.79 Unlike other
unknowing individuals, the steward appears more comic than tragic,80
but his lack of knowledge underscores for the reader the fact that only
the servants find themselves in a position to understand what has hap-
pened. This tacitly reveals that those who, like servants, obey Jesus,
will find themselves capable of coming to an understanding of what he
does and can do. Just as John began his ministry of baptism with water
without knowing the identity of Jesus (1.31), but through obedience to
God fulfilled a divine purpose and discovered the lamb of God for
himself, so also the servants did not know what they carried to the
steward, but through obedience to Jesus took part in the miracle he
worked that led to a manifestation of his glory (2.11).
The steward may not have known from whence the wine came, but
he did recognize its quality. We observed earlier that in Jewish litera-
ture wine frequently serves as a symbol of the messianic age. The
comments of the steward may build upon that symbolism since Jesus
produces not merely wine, but good wine and, possibly, wine in great
quantity. At the very least, this indicates that Jesus not only can meet
the present need but can do so in an extraordinary way, a way which
brings unexpected quality to life.81 The steward may lack awareness
of from whence the wine came, but he declares, for those at the feast
and for the reader, that what has taken place lies beyond the realm of
78. Jn 1.48; 3.8; 4.11; 6.5; 7.25-28; 8.14; 9.29-30; 19.9.

79. Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 189; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, p. 59.
80. B.T. Viviano, The Missionary Program of John's Gospel', TBT 22
(1984), pp. 387-93 (390-91).
81. A. Mayer, 'Elijah and Elisha in John's Signs Source', ExpTim 99 (1988),
pp. 171-73 (172).
previous experience. The main body of the narrative closes with Jesus
offering something new to the celebrants at Cana and to the reader of
the Fourth Gospel.
2.11 Conclusion. The narrator now brings the account of the events at
Cana to a close by noting that through 'this first of the signs' Jesus
'manifested his glory' and, as a result, his disciples believed in him.
Rather than merely summarizing the preceding narrative, these words
detail their impact and significance.
This initial sign and the manner in which the narrator has described
the miracle account illustrate the intended function not merely of the
specifically labelled signs82 but of everything Jesus does in the Fourth
Gospel. The narrator, who passes over the actual miracle without com-
ment, now explicitly declares what Jesus accomplished with it and the
effect it had on the disciples. This leads (if not compels) the reader to
consider the revelation or manifestation of the 'glory' (56â) of Jesus
and not the miracle of changing water into wine the central message
of the story.83 More than simply changing water into wine, Jesus has
transformed an ordinary wedding feast into an occasion on which his
86£a, earlier identified as 'glory as of the only one from the Father'
(1.14), can be recognized by those willing to receive him (1.12).84
Apart from the facts that the steward marveled at the quality of the
wine and the servants knew from whence it came, the narrator shows
no interest in the effect this has on the public. The disciples have
received the first installment of the promise made to Nathanael (1.50).
Jesus has begun his public ministry by revealing some of his
capacity to meet fundamental human needs and by leading his disciples
deeper into faith. The narrator's interest in those themes will continue
as the story unfolds.

Since this narrative section comes to a climax with the manifestation
of the glory of Jesus and the resulting belief of his disciples, we must
82. Collins, 'Cana (Jn 2.1-12)', p. 80.

83. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.103-104; Bultmann, Gospel of John,
p. 119.
84. In this Jesus functions as a 'sanctifying drink' that both comes from and
represents the Logos. See E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman
Period. VI. Fish, Bread, and Wine (New York: Pantheon, 1956), pp. 203-204.
take care not to over-emphasize the role water plays within it. Whatever
nuances of meaning and function water has in the passage, its primary
significance resides in how it contributes to the development of those
central aims.
Various commentators have concluded that the changing of the
water into wine symbolizes 'the re-creation of Jewish faith' through
the life and ministry of Jesus,85 the perfecting and transforming of the
Law by the gospel,86 and the replacement of Jewish institutions by the
salvation offered in Jesus.87 While a reader aware of Jewish tradition
in general and of the symbolism of wine and messiah in particular can
find some foundation on which to build such conclusions, the narrative
itself lends no implicit support to them.
The narrative does, however, link water closely with the issue of
purification. The word 'water' (aiScop) appears three times (vv. 7, 9
[x2]) and on each occasion has a close association with the 'water jars'
(\)5pica) used in Jewish rites of purification. Although the water even-
tually becomes wine, the fact that the wine came from (and, possibly,
now stands in great quantities in) those vessels invites symbolic
interpretation.
Olsson, who has detailed a number of similarities between John 1.19-
2.11 and Jewish interpretation of Exodus 19-24, considers purification
'a vital motif in the context of the Cana narrative'.88 He posits that just
as the Israelites had to receive a water baptism for cleansing in order
to receive the Law at Sinai and John had to baptize with water before
receiving the revelation of the bearer of the new covenant, so also
purification stands essential for the birth of a new people of God in
the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. While the disciples do not receive
a new baptism in this passage, the manifestation of Jesus' glory that
leads to their belief in him takes place with the aid of the water held
within water jars used in purification rites. Clearly the narrator, who
interrupts the story to inform the reader of the availability of those
water jars, expects the reader to make that connection. Not water itself,
but Jesus' use of it prepares the disciples to believe, which in turn
leads to their becoming children of God (1.12). As Jesus will use water
before the feast of the Passover to 'cleanse' the disciples (13.10), so
85. Kysar, John's Story of Jesus, p. 24.

86. Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 100.
87. Ellis, Genius of John, p. 44.
88. Olsson, Structure and Meaning, pp. 51, 102-106.
here at the wedding feast at Cana his employment of water brings

them into contact with his glory. As in the previous passage, water
bears witness to something new. The steward attested to that without
realizing the full implications of his statement. What Jesus brings to
the wedding feast increases the joy of the celebration and offers far
more than ritual purification.89
In addition to that, at Cana water has a more completely symbolic
function. It not only bears witness to another reality but also embodies
something about that reality. As water served to purify the celebrants
under the Jewish dispensation and to enable them to partake in the wed-
ding feast, so the water from vessels used in purification rites, when
turned to wine by Jesus, enables the disciples to grasp more fully his
identity.90 The one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1.33) begins
his ministry by using water to bring his disciples to faith.
This does not, however, support a sacramental interpretation of the
function and meaning of water. The changing of the water into wine
would seem to preclude any possible allusions to baptism. What hap-
pened to the water and not water used in its natural state prompted
awareness of Jesus' identity. Nor does the water, before or after the
transformation, appear to represent the wine of the eucharist. For one
thing, the narrative does not portray the disciples partaking of the water
turned to wine. They beheld the glory of Jesus as a result of the sign
performed and not by means of the wine it created.91 In addition to that,
at this point in the narrative the glory refers not as much to Jesus' death,
as one would expect of a sacrament, as it does to his power.92 The nar-
rator, who has interest primarily in this manifestation of his glory,
does nothing to help a non-Christian reader find sacramental meaning
89. M. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 69;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 223-24.
90. Koester, Symbolism, p. 163, takes this farther and considers the trans-
formation of the water an indication that purification would now be accomplished
through revelation.
Readers familiar with the rituals associated with Dionysus, who discovered the
vine and had the ability to transform water into wine, would consider Jesus' action a
disclosure of divine identity. See Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 188;
Dodd, Historical Tradition, pp. 224-25; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 127.
91. SJ. Nortje, 'The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel', Neot 20 (1988),
pp. 21-28.
92. Paschal, 'Sacramental Symbolism,' pp. 157-58.
in this account.93 If Christian readers find the sacraments present, that

will result from past experiences that lead them to see by inference what
the text itself explicitly neither invites nor supports.94
As in the preceding account of the activity of John, in the narrative
of the wedding at Cana water represents something new. In response
to a significant, but not critical, need, Jesus provides a new revelation
only his disciples stand ready to grasp. Unlike the previous narrative,
however, at Cana water conveys something about the nature of the new
reality it represents. As water effects purification, so does the mani-
festation of Jesus it represents alter the state of the disciples. We can
now speak of water as a symbol without hesitation and can anticipate
the further unveiling of its range of meanings as the narrative unfolds.
3. Narrative III: Jesus and Nicodemus (3.1-21)

Water appears for the third time in John in the dialogue between Jesus
and a prominent Pharisee named Nicodemus, a passage that depicts the
initial encounter of Jesus with a named Jewish leader. No other charac-
ters interrupt or participate in this scene, but near the end of the con-
versation the dialogue becomes essentially a soliloquy, with Jesus
speaking at length while Nicodemus fades silently into the shadows.

The narrative of the dialogue with Nicodemus has a great deal in
common with the verses immediately prior to it (2.23-25). The narra-
tor drew Jn 2 to a close by concluding that, although many people
believed in Jesus because of the signs he performed during the Passover
feast in Jerusalem, Jesus did not trust himself to such believers.
Similarly, despite the fact that Nicodemus displays some knowledge
and appreciation of him, instead of accepting or even acknowledging
what Nicodemus says, Jesus challenges him both to deepen his level of
understanding and to go beyond it.
A number of features, however, set this dialogue apart from the con-
clusion of ch. 2. The events described in the verses prior to John 3
take place in Jerusalem and summarize the reactions of an unspecified
group of people. The narrator makes no reference to geographic loca-

94. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.109; Schnackenburg, Gospel
tion in the scene with Nicodemus, but does introduce and thoroughly
identify a particular individual. As John 3 begins the narrator becomes
more specific and uses the scene with Nicodemus as an illustration of
the belief based on signs previously discussed only in general terms.95
The postpositive conjunction 8e further separates the two sections.
We can distinguish this narrative section from the material which
follows it by noting a change in time, place, and characters. The tem-
poral marker jxexa xa\ixa in 3.22 marks a change in narrative time. In
that same verse the disciples rejoin Jesus and the narrator informs the
reader that they entered the Judean countryside. The dialogue between
Jesus and Nicodemus brings Jesus' initial journey to Jerusalem to an
end.
John 3.1-21 as a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and Development

Three units of gradually increasing length comprise the first sustained
dialogue of the Fourth Gospel: an initial statement by Nicodemus and
the response of Jesus (3.1-3), an initial question by Nicodemus and the
response of Jesus (3.4-8), and a final question by Nicodemus and the
response of Jesus (3.9-21). In these units the remarks of Nicodemus
become progressively shorter while those of Jesus grow longer until,
in the final unit, Nicodemus utters only four words but Jesus' reply
comprises twelve verses. As in the narrative section which detailed
the witness of John (1.19-35), the structure of the passage reflects
the increasing significance of Jesus at the expense of the character
portrayed with him. The narrator develops this thematically by having
Nicodemus state confidently what 'we know' in 3.2 only to have that
knowledge called into question in the subsequent verses and then
challenged when Jesus asks, 'Are you the teacher of Israel, yet you do
not know these things?' (3.10). The affirmation by Jesus that, 'we speak
of what we know' (3.11), completes the picture of the diminishing
credibility of his nocturnal visitor. Further reinforcement of this
theme occurs in the contrast of the appearance of the verb 'to be able'
(8i3vaTai) in each speech of Nicodemus (3.2, 4, 9) with his deepening
inability to comprehend what Jesus says to him.
Although the two characters stand alone in this scene, Jesus and
Nicodemus appear to represent more than two isolated human beings.
As noted above, both characters at times use first person plural verbal
95. O'Day, The Word Disclosed, p. 18.

forms in their addresses.96 On two occasions Jesus also uses the plural
form of the personal pronoun cro when speaking to Nicodemus.97 In
addition to that, the lengthy 'credentials' which introduce Nicodemus
in 3.1, later recalled when Jesus refers to him as 'the teacher of Israel'
(3.10), establish him as a representative of a larger group. Jesus
obviously represents the Johannine community, but the narrator pro-
vides insufficient information to determine beyond doubt for whom
Nicodemus stands. Schnackenburg concludes that Nicodemus represents
the body of Jewish authorities who could not accept Jesus because he
claimed direct authority from God.98 Others have posited that he rep-
resents those who have come to the threshold of faith but, for whatever
reason, fail to believe.99 As stated earlier, we can also consider
Nicodemus an illustration of the believers mentioned at the end of
ch. 2 whom Jesus did not trust because they based their faith on
signs. 100 The list of the credentials of Nicodemus provided at the
beginning of the passage suggests that the reader should consider him a
representative of Judaism, but, given the characteristic ambiguity of the
Fourth Gospel in general and of this passage in particular, the narrator
may want the reader to consider all of the above viable possibilities.
Whomever Nicodemus represents, he functions in the text primarily as
a ploy used to introduce the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never makes a
specific response to what Nicodemus says. Instead, he gives extended
discourses based only tenuously on a small part of the remarks made
by his dialogue partner.
3.1-3 Initial Statement and Response. The narrator provides an exten-

sive description of Nicodemus, calling him a man (dvGpcorcoc;), a
Pharisee, and a leader of the Jews (3.1), and noting that he came to
96. Nicodemus uses the first person plural form o'(8a|Liev in 3.2, his only first
person address. Jesus uses the first person plural form four times in 3.11 (o'i5a|iev,
XaA.o\)(i£V, ecopdKajiev, and îapTUpoi)U£v), but in other first person addresses uses
the singular verbal ending (3.3, 5).
97. He does this in 3.7, 12; but in 3.5, 7, 10, 11 he uses the singular form.
99. Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 201; and S.M. Schneiders, 'Born
Anew', TTod 44 (1987), pp. 189-96 (191).
100. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.135; R.F. Collins, 'Jesus' Conversa-
tion with Nicodemus', TBT 93 (1977), pp. 1409-19 (1410); M. Michel, 'Nicodeme
ou le non-lieu de la verite', RevScRel 55 (1981), pp. 227-36 (229); and Rensberger,
Johannine Faith, p. 38.
Jesus at night (3.2). Each of these details has significance.

The normally neutral term dvGpcorcoc; has negative connotations in
this setting. The immediately preceding verses stated that Jesus did not
trust believers who depended on signs because he knew what was 'in a
person' (ev %<o dvOpcorcca) and therefore had no need for anyone to
bear witness 'concerning a person' (rcepi IOV dvGpc&Jcoi)) (2.23-25).
We would not expect Nicodemus to be anything other than human, but
the designation of him as an dv0pcG7co<; after those remarks makes the
reader suspicious of him at best. The designation of Nicodemus as a
Pharisee and as a leader of the Jews continues this subtle negative
portrayal. When last encountered in 1.24-28 the Pharisees failed to
perceive John's identity and when the narrator last spoke of the Jews
in 1.18-21 they could not understand what Jesus had said to them.
Even before Nicodemus begins his conversation with Jesus and states
what he knows the reader has a jaundiced view of him.
The fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night completes this nega-
tive portrait and gives the reader more than ample reason not to trust
him. The prologue identified Jesus as the bearer of the life which was
'the light of humanity' (to <|)c5<; TCOV dvGpcorccov) (1.4) and further
implied that darkness stands in opposition to this light (1.5). Later
references to night101 will continue to develop it as a symbol of evil
and of opposition to Jesus, but the reader does not need those witnesses
to conclude that the narrator casts a shadow of suspicion on Nicodemus
even before the dialogue begins. Additional support for this conclu-
sion will appear near the end of this narrative section as the narrator
observes that the light has come into the world but that people
(dv6pco7toi) loved the darkness more (3.19-21).
Despite this negative description, Nicodemus initiates the dialogue
with what sounds like a positive statement, declaring that the signs
Jesus has performed clearly identify him as a 'teacher come from
God' (3.2). That description may indicate that Nicodemus regards
Jesus as more than a teacher, an inclination the ensuing dialogue will
prove (for the reader) beyond doubt. As already noted, however, the
fact that the leader of the Jews has depended on signs to draw this
conclusion immediately renders it suspect because of the undermining
of a faith based on signs at the close of the previous chapter.
Rather than respond to this gentle flattery, Jesus abruptly announces
101. Jn9.4; 11.10; 13.30.

that unless one is 'born anew' (Y£vvt|6fj dvcoOev) one cannot see the
realm of God (3.3). The adverb dvco6ev can mean 'from above', a
meaning many have preferred given the content of the verses which
follow and what the term signifies in other contexts.102 Nicodemus,
however, will interpret the word differently when he responds to Jesus
in the next unit (3.4). Since misunderstandings based on 'misplaced
literalness' characterize the Fourth Gospel,103 it seems best to translate
dvcoGev as 'anew' and thereby to leave the interpretive options open
for both Nicodemus and the reader.
But what does Jesus mean by birth dvcoGev? Readers familiar with
the Christian tradition would no doubt consider this a reference to
baptism, a conclusion strengthened by the discussion of baptism in the
remainder of the chapter.104 Jesus begins to discuss with Nicodemus
the baptism he will soon offer in the land of Judea (3.21).105 The only
previous discussion of baptism in the Gospel, however, made no refer-
ence to new birth (1.24-34). The narrator did state in the prologue
that those who believed in the Word received power to become children
of God (1.12), but nothing in the Gospel narrative has explained how
that takes place or linked it with baptism. At this point, Jesus' words
remain open for interpretation, challenging Nicodemus (and the
reader)106 to discover what Jesus means as the dialogue unfolds.
3.4-8 Initial Question and Response. Nicodemus may have seen enough
to know that Jesus is 'a teacher come from God' (3.2), but this leader
of the Jews does not know how to interpret his teachings. His initial
question (3.4) discredits him with the reader because he confuses the
'new birth' of which Jesus speaks with a human process. Twice he asks
102. For example, Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 150; Schnackenburg, Gospel

according to St John, p. 367; and M. Vellanickal, The Divine Sonship of Christians
in the Johannine Writings (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), p. 172.
103. Schneiders, 'Born Anew', p. 192.
104. G.R. Beasley-Murray, 'John 3.3,5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom',
ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 167-70 (168-69).
105. W.C. Grese, ' "Unless One Is Born Again": The Use of a Heavenly Journey
in John 3', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 677-93 (686-87).
106. One commentator argues that since Jesus does not address Nicodemus
specifically either here or in v. 7, the question being posited is not whether Nicodemus
can have such birth but rather who in general can have it. See J.A. Trumbower,
Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John (Tubingen: Mohr, 1992),
pp. 71-79.
how a person can bring about such a birth. Aided by the information
the narrator provided in the prologue (1.13), the reader does not
make this mistake and understands that the birth described by Jesus
results from a divine rather than a human process. Seeing the realm of
God will depend not on his ability, but on his faith (1.12).
In response to the question asked by Nicodemus, Jesus expands his
notion of birth dvcoGev. He begins by stating that birth 'of water and
spirit' stands necessary for entrance into the realm of God (3.5),
which parallels his earlier statement that birth dvooOev stands neces-
sary for seeing the realm of God. No difference exists between seeing
and entering the realm of God and these two verbal images will func-
tion synonymously throughout the Fourth Gospel.107 In like manner
birth 'of water and spirit' appears synonymous with birth anew, but
that phrase invites interpretation.
Some have concluded that birth 'of water' refers to natural or
physical birth, while birth 'of spirit' refers to a later spiritual birth.108
It would prove superfluous, however, for Jesus to insist only that
natural birth precede birth dvcoGev. Nicodemus attempted such a
literal and wooden interpretation of his words and missed the point.
Of course only those born once can be born anew!109 The parallel
structure of Jesus' words in 3.3 and 3.5 invites the reader to consider
the entire clause, 'unless one is born of water and spirit' and not merely
a part of it, a reiteration of 'unless one is born anew'. Both water and
spirit play some part in birth dvcoGev.
Other commentators have concluded that birth 'of water and spirit'
denotes the act of baptism which is followed by and, in some way,
instrumental in the gift of the Spirit.110 The narrator in the Gospel of
107. Note, for example, 3.36; 6.40; and 14.7.

108. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference, pp. 141-42; Odeberg, Fourth Gospel,
p. 48; M. Pamment, 'John 3.5: "Unless One is Born of Water and the Spirit, He
Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God" \ NovT 25 (1983), pp. 189-90 (190); Schneiders,
'Born Anew', p. 192; Witherington, 'Waters of Birth', pp. 155, 160.
109. For some readers of the Fourth Gospel, the birth of water and spirit may
bring to mind Homer's nymphs, which are described as souls joined to water, which
has in it the Spirit of God. See E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-
Roman Period. IX. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue (New York: Pantheon,
1964), pp. 217-18.
110. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.144; Haenchen, John. I. A
Commentary, p. 200; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 152; Schnackenburg, Gospel
Luke and the book of Acts makes such a distinction between water
baptism and the gift of the Spirit, but the narrator in the Fourth Gospel
either does not know that tradition or chooses to ignore it. When the
topic of baptism appears near the end of this chapter (3.22, 26) and at
the beginning of the next chapter (4.1-2), the narrator makes no
reference to the Spirit. Similarly, in later references to the imparting
of the Spirit111 the narrator makes no mention of baptism. Only John's
prediction that while he baptized with water, the one to come would
baptize with the Holy Spirit (1.33) links the two terms, and nothing in
that context associates either of them with birth avco9ev.
One can readily understand how a reader familiar with Christian
tradition would conclude that birth 'of water and spirit' refers to the
practice of baptism.112 Nothing in the text itself, however, makes such
an understanding compulsory. The parallel structures of Jesus' words
in 3.3 and 3.5 imply that we may consider water and Spirit identifi-
able but not inseparable components of the same experience, namely,
birth dvcoGev. Support for this conclusion appears in the work of
those who have argued that the conjunction Kai in the phrase 'of water
and spirit' functions epexegetically; that is, in phrases like this one the
noun which follows Kai clarifies or expands the meaning of the noun
which precedes it.113 Whether or not birth 'of water and spirit'
denotes baptism, that birth alone permits access to the realm of God.
The narrator places the emphasis on the Spirit, which Jesus will mention
frequently in the remarks that follow, while water will disappear
altogether from the narrative. The narrative does not offer a detailed
explanation of how this birth takes place, which prompts the question
Nicodemus will ask at the beginning of the next unit. I will return to
the relationship between water and Spirit when we discuss the
meaning and function of water in this narrative section.
Jesus develops his concept of birth dvcoGev/'of water and spirit' by
stating that Nicodemus should not marvel at the fact that he considers
such birth necessary (3.7), since those born 'of the flesh' remain of the
111. Jn 6.63; 7.38-39; 14.16-17, 26; 20.22.

112. R.E. Brown, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965), pp. 93-
94; Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 200; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 116.
113. Barth, Witness to the Word, p. 134; E. Shussler Fiorenza, The Ethics of
Interpretation: De-Centering Biblical Scholarship', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 3-17 (8-9);
Leon-Dufour, Towards a Symbolic Reading', p. 450; Vellanickal, Divine Sonship,
p. 186.
flesh and those born 'of the spirit' remain of the Spirit (3.6). This
further supports the conclusion that water does not refer to natural
birth in 3.5, since Jesus here uses flesh and not water to refer to that
event. Nicodemus has correctly perceived that fleshly birth cannot
reoccur. He has not, however, pondered the possibility of spiritual
birth.
Jesus then adds that those born of the Spirit can be compared with
the wind,114 which blows where it will and, although one can hear it,
one cannot know (oi5a<;) from where it comes or to where it goes
(3.8). Those words move birth dvcoGev/'of water and spirit' beyond
the realm of merely human understanding and challenge the authority
with which Nicodemus made his declaration of what 'we know'
(oi8a|U£v) (3.2). The knowledge of Nicodemus (and others like him
who depend on signs?) depends on natural senses, but the reality of
which Jesus speaks lies beyond merely human comprehension. The
reader may remember that the steward at the wedding feast at Cana
did not know (TJ5ei) from whence the wine came (2.9). Because of
that lack of knowledge, the steward remained at a loss to explain the
events around him. Nicodemus appears to face a similar dilemma.
3.9-21 Second question and response. Nicodemus, whose two previous

speeches consisted of twenty-four and eighteen words, now can utter
only a desperate question of four words: 'How can this be?' (3.9). Jesus
has rendered this leader of the Jews nearly speechless. Nicodemus no
longer makes a claim to knowledge. He must silently wait for Jesus to
lift the veil of darkness with the light of understanding.
Jesus then erases almost any respect the reader may still have for
Nicodemus by asking, 'Are you the teacher of Israel, yet you do not
know this?' (3.10). Appreciation for Jesus increases as that for
Nicodemus decreases when Jesus solemnly states, 'We speak of what
we know and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not accept
our witness' (3.11). The use of the first person plural form of the verb
permits the reader, who shares Jesus' viewpoint, also to feel superior to
this leader of the Jews. The inability to understand even this elementary
part of Jesus' message renders Nicodemus and those he represents
utterly incapable of comprehending the faith Jesus has come to make
114. For an interesting study of the relationship between wind and water in the
Hebrew Bible, see R. Luyster, 'Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old
Testament', ZAW 93 (1981), pp. 1-10.
possible (3.12). The earthly things (3.12) of which Jesus speaks refer
to birth dvco6ev/'of water and spirit'. Although initiated beyond the
earthly realm, this birth takes place on earth. If Nicodemus cannot
understand that, he certainly will not prove capable of grasping the
more challenging aspects of his ministry of which Jesus will speak next.
In the final three verses of his speech, Jesus reveals the 'heavenly
things' that lie beyond the reach of Nicodemus, stating that only the
Son of Man ascends into and descends from heaven (3.13) and that, as
Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness, so also must the Son of Man
be lifted up (3.14) in order for those who believe in him to have
eternal life (3.15). When the people led by Moses rebelled against God
during their wilderness wanderings, they suffered from an attack of
'fiery serpents' (Num. 12.6). God instructed Moses to save them by
setting a bronze serpent on a pole and telling them to look at it when
bitten. Although the reader does not yet have ample information from
the narrative to draw the conclusion, the 'lifting up' of the Son of Man
anticipates the death and the exaltation of Jesus.115 Jesus introduces
that necessity with the same impersonal verb (8ei) used earlier to
declare the necessity of birth dvcoGev (3.7) and thus deepens the
dilemma Nicodemus faces. If this leader of the Jews cannot compre-
hend the nature of birth dvcoGev, he will remain incapable of accepting
the ultimate act of Jesus' ministry and, thus, will not gain the faith tnat
leads to life eternal.
Jesus then explains that the lifting up of the Son of Man reveals the
love God has for the world. He raises the stakes for birth dvco0ev
even higher as he identifies those who believe as saved and those who
do not as already condemned. Those who refuse to believe remain in
darkness, like that of the night from which Nicodemus came. Those
who believe join the light that has entered the world. The words of the
prologue echo in this narrative, which challenges Nicodemus and the
reader to accept what they cannot 'know' and to become by faith
children of God (cf. 1.10-13).
The narrative has completed an amazing transition. It began with a
man named Nicodemus and ends with the Son of Man. It opened with
the identification of Jesus as a teacher and closes with the revelation of
115. M. Hollis, The Root of the Johannine Pun—vrcacoevai', TS 35 (1989),

pp. 475-78 (475); Kysar, John, p. 54; B. Lindars, 'Discourse and Tradition: The
Use of the Sayings of Jesus in the Discourses of the Fourth Gospel', JSNT 13
(1981), pp. 83-101 (87).
him as the vehicle of eternal life. Along the way, those who identify
with or are identified by Nicodemus lose both credibility and hope for
the future, while those whom the narrator has led to accept and to
identify with Jesus gain the certainly that they have made the correct
choice and the promise of life eternal.

Unlike the previous two narrative sections examined, the meaning and
function of water stand central to the interpretation of the dialogue
between Jesus and Nicodemus. Water appears only once (3.5) in this
section, but the phrase in which it appears intimately links it with the
entire passage.
In his second speech, Jesus declares, 'unless one is born of water and
spirit, one cannot enter the realm of God' (3.5). Following that remark
water does not reappear, but Jesus does mention the Spirit frequently.
The reader, however, can apply all the later meanings of Spirit to
water as well because the copulative conjunction Kai which joins them
in 3.5 functions epexegetically. When Jesus says 'born of water and
Spirit', the reader can understand him to mean, 'born of water, "that
is to say", of spirit'.116 Similarly, the remarks made by Jesus in 3.5
stand parallel to those made in 3.3 and permit/invite the reader to
apply any understanding of what it means to be 'born anew' to being
'born of water and spirit' as well.
As in the previous two narrative sections, in this passage water
marks the arrival of something new, a beginning. More than that, in
the dialogue with Nicodemus water participates in the arrival of that
new reality. Used in 3.5 as an ablative genitive with the preposition
e£, water functions as the agent of the birth Jesus discusses. Neither
Jesus nor the narrator explains precisely how this birth takes place.
That remains something one must accept or acknowledge more than
something one must understand (3.8). To be born of water means to
be born anew, to enter a new set of relationships. As revealed by the
116. In addition to the references previously cited, another example of Kai

functioning in this fashion in the Fourth Gospel can be found in F. Blass and
A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (trans, andrev. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961),
p. 228. A discussion of Kai having an heightening force appears in H.W. Smyth,
Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920),
p. 650.
misunderstanding of Nicodemus (3.4), this birth stands as distinct

from natural birth as flesh does from spirit (3.6).117
While water does not appear to denote purification in this context, it
clearly prepares one for this new set of relationships. Jesus calls birth of
water an 'earthly thing' without which one cannot possibly believe in
the 'heavenly things' he will go on to discuss (3.12). Birth of water pro-
vides access to the realm of God. As the water turned into wine at Cana
served as a means of seeing the glory of Jesus and as the water of
baptism made it possible for John to identify the lamb of God, so in
this narrative water provides the means of believing in the realities
and of accepting the truth proclaimed and manifested by Jesus. Because
of its life-giving qualities, water represents the transformation required
for entrance into the realm of God.
In his speeches Jesus stresses the necessity of this new birth. When
Nicodemus could not understand what Jesus meant by birth anew (3.4),
Jesus expanded his answer and attempted to clarify the concept (3.5-
8). But when Nicodemus remained in the dark (3.9) Jesus unleashed
his most acrimonious criticism of him, sarcastically questioning how
this teacher of the Jews could lack such knowledge (3.10). Jesus then
declared that if Nicodemus could not believe what he had told him thus
far, neither could he believe the greater realities he had to proclaim
(3.12). That comment identifies birth anew/of water and spirit as a
leap of faith that leads from what people have the ability to do for
themselves to what God alone can provide. Nicodemus constantly
pondered how one could have the ability to do what Jesus demanded.
He failed to perceive that Jesus solicited faith, not ability. Jesus then
introduced a second necessity, the necessity of the 'lifting up' of the
Son of Man. By declaring birth of water requisite for accepting this
ultimate act of his ministry, Jesus pronounced it an essential act of
participation in what God sought to accomplish in and through him.
As noted earlier, a reader familiar with Christian tradition would
have difficulty not finding references to the practice of baptism
throughout this passage. Mention of the baptismal practices of Jesus
and John at the end of the chapter make such an interpretation seem
even more plausible. Within this narrative section itself, however,
nothing makes it imperative to consider the words of Jesus a call to
117. Isa. 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-26; Joel 2.28-29; and some of the Qumran material
associate an out-pouring of the Spirit with the last days. See, for example, Brown,
Gospel according to John, 1.140-141.
baptism or an explanation of the effect of baptism. Although the prac-

tice of baptism may stand somewhere behind the text, nothing stated
by the narrator or by Jesus makes an association with baptism con-
crete. Rather, the flow of the narrative moves away from anything a
person has the ability to do to what a person must accept to gain
entrance into the realm of God. As readers can acknowledge the pre-
sence of the wind without knowing from whence it comes or to where
it goes, so also a sense of mystery surrounds birth of water (3.8). To
limit the reality identified and made available by birth anew/of water
and spirit to baptism alone would restrict it unnecessarily and reduce
the imperative of believing.118
Implied throughout this discussion is the fact that water symbolizes
the separation of those who believe in and identify with Jesus from
those who do not. The narrator introduces Nicodemus with several
positive characteristics. None of them avail, however, when he proves
incapable of accepting what Jesus offers. Social standing, knowledge,
and even initial acceptance of Jesus as sent from God will not suffice.
One must first and foremost believe that Jesus has something utterly
distinct to offer and must stand willing to believe, that is, to accept
that gift. Nicodemus finds himself incapable of taking those steps. He
cannot understand what Jesus means and thus he remains in the dark.
He seeks answers before he will commit himself. Yet, only by accepting
what Jesus says can he gain what is necessary for entrance into the
realm of God. Jesus' words call for nothing less than a new beginning,
an utterly different outlook not dependent on one's previous position
or understanding. Water symbolizes that transition: the point of
accepting even what cannot be understood, the point of coming to
faith. It immediately effects a new reality and prepares the way for even
greater participation in the opportunity God provides through Jesus,
the Son of Man through whom believers gain access to eternal life.
4. Narrative IV: Baptism and Controversy (3.22-30)

The next appearance of water also occurs in Jn 3, in a sequence of
events involving Jesus and John, their disciples, and an unnamed Jew
(3.22-30). Unlike the dialogue with Nicodemus, which flowed relatively
smoothly from one unit to the next, this narrative unit shifts abruptly
118. Koester, Symbolism, p. 166, concludes that this text depicts baptism as the
fruit of God's activity and not something done to initiate that activity.
from the baptismal activities of Jesus and John, to an unexplained

controversy regarding purification, and finally to a statement by John
of his relationship with Jesus. The presence of John and the topic of
baptism call to mind his initial appearance in the Gospel, the passage
which introduced the theme of water. The controversy regarding puri-
fication and the wedding terminology used by John to describe his
relationship with Jesus recall the narrative of the wedding at Cana.
Thus both the characters in this scene and its content invite the reader
to apply any understanding of the meaning of water to these verses as
well.

As already noted, the wording of 3.22 announces a change in narrative
time, place, and characters. The temporal prepositional phrase, \iexa
xcrOxa, marks the start of a new sequence of actions, as it does at several
other places in the Gospel narrative.119 The narrator places Jesus and
his disciples in the general region of Judea (3.22) and locates John at
Aenonnear Salim (3.23), both of which indicate movement away from
Jerusalem where the previous scene took place (2.23). Finally, as we
have noted, Nicodemus has disappeared from the narrative and John and
the disciples reappear, joined by an unnamed Jew.
Deciding where this narrative section ends proves more difficult.
The narrator provides no explicit indication of where the speech
which John begins in 3.27 comes to a close. We can observe, however,
that whereas John speaks exclusively of his relationship with Jesus and
focuses primarily on himself in 3.27-30, John completely disappears
in 3.31-36 and the topic of discussion becomes a description of the
origin and the ministry of Jesus and his impact on believers and non-
believers. Even without appropriate verbal markers, I consider that
abrupt change in content sufficient reason to maintain that one narrative
section ends at 3.30 and a new one begins at 3.31.120
119. The phrase (xexd tcrnta also indicates a change of time in 5.1; 6.1; and
19.38. In 5.14 it marks a scene change within a larger narrative, jiexd TOVTO indi-
cates the beginning of a new sequence of material in 2.12. For a brief discussion of
the use of this formula to mark a new beginning, consult J. Painter, 'Tradition and
Interpretation in John 6', NTS 35 (1989), pp. 421-50 (421).
120. For a thorough discussion of the problem of who is speaking in 3.31-36,
see Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.159-160; and Schnackenburg, Gospel
Support for this delineation also appears within the narrative section
itself in the form of a question tacitly posed and answered. The opening
verses report that Jesus and John conducted simultaneous baptismal
ministries (3.22-23). Since during his earlier testimony John declared
the revelation of Jesus to Israel the exclusive purpose of his baptism
(1.31), the reader may wonder why John continues to baptize. The
speech of John which brings this narrative section to a close answers
that question as John repeats his earlier witness to the superiority of
Jesus.

Development
This narrative section can be divided into two units of unequal length,
each of which has two sub-units. The initial unit (3.22-24) recounts
first the baptismal activity of Jesus (3.22) and then that of John (3.23-
24). The second unit contains the final witness of John (3.25-30) and
consists of a brief description of a controversy between his disciples
and an unnamed Jew, which prompts them to report the increasing
popularity of Jesus to John (3.25-26), and the extended response John
makes to this report (3.27-30). The sequence of events begins with all
eyes on Jesus and, despite the fact that John stands at the center of
almost everything that happens subsequently, it ends much the same way
as John announces that Jesus must become greater while he diminishes.
3.22-24 Simultaneous baptismal activities of Jesus and John. The nar-

rator reports on the activities of both Jesus and John with little elabo-
ration. Both of them baptize: Jesus in an area loosely described as 'the
land of Judea' (3.22) and John more specifically 'at Aenon near Salim'
(3.23). For readers familiar with Palestine this geographic information
indicates that the influence of John has already begun to wane. We
cannot locate Aenon with certainty, but it suggests movement to the
north and away from Jerusalem.121 Jesus, on the other hand, appears to
conduct his ministry much closer to the heart of Judaism,
(a) 3.22 Baptismal activity of Jesus. This narrative section begins with
the report that Jesus moved out into the countryside around Jerusalem
where he remained with his disciples and baptized. Only here in the
New Testament do we find evidence of a baptismal ministry conducted
121. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 52; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 225.

by Jesus. Those interested in locating the origin of the Christian prac-

tice of baptism in the ministry of Jesus consider this verse proof that
he himself administered the sacrament. Others view this comment
merely as evidence that some of the former followers of John con-
tinued to baptize after becoming disciples of Jesus and that Jesus
tolerated this. The narrator supports the latter position by 'correcting'
the statement made in 3.22 at the beginning of the next chapter and
declaring that only the disciples and not Jesus himself baptized (4.2).
No one in this narrative section, however, calls Jesus' baptismal prac-
tices into question. John's disciples will attest to baptisms performed by
Jesus (3.26) and beyond that the topic does not reappear. Regardless
what historical events did or did not stand behind this report, the
narrator appears to use it only to prepare the way for the next unit. The
baptismal practices conducted in Judea and beyond somehow sparked a
controversy with a Jew that prompted John's disciples to report to
their leader that Jesus was gaining more disciples than he was attracting.
By reporting that Jesus stayed122 in Judea with his disciples, the
narrator suggests that he conducted an extended ministry there. The
narrator mentions no underlying reason for this protracted visit to
Judea, but it may indicate a period of relative calm in Jesus' ministry.
A reader familiar with the rest of the Gospel can note that at this time
Jesus can safely remain near Jerusalem. As the Gospel unfolds that
will grow less and less possible. Opposition to Jesus will gain intensity
and danger will lurk whenever he nears Jerusalem,
(b) 3.23-24 Baptismal activity of John. While Jesus and his disciples
worked in Judea, John continued his baptismal ministry at Aenon near
Salim (3.23). As already observed, the geographical information pro-
vided by the narrator places John much farther away from Jerusalem
than Jesus. Despite the change in location, the narrator reports that
people still came to John and that John continued to baptize. We can
understand why people did not abandon John. Jesus had only begun his
ministry and we should not expect John's popularity or interest in him
to vanish immediately. We cannot account as easily, however, for the
fact that John continued to baptize. He stated earlier that he came
baptizing solely so he could recognize the one God called him to
reveal to Israel (1.31). With that mission now completed, what reason
did he have to baptize? Did he move to the north in order to make
122. The verb is Siaxpiftetv and not |ieveiv.

roOm for Jesus in Judea, but remain close enough to direct those who
came to him to the south where Jesus ministered? If so, the narrator
does not make that point explicitly. Did he wonder whether he had
made a mistake when he identified Jesus and seek further assurance, as
he appears to do in Lk. 7.18-19 and Mt. 11.2-3? The clarity of his
statements about Jesus in the following verses rule out that possibility.
Did he receive a new call? If he did, the reader can find no reference
to it in the text.
The narrator appears to anticipate the questions raised by this
extended ministry of John and explains that John could continue to
carry on his mission because he had not yet been put into prison
(3.24). In the Synoptics the ministry of Jesus does not begin until after
John's incarceration,123 whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus and John
work simultaneously for a while. A delay of John's imprisonment (or
an early start for the ministry of Jesus) might explain how and why he
had the freedom to minister at the same time as Jesus, but it does
nothing to help the reader understand why he continued to baptize.
Whatever historical reasons the author may have had did not find their
way into the text. From a literary perspective, however, we can observe
that by continuing John's ministry the narrator gives his disciples an
opportunity to bear witness to the rapid spread of the popularity of
Jesus and, at the same time, also provides for John yet another occasion
on which to repeat his witness to the superiority of Jesus.
The narrator's observation that there was 'much water' (3.23)
where John conducted his ministry appears in a causal clause and thus
implies that John selected the site for his ministry on the basis of the
availability of water. The narrator provides no such information about
the location of Jesus' ministry and may use the fact that John needed
an abundant supply of water to draw a further contrast between them.
3.25-30 Final witness of John. In the second half of this narrative

section we again find John answering questions about his baptism
(cf. Jn 1.24-28). This time the questions come from his disciples and
result from a controversy between them and an unnamed Jew over the
issue of purification (3.25). Prompted by this debate, the disciples
come to John and report the increasing popularity of the one to whom
he has borne witness (3.26). John uses this occasion to insist that one
123. Mt. 4.12; Mk 1.14; Lk. 3.20.

can do only what God calls one to do (3.27), to repeat his earlier
statements that he made no claim to be the Christ (3.28), and to des-
cribe in a new way his relationship with the one whose coming he
announced (3.29-30). This sequence of events does not appear to follow
the preceding verses in any logical order. The narrator explains neither
what gave rise to the controversy over purification nor why that led
the disciples to express concern over the growing ministry of Jesus.
The reader can only assume that the mention of purification indicates
that the controversy had some connection with baptism and that, in the
face of such controversy, John's disciples openly pondered the future
of their leader.
(a) 3.25-26 A controversy concerning purification. As previously
noted, the narrator opens this unit with a brief reference to a contro-
versy concerning purification that had arisen between John's disciples
and an unidentified Jew. This information has no clearly defined con-
nection with the preceding narrative, but the issue of purification makes
it appear likely that the dispute had some relation to the baptisms
and/or the water discussed in the opening unit.
Kysar has hypothesized that the use of water may have stood at the
center of the dispute because John used water in a way that differed
from Jewish rites of purification.124 That suggestion receives support
from the fact that a group sent by the Jews in Jerusalem earlier ques-
tioned why John baptized (1.25). The unnamed Jew in this scene could
represent yet another attempt by the authorities to discern the meaning
of John's ministry.125 We should not, however, limit the nature of the
debate to that alone. The rough transition to this unit from the preceding
one suggests that the debate also resulted from differing viewpoints
about the issue of purification in general.126 The narrator earlier
appeared to distinguish the baptismal practices of Jesus from John by
suggesting that Jesus did not need the 'much water' (3.23) employed
by his forerunner. The fact that the narrator uses the same word for
purification here (Ka6apiG|io\)) as was used in the description of the
water jars in the narrative of the wedding at Cana (Ka6apio|i6v) (2.6)
could distinguish Jesus from the Jews as well. Jesus 'replaced' the

125. Contra Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 166, who concludes that John and the
Jews both required strict adherence to laws of purification, whereas Jesus did not.
126. Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 166, 168; Schnackenburg, Gospel according
to St John, 1.413-414.
contents of the water jars at the wedding feast and thus separated
whatever purification he offered from normative Jewish practice.
The narrator quickly moves from the brief report of this controversy
to a more lengthy account of its effect on those loyal to John. His dis-
ciples do not mention the controversy to John, but they do announce
to him that the one to whom he bore witness has begun to conduct his
own baptismal ministry, which has already attracted a significant
following (3.26). By declaring that Jesus was with John on the other
side of the Jordan and by using the person pronoun cri) in the depen-
dent clause 'to whom you have borne witness' (3.26), the disciples
indicate that they consider John and Jesus in competition. This has two
primary functions. First, it gives John yet another opportunity to
declare for himself his subordination when he responds to his disciples
in the verses to follow. Secondly, it gives the reader a report of the
growing popularity of Jesus that comes from witnesses with nothing to
gain from the surely exaggerated claim, 'all are going to him' (3.26).
The reader does not have to rely on the narrator alone for testimony
to the impact and significance of Jesus. John's disciples bear witness to
him whether or not they take pleasure in it.
(b) 3.27-30 The response and witness of John. John begins his response
to his disciples and his final speech in the Fourth Gospel by declaring
that one can receive only what is given one from heaven (3.27). He
has sensed that his disciples feel that the growth of Jesus' ministry has
occurred at the expense of his own and he wants them to know he does
not share their frustration concerning this. If his ministry has waned,
that has taken place within the will of God. John does not consider him-
self in competition with Jesus. He measures the success of his ministry
not by comparing himself with Jesus but by determining whether or
not he has accepted the role and mission God has given him.
John then reminds his disciples that they themselves can attest that he
said from the beginning that he was not the Christ but rather one sent
before him (3.28). The words, 'I am not the Christ', repeat his earlier
testimony to the delegation sent from Jerusalem (1.20). This marks
the fourth time in the Gospel that the reader has been told that John is
not the Christ (cf. 1.8, 20, 24). The narrator has eliminated any possible
confusion concerning the figures of John and Jesus. The former has only
one task: to announce the coming of the latter. John has not and will not
claim anything more for himself.
To help his disciples understand his position, John then sketches a
new image that defines the boundaries of his relationship with Jesus.
He compares Jesus with a bridegroom and himself with a friend of the
bridegroom (3.29). As the arrival of the bridegroom enhances rather
than diminishes the joy of his friend, so also the appearance of Jesus and
the report of his growing popularity have increased the elation John
feels. By referring to himself as the friend of the bridegroom, John
further establishes the fact that he does not consider Jesus a rival.127
The use of the wedding terminology recalls the nuptial feast at Cana
where Jesus performed his initial sign (2.1-11). In that passage, Jesus
replaced water reserved for rites of purification with wine of extra-
ordinary quality. In this narrative, through the description of Jesus as
a bridegroom, the reader has discovered that the time for preparation
has ended and Jesus has begun to draw crowds away from John and to
himself.128 Like the water jars which Jesus used in the course of the
miracle that manifested his glory, John has served his purpose and
now can only stand in the background and watch coming events unfold.
That makes the role he has played no less significant, but it confines it
within definite boundaries.
The narrative section closes with a summation of John's words: 'It
is necessary for him to increase, and for me to be diminished' (3.30).
In this declaration of the necessity of his declining ministry, John uses
the same impersonal verb (8el) earlier employed by Jesus in his dia-
logue with Nicodemus to state the necessity of birth dvcoGev (3.7) and
of the 'lifting up' of the Son of Man (3.14). John no longer has a pur-
pose to fulfill. The narrator will mention him again later (10.40-41),
but he has nothing else to contribute to Jesus' ministry. He has revealed
Jesus to Israel and now faces the necessity of fading from view as
Jesus moves toward his destiny.

In this narrative section the word 'water' appears only in 3.23, where
it describes the place chosen by John to continue his baptismal ministry.
While Jesus baptized in Judea, John worked at Aenon near Salim
'because there was much water there'. The narrator not only implies
127. W.F. Howard, The Gospel according to St John: Introduction and

Exegesis', in N.B. Harman (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible, VIII (New York:
Abingdon Press, 1956), pp. 435-811 (516).
128. L.W. Countryman, The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel: Crossing
Over into God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 162.
that John chose his location on the basis of the abundant supply of water
but also draws additional attention to this characteristic by making it
the sole description of the site. Readers may not know anything else
about Aenon near Salim, but they do know that John found water
plentiful there. That description implies that John needed 'much water'
to conduct his ministry.
Water, therefore, represents both what John has to offer and what he
lacks. John offers water baptism to those who come to him. He himself
has already admitted, however, that this baptism with water precedes
one to come who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1.33). As noted in
the above remarks, since John also has declared that he baptized only
to reveal that one to Israel (1.31) and since he has already announced
the completion of that task (1.34), the reader may wonder why John
has not ended his ministry. Whatever the reason for the continuation,
John still appears to use water alone. The phrase 'much water' des-
cribes his dependence on that element. John has nothing more to offer.
Water baptism is all God has given him (cf. 3.27). In the words of the
previous narrative section we examined, John operates under a divine
commission but he cannot offer entrance into the realm of God.129
For that reason, he must decrease as the ministry of Jesus expands.
At the same time, by virtue of the implied contrast with John, water
symbolizes both that which Jesus offers in and of himself and that which
his ministry transcends. The mention of a ministry of baptism by Jesus
implies the use of water, but the narrator, by adding that John had
'much water' available where he baptized and making no similar state-
ment with regard to Jesus, suggests that Jesus offers a baptism not
dependent on the water supply. Jesus can provide for himself what
John must seek from the natural environment. Yet, Jesus does even
more. Despite the fact that John has much water with which to work,
the people have chosen to go not to him but to Jesus (3.26). Like a
groomsman before the wedding, John and his water baptism could
only await with Israel the arrival of the groom. But now that the groom
has arrived, John, his friend, has complete joy. Israel belongs to Jesus,
whose ministry transcends that of John. As Jesus replaced the water in
the purification vessels at the wedding in Cana in order to provide
good wine for those who attended the feast (2.1-11), so also he replaces
the water baptism of John, thereby fulfilling the joy of his forerunner.
129. Lightfoot, St John's Gospel p. 119.

The controversy between John's disciples and a Jew links all of this
with the issue of purification. The mention of the controversy by the
narrator implies that at least one Jew considered John's baptism some
form of purification. That makes the mention of 'much water' in
association with John even more curious. Does the narrator intend for
the reader to compare the abundance of water at Aenon near Salim
with the large quantities of water in the vessels used in the purification
rites of the Jews present at the wedding feast in Cana (2.6)? I noted
previously that both this narrative section and that of the feast at Cana
include wedding imagery and the issue of purification. In the latter
narrative Jesus rendered the purification vessels obsolete for his purifi-
cation purposes by having wine symbolizing the arrival of the messianic
age drawn from them. Similarly in this passage Jesus replaces any
purification John may have offered with his 'much water' with what
he offers in and of himself. Jesus has no need of the natural element
to make available and to transcend what the Jews and John offer with
water.
The examination of this passage has not significantly expanded the
understanding of water gained from the previous three narrative
sections. But that in and of itself indicates something about the meaning
and function of water within the Gospel. In this passage water has close
association only with John and is linked to Jesus indirectly at best.
While it may be logically assumed that Jesus makes some use of water,
the narrator declares that John has much water. Yet, the ministry of
John is diminishing. Even with his abundant water supply, John has
nothing more to offer. Apart from Jesus water loses value and lacks
meaning.
It is possible to apply that observation to the question of the sacra-
mentalism of the Fourth Gospel. Although both Jesus and John baptize
here, water has an explicit connection only with John. While that does
not indicate that Jesus did not employ water in his baptismal ministry,
it suggests that when water appears in the narrative it is necessary to
review carefully the context and not immediately attach a sacramental
meaning to it.
5. Summary of the Meaning and Function of Water in John 1-3

Water appears in four narrative sections within the initial three chapters
of John and has a somewhat distinct meaning within each of them. In
the account of the witness borne by John (1.19-34), the forerunner
declared that he baptized in water in order to recognize the one whose

coming God ordained him to announce. Water heralded the arrival of
something new in Judaism in particular and, in light of the testimony
of the prologue, in human history in general. In the narrative of the
wedding at Cana in Galilee (2.1-11), water represented first the
purification rites of Judaism and then, after Jesus transformed it into
wine, the manifestation of Jesus' glory. Water indicated the arrival of
the messianic age in the presence of Jesus and helped awaken the faith
of his disciples. In his dialogue with Nicodemus (3.1-15), Jesus associ-
ated water with the new birth in the Spirit through which believers
would gain entrance into the realm of God. Water symbolically repre-
sented the leap of faith necessary to pass from what one can know or
claim for oneself to that which God alone can make possible for those
willing to receive it in all its hiddenness and mystery.130 In the final
narrative section examined (3.22-30), water helped to clarify the
distinction between John and Jesus. Although ordained by God, John
had only a limited range and time of influence. After John had com-
pleted the task of revealing Jesus to Israel, even the aid of vast amounts
of water could not prevent a decline in his baptismal ministry, which
stood in contrast with the increasing interest in Jesus.
In all of these passages water helps to establish Jesus' uniqueness.
Since he attracted a party of questioners from Jerusalem, the reader
can assume John had an extensive baptismal ministry. Yet, he himself
declared that he baptized with water solely in order to recognize the
one sent by God. Further, after Jesus' arrival he had nothing more to
offer despite an abundant supply of water. When Jesus arrived at the
wedding feast in Cana, the purification vessels in the house that had
previously held the important but not unique water of ceremonial pur-
poses suddenly stood filled to the brim with wine of unexpected quality.
Nicodemus, as a leader and teacher of the Jews, represented the height
of Jewish understanding; but all his knowledge could not help him per-
ceive the reality spoken of and manifested in Jesus. Water announces
the arrival of something new.
In the narrative of the wedding feast in Cana and the dialogue
130. For a discussion of such a function of symbols, consult Culpepper,

Anatomy, p. 183, and Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 36; J.M.H. Hubert and
J.P. van Loon, The Personal Meaning of Symbols: A Method of Investigation',
Journal of Religion and Health 30 (1991), pp. 241-62 (242); Lawler, Symbol and
Sacrament, p. 18.
between Jesus and Nicodemus, water also symbolizes the impact of this
new reality on those willing to believe. The transformation of water
into wine led the disciples present at the nuptial ceremonies in Cana to
faith and Jesus assured a bewildered Nicodemus that only those willing
to accept birth anew, birth of water and spirit, would gain entrance
into the realm of God and eternal life. In these contexts water embodied
characteristics of the reality to which it pointed. Readers of the Fourth
Gospel would no doubt associate water with rites of purification and
initiation. Although the narrator does not explicitly describe any such
rituals, the water turned to wine and the water connected with the
Spirit do in effect render those willing to believe capable of beholding
the glory of the divine and of beginning a new relationship with God.
Water also has some connection with the Spirit. The close connec-
tion of water with the Spirit most clearly emerges in the dialogue with
Nicodemus, but the first and the last passages we examined also con-
tain a hint of it. John announced near the end of his witness that the
one to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit (1.33). When John
next appears in ch. 4 he continues to baptize with water, 'much water'
(4.23), after Jesus has begun his ministry. The fact that Jesus attracts
more followers than John at this point may represent a tacit indication
that Jesus offers the gift of the Spirit in his baptism. That would help
explain why he must increase and John must decrease. The narrator
makes no explicit reference to such a distinction, however, and it
is necessary to use caution and await additional information before
drawing such a conclusion.
As this discussion reveals, water has no single or precise meaning
that runs through all of these narrative sections or that unites all of its
shades of meaning under a single heading. That does not weaken its
effect as a symbol however, for symbols typically have a variety of
meanings, 131 especially those allowed to 'expand' and not fixed by
their first appearance in a narrative.132 Both further development of
the meanings given water thus far and additional meanings to be
applied to it can be expected as the Gospel narrative progresses.
Although Jesus' ministry has scarcely begun, the symbol of water
131. Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 28; Holbrook, Iconoclastic Deity, p. 60;

Hubert and Loon, 'Personal Meaning of Symbols', p. 258; Lawler, Symbol and
Sacrament, p. 19.
132. E.K. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel, p. 46; Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 182;
Holbrook, Iconoclastic Deity, p. 61.
clearly hints that readers must transcend the realm of Judaism in order
to believe in him. In each of the passages examined the Jews failed to
understand Jesus or those connected with him. They did not know why
John baptized with water (1.24) or how this practice related to matters
of purification (3.25). Even as distinguished a teacher as Nicodemus
failed to comprehend the meaning of birth of water and spirit (3.5-9).
The quality of the wine Jesus made from the water at Cana left the
steward puzzled at the untraditional practice of saving the best for last
(2.10). The reader must transcend Judaism to comprehend the new
reality resident in Jesus and symbolized by water.
Water also provides ample incentive for the reader to take such a
step. Water represents or, at the very least, points the way to entrance
into the realm of God (3.5), to the opportunity to learn 'heavenly
things' (3.12), and to eternal life (3.15). The narrator will associate
still greater promises than these with water as the Gospel unfolds, but
the reader already has more than adequate reason to continue.
Chapter 3
LIVING WATER AND TROUBLED WATERS
In John 4-6 Jesus' ministry becomes more extensive and increasingly

controversial. He has a lengthy conversation with a woman of Samaria
and eventually comes into close contact with Samaritan villagers (4.1-
42); conducts a healing on the Sabbath that prompts an angry reaction
from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (5.1-18); and makes statements
about his nature and the significance of his ministry (6.35-59) that not
only upset the Jewish authorities (6.41-42, 52), but also cause many of
his followers to turn away from him (6.66). Jesus also performs two
astonishing signs in these chapters: feeding a multitude with five loaves
of bread and two fish (6.1-14) and walking on the sea (6.16-21).
The motif of water appears frequently in these chapters. The conver-
sation between Jesus and the woman of Samaria begins with his request,
'Give me a drink' (4.7), and the living water he claims ability to provide
dominates the early part of the dialogue (4.7-15). The account of the
healing of the son of a royal official (4.46-54) opens with the narrator's
observation that Jesus returned to Cana 'where he had made the water
wine' (4.46). The controversial healing in Jerusalem takes place near a
pool where a man with a thirty-eight year old ailment has waited in vain
for acure from the troubled waters (5.1-18). Although the word 'water'
does not appear in the text, it is certainly part of the scene when Jesus
walks on the sea (6.16-21). Finally, in the discourse in which Jesus calls
himself the Bread of Life, he also states that those who come to him will
never thirst (6.35) and calls his blood 'drink indeed' (6.55). Water helps
to identify what Jesus has to offer and plays a part in the growing
tension between him and the Jewish authorities.
1. Narrative V: Jesus and the Woman of Samaria (4.1-42)

The fifth appearance of water takes place in the initial portion of an
extended dialogue between Jesus and an unnamed woman of Samaria. In
this passage Jesus describes the water associated with him as 'living'.1
Since the dialogue identified Jesus as the bearer of life (1.4) and the
dialogue with Nicodemus linked him witb eternal life (3.15), the reader
can expect this water to have an even closer association with Jesus than
seen thus far.
His conversation with the woman of Samaria marks Jesus' first meet-
ing with a non-Jew. The many points of contrast between this dialogue
and that of Jesus and Nicodemus in the previous chapter invite compar-
ison of the two scenes. Indeed, by placing the two dialogues so closely
together and by including so many points of obvious contrast, the nar-
rator appears to invite the reader to compare and contrast the woman
of Samaria with Nicodemus.2 Unlike Nicodemus, a Jewish male of
privilege and standing, the woman was, obviously, a Samaritan female,
possibly of questionable integrity. In addition, Nicodemus was a rabbi,
whereas the woman would have been forbidden to read Talmud.
Nicodemus came to Jesus at night, but the woman met him in broad
daylight. Nicodemus never quite understood what Jesus said to him and
had progressively less to say in their conversation, whereas the woman,
although at times confused, seems at other points an equal in the dia-
logue.3 The meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus apparently remained
a secret, but the woman left Jesus to go and tell others about him.4 As
a result of these differences, Nicodemus represents inability to accept
Jesus, whereas the reader can consider the woman of Samaria a model
of faith.5 This increases the distance between Jesus and Judaism noted
1. Jesus speaks of 'living water' in 4.10. The woman of Samaria repeats

those words in 4.11 and Jesus will again speak of 'living water' in 7.38.
2. Kysar, John, pp. 61-62; J. Rena, 'Women in the Gospel of John', Eglise
et Theologie 17 (1986), pp. 131-47 (138). The narrative frequently invites such
comparison and contrast of characters. For a more complete discussion of this, see
C.R. Koester, 'Hearing, Seeing, andBelieving in the Gospel of John', Bib 70
(1989), pp. 327-48.
3. Boers observes that the woman begins with a skeptical attitude toward
Jesus (v. 12), then affirms him as a prophet (v. 19), becomes skeptical again (v. 25),
and finally presumes that he may be the messiah (v. 29). See H. Boers, Neither on
This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem (ed. A. Collins; SBL Monograph Series, 35;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 4.
4. A discussion of these points of contrast and others can be found in
M. Francis, The Samaritan Woman', Asia Journal of Theology 2 (1988), pp. 117-
48.
5. Kysar, John, p. 62; cf. Bolen, 'Purity and Pollution,' pp. 167-80, who
3. Living Water and Troubled Waters 91
in previous passages and strengthens the conclusion drawn in the dis-

cussion of the dialogue with Nicodemus that ability to accept Jesus
depends on faith rather than personal ability.
Readers familiar with the Hebrew Bible may note another important
feature of this dialogue. The Hebrew Scriptures include a number of
scenes which take place at a well and involve a marriageable man and
woman. These scenes include the meeting between Moses and the
seven daughters of Midian (Exod. 2.15-22), the finding of a wife for
Isaac from the women who came to draw water at a well near Nahor
(Gen. 24.10-61), a scene that has a striking number of verbal parallels
with John 4,6 and, most interesting for this passage, the union of Jacob
and the daughters of Laban following an encounter at a well (Gen.
29.1-30).7 Robert Alter labels such a meeting between a hero and his
future wife at a well a 'repeated biblical type-scene', and identifies five
characteristics of such narratives.8 First, a future bridegroom or his
surrogate travels to a foreign land and, secondly, encounters a girl or
a group of girls at well. Thirdly, one of these characters draws water
from the well. Fourthly, the girl or the group goes home to tell about
the encounter with the stranger. Finally, a betrothal is arranged and
concluded, usually following an invitation to a meal.
The narration of Jesus' meeting with the woman of Samaria in some
way displays each of these characteristics.9 The narrative begins with an
explanation of Jesus' decision to travel through Samaria, which, though
not exactly foreign territory, was regarded by Jews as an 'alien' land
(4.4). There he stops to rest at Jacob's Well (4.6) where the woman
quickly joins him (4.7). Although neither of them draws water from the
well, Jesus requests water from the woman (4.7) and she requests water
from him (4.15). Following their conversation, the woman returns to
the village and tells the people about Jesus (4.28-29). The narrator
interprets this narrative as a "ritual of transformation" and plots the woman's move-
ment through the three stages of transformation: separation from society; marginali-
zation toward society; and reincorporation into society.
6. N.R. Bonneau, The Woman at the Well. John 4 and Genesis 24', TBT 67
(1973), pp. 1252-59 (1254).
7. CM. Carmichael, 'Marriage and the Samaritan Woman', NTS 26 (1980),
pp. 332-46 (336).
8. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 51-52; F. Kermode, 'John', in
R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press, 1987), pp. 440-66 (450-51); Staley, Print's First Kiss, p. 100.
9. A brief discussion of this appears in Staley, Print's First Kiss, p. 100.
mentions no meal and Jesus does not wed the woman, but the Samari-
tans do invite Jesus to stay with them (4.40) and, after two days, they,
like the woman, are united with him in faith (4.42).
The meeting of Jesus and the woman of Samaria therefore has the
characteristics of a courtship scene10 and tantalizes the reader with the
prospect of the marriage of Jesus.11 Eslinger further stimulates such a
reading by drawing attention to the sexual overtones in the conversation
between Jesus and the woman.12 The previous associations of Jesus with
weddings and the marital terminology in the passages in which water
has appeared heighten this anticipation. Jesus transformed water into
wine at a wedding feast in Cana (2.1-11) and, following a controversy
concerning purification with water, John the Baptist called Jesus the
bridegroom (3.29). 13 The offer of living water further enhances this
imagery. As Carmichael has noted,14 the bride of Cant. 4.15 is called 'a
well of living water' and other passages in the Hebrew Bible use water
and/or a well when describing the relationship between a husband and
wife.15
The dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus taught the reader not to
take Jesus' terminology or the narrative too literally and thus we have
little anticipation of an actual marriage of Jesus and the woman of
Samaria. The overwhelming presence of marital imagery, however,
invites the reader to expect a significant union between Jesus and this
woman before the narrative ends. As previously noted, that union
takes place when the Samaritans respond to Jesus in faith.

The closing scenes in the chapter which precedes this narrative section
consist of the simultaneous baptismal ministries of Jesus and John
(3.22-24), a resulting controversy between John's disciples and a name-
less Jew (3.25-26), a related discussion by John of his relationship
10. J.H. Neyrey, 'Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4.10-26',
CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 419-37 (431).
11. Carmichael, 'Marriage', p. 336; Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, p. 187.
12. L. Eslinger, 'The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader and
Reader-Response Criticism', in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as
Literature (London: Brill, 1993), pp. 165-82.
13. P.D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985),
p. 101; Jaubert, Approches, pp. 61-63; and Neyrey, 'Jacob Traditions', p. 431.
14. Carmichael, 'Marriage', p. 336.
15. Prov. 5.15; 9.17; Cant. 4.12.
with Jesus (3.27-30), and a concluding sermon by the narrator (3.31-

36). Changes in time, location, and characters distinguish Jn 4 as the
beginning of a new narrative unit. The initial verse indicates that
sufficient time has elapsed for Jesus to have learned that the Pharisees
had become aware of his burgeoning popularity. After receiving this
news, Jesus leaves Judea for Galilee on a course that will take him
through Samaria (4.3-4). This geographical shift results in a change of
characters. The woman of Samaria comes center stage with Jesus, while
his disciples fade into the background and John disappears altogether.
The announcement that Jesus decided to travel to Galilee (4.3), along
with the summary of his work there (4.54), identifies Jn 4 as a distinct
narrative segment. The chapter describes what took place during a
trip to and a visit in Galilee. Within this unit, the stop in Samaria stands
as an independent narrative section. Why Jesus 'had to pass through
Samaria' (4.4) will be discussed later, but regardless of the reason for
the journey that announcement distinguishes the time in Samaria as a
diversion within the larger narrative framework. Vv. 1-6 provide an
introduction to both the larger narrative and its initial narrative
section. Vv. 1-3 provide a general introduction to the trip to Galilee
and the closely related vv. 4-6 supply the details pertinent for the first
stage of the journey. In summary, John 4 stands apart from chs. 3 and
5, but the verses which describe the visit to Samaria stand as a self-
contained narrative section within the chapter.

This narrative section contains four units of unequal length: the
Decision to travel through Samaria (4.1-6), the dialogue between Jesus
and the woman of Samaria (4.7-26), the disciples return to the well
and the woman returns to the village (4.27-38), and an extended stay
in Samaria (4.39-42).
The comparatively short units that open and close this narrative
section set the stage for the visit to Samaria and explain why Jesus
extended it. In the first, the narrator reports the basic facts necessary
for understanding what brought Jesus to Samaria in general and Jacob's
Well in particular. The voice of the narrator also dominates the closing
unit. There, however, direct discourse of the comments of the woman
(4.39) and the villagers (4.42) illustrates the conclusions drawn by the
narrator (4.39, 40-41).
The dialogue between Jesus and the woman of Samaria comprises the
second and longest unit, which provides the information around which
the entire narrative section revolves. This unit can be further divided
into three sub-units: (a) request(s) for a drink (4.7-15), (b) request
for truth (4.16-20), and (c) request for faith (4.21-26). The conversa-
tion between Jesus and the woman dominates this section, with the
narrator providing only occasional background information and neces-
sary verbal markers which indicate when the speech of one character
ends and that of the other begins.
The third unit, which reunites Jesus with his disciples and moves the
woman from the well back to her village, contains two sub-units:
(a) the woman tells her people about Jesus (4.27-30) and (b) Jesus
tells his disciples about the harvest (4.31-38). Direct discourse domi-
nates this unit as well. As I will argue below, this arrangement does
not lack significance. In the first sub-unit the woman reports her
encounter with Jesus in a way that entices the villagers to set out to
meet him themselves. That means they travel toward Jesus at the very
time during which he instructs his disciples to take note that 'the fields
are already white for harvest' (4.35).
Unlike the report of the activities at the wedding at Cana and to an
even greater degree than the record of the dialogue between Jesus and
Nicodemus, these units and sub-units flow smoothly from one to
another in a skillfully crafted narrative. This passage stands as one of
the artistic high points of the Fourth Gospel.
4.1-6 The decision to travel through Samaria. The narrative section

opens with the report that Jesus knew the Pharisees had heard that the
popularity of his baptismal ministry had surpassed that of John (4.1).
Before the reader discovers the results of that, the narrator abruptly
interrupts and notes that not Jesus himself, but rather his disciples did
the actual baptizing (4.2). In the discussion of the previous narrative
section (3.22-30) we noted that none of the characters involved in that
scene questioned the fact that Jesus baptized. The disclaimer here may
indicate the hand of a redactor who wanted to disavow any baptism per-
formed by Jesus himself and thus to distinguish Jesus from John the
Baptist.16 Since John announced that the one to come would baptize
with the Spirit (1.33) but the narrator considers the Spirit unavailable
until after Jesus' glorification (7.39), the disclaimer may also attempt
16. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 230; Brown, Gospel according to

John, 1.164; Kysar, John, p. 62.
to avoid a contradiction in the Gospel itself.17 The question of whether

or not Jesus actually baptized has historical interest but no implications
for this narrative. Following this disclaimer, the narrator reports that
Jesus left Judea and departed to Galilee (4.3). This may indicate that
Jesus wanted to avoid, for the moment, any hostile encounters with the
Jewish authorities. The involvement of the Pharisees in issues of
authority in their two previous appearances in the narrative (1.24; 3.1)
supports such a reading,18 but whether or not that holds true, it sets the
stage for the successful trip to Galilee which takes place in this chapter.
In the next verse (4.4), the narrator makes a point of far greater
interest, observing that in order to travel to Galilee 'it was necessary'
(e8ei) for Jesus to pass through Samaria. Geographically Jesus could
travel to Galilee without passing through Samaria. Circumventing
Samaria, however, entailed a much longer trip, so Galileans typically
traversed Samaria when on route to Jerusalem. This suggests that the
impersonal verb Set has theological significance here, as it did in
previous appearances in the Gospel.19 In ch. 3 8ei appeared three
times. Jesus used the verb twice, to declare to Nicodemus the necessity
of birth anew for entrance into the realm of God (3.7) and the neces-
sity of the 'lifting up of the Son of Man' for believers to have the
possibility of eternal life (3.14). John used the verb once when telling
his disciples that the ministry of Jesus had to increase while his own
diminished (3.30). The imperative for the trip through Samaria has
the same force as those statements. This trip will not lack meaning.
What takes place on route to Galilee will have importance apart from
the realization of the destination.
We noted earlier the significance of the arrival of Jesus at Jacob's
Well (4.5-6). Because of the use of this type-scene in Hebrew Scriptures
the reader can sense the possibility of an impending symbolic union
even without anticipating a meeting between Jesus and a potential
bride. By placing the two characters at Jacob's Well the narrator
increases that possibility since the encounter of Jacob with Rachel at
the well eventually resulted in the 'birth' of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus' weariness (4.6) prepares the reader for the request for drink
17. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference, p. 141.

18. J.E. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of
John 4:1-42 (NovTSup, 65; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 97-98.
John, 1.169; Painter, Quest for the Messiah, pp. 201-202.
that will set the narrative events in motion. I will explore the possible
significance of the reference to time with which this unit ends in the
remarks to follow.
4.7-26 The dialogue between Jesus and the woman of Samaria. After
setting the stage in the initial six verses of this narrative section, the
narrator quickly introduces the character whose conversation with Jesus
will provide the focus of the entire narrative. A woman of Samaria
arrives at the well to draw water. Her dialogue with Jesus contains
three parts which are distinguished by separate imperative statements
made by Jesus that control their conversation: (a) the request(s) for a
drink (4.7-15), (b) the request for truth (4.16-20), and (c) the request
for faith (4.21-26).
Jesus begins the dialogue with the words, 'Give me a drink' (4.7).
This sets in motion a conversation which centers around who has water
to offer and the nature of that water that climaxes when the woman
requests the water about which Jesus has spoken. The second sub-unit
begins when Jesus instructs her, 'Go, call your husband, and come
here' (4.16). This initiates a discussion of the woman's marital status
that leads her to identify Jesus as a prophet and, as a result, introduces
the topic of the proper place for worship. Jesus then opens the final
portion of the dialogue with the command, 'Believe me, woman' (4.21).
This introduces a discussion of true worship that ends with Jesus
declaring to the woman that he is the messiah of whom she has spoken.
This marks the first time in the Gospel that Jesus has applied that title
to himself. The encounter at the well may not pave the way for a
marriage feast, but it certainly prepares the woman for union with
Jesus through faith.
(a) 4.7-15 Request(s) for a drink. The first portion of the dialogue
between Jesus and the woman of Samaria begins with her arrival at
Jacob's Well where he sits, resting from his journey. The preceding
verse noted that 'it was about the sixth hour' (4.6) when this took
place. It seems odd for the woman to come to draw water at noon,
during the heat of the day, rather than during the more usual morning
or evening hours.20 The time of the encounter, coupled with the later
references to the marital record of the woman, has typically led to the
20. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.169; G.R. O'Day, Revelation in the
Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1986), p. 58.
conclusion that she had a questionable character at best. In defense of

the woman, the reader can note that neither the narrator nor Jesus
questions her integrity when she arrives at the well and that the narra-
tor appears to apply the time reference to the arrival of Jesus and not
to her.21 A reader familiar with Hebrew scriptures might also recall
that Rachel, too, arrived at the well where Jacob awaited at high noon
(Gen. 29.7). Beyond that, a perfectly logical explanation for the need
to draw water at this unusual time could exist.
Why, then, does the narrator, who gives no indication of interest in
why the woman arrived when she did, provide the time reference?
Some interpreters have found a connection between the beginning
of this narrative and the crucifixion scene, since both occur at noon
(4.6 and 19.14) and Jesus expresses thirst in both (4.7 and 19.28).22
Although present, this allusion does not seem deliberate. A narrator
who intended such an allusion probably would have positioned the
words, 'I thirst' (19.28) closer to the announcement of the time of the
crucifixion (19.14) and likely would have used the same verb in each
passage to indicate Jesus' thirst.
Readers looking for the significance of this time reference would
benefit more by observing the contrast it creates between the woman of
Samaria and Nicodemus. The leader of the Jews came to Jesus not at
midday, but at night (3.2). This stands as one of the many differences
between these two characters noted earlier. Whereas the dialogue with
Nicodemus begins under the shadow of suspicion brought with the
announcement of the time, the conversation with the woman of Samaria
opens in the full light of day. That alerts the reader to expect this
dialogue to end more positively than the one in the preceding chapter.
The dialogue opens with Jesus requesting, 'Give me a drink' (4.7), a
petition that readers familiar with the contempt Jews historically felt
toward Samaritans would find surprising even coming from the lips of
Jesus. After the narrator informs the reader that the disciples have
already left to purchase provisions (4.8),23 the woman herself expresses
21. O'Day, Revelation, p. 58.

22. Ellis, Genius of John, p. 69; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 122.
23. For the moment, this information merely removes the disciples from the
scene so Jesus can converse with the woman in private. Eventually, however, the
reader can observe a contrast between the fact that the disciples travel to the village in
order to buy something with the fact that the woman travels to the village to tell the
people about Jesus. See J. Bligh, 'Jesus in Samaria', HeyJ 3 (1962), pp. 329-46
that surprise by questioning why Jesus would ask her for a drink,
since Jews typically 'have no dealings' (ov... a\)y%pcovxai)24 with
Samaritans (4.9). In order to receive a drink from her Jesus would
have to use her water vessel, something most Jews would loathe to
do. 25 Ironically, by asking Jesus why he would violate custom the
woman herself violates that custom!26
Jesus ignores this reference to the typical prejudice of Jews toward
Samaritans27 and informs the woman that if she knew 'the gift of God'
and the identity of the one addressing her, she would entreat him and
he would offer her 'living water' (4.10). On the story level this func-
tions as an invitation to conversation. More than merely seeking some-
thing from the woman, Jesus has something to offer her, something that
comes from God. Furthermore, he asserts that he, himself, should be
of interest to her.28 The offer of 'living water' indicates, if nothing
else, that he has access to water fresher than that of the well, the under-
standing of the phrase the woman will have. More than that, Jesus'
(329). Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, pp. 117-18, notes that this intrusion
by the narrator slows down the narrative and heightens the anticipation of the reader,
gives the woman an opportunity to perform a task usually done by the disciples, and
recalls betrothal scenes in the Hebrew Bible.
24. This is the standard translation of the verb auyxpaoum. For an interesting
but unconvincing argument in favor of the broader translation, 'to treat as friend', see
D.R. Hall, The Meaning of ovyxpaoum in John 4.9', ExpTim 83 (1971), pp. 556-
57. Eslinger, T h e Wooing', pp. 176-77, considers this verb a double entendre and
argues that it can mean simply 'to associate with' or it can mean 'to have sexual
intercourse with'.
25. Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 102; D. Daube, 'Jesus and the Samaritan Woman:
The Meaning of awyxpdoum', JBL 69 (1950), pp. 137-47 (137, 143); L. Morris,
Reflections on the Gospel of John. I. The Word Was Made Flesh, John 1-5 (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1986), p. 125.
26. Boers, Neither on This Mountain, p. 163.
27. Painter, Quest for the Messiah, p. 199, notes that since the disciples had
gone to a Samaritan village to purchase food, Jews did have some dealings with
Samaritans. He concludes that the context indicates that Jesus initiates a unique
relationship with a Samaritan. Boers, Neither on This Mountain,^. 150-53, con-
siders the explanation that Jews and Samaritans ov. .. cruyxpoovTai an aside that
indicates that the narrator intends for the story to reveal that Jesus violates the custom.
28. Eslinger, The Wooing', pp. 169-70, draws attention to the sexual conno-
tations of the image of living water in Prov. 5.15-18; Cant. 4.12,15; and Jer. 2.13.
Such double entendre, however, would seem more likely if the woman had introduced
the theme of living water, since the texts cited refer primarily to female sexuality.
offer indicates that he 'thirsts to arouse her thirst'.29 He wants her to

perceive that she has a need that he can fulfill. He wants her to link
together the gift and the giver.30
For the reader, these words have even greater interest. The word
for gift, Scoped, even without the modifier 'of God', can express some-
thing that comes from God and not something exchanged between
human beings.31 Since the reader knows Jesus' identity and since in the
dialogue with Nicodemus Jesus spoke of water as a means of entrance
into the realm of God (3.5), Jesus' subtle invitation for the woman to
ponder his identity brings no small measure of drama to the text. The
woman, who came to the well to draw water, stands nearer than she
realizes to the source of a water that will sate far more than physical
needs. The mention by Jesus of 'living water' enhances this, especially
for Jewish readers, who could identify that phrase as a metaphor for
God and the salvation God alone can offer.32 The woman came to the
well seeking water she could draw for refreshment. The reader knows
she has unwittingly placed herself in a position to receive a gift God
alone can provide.
The woman responds by asking Jesus, who has no bucket and stands
before a deep well, how he intends to provide this 'living water' (4.11).
She further inquires whether he considers himself superior to Jacob,
who provided and made extensive use of the well (4.12). Scholars reg-
ularly note that the woman uses a different word for well (<|)peap) than
that used by Jesus used earlier (7cryyT|) (4.6, cf. 4.14).33 Although curi-
ous, this shift in vocabulary does not seem significant for the interpre-
tation of the narrative. 34 The response of the woman, however, does
merit attention.
The woman, like Nicodemus in his initial response (3.4), considers
29. S.D. Moore, 'Are There Impurities in the Living Water that the Johannine
Jesus Dispenses? Deconstruction, Feminism, and the Samaritan Woman', Biblical
Interpretation 1 (1993), pp. 207-27 (208).
31. Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 181-82; Whitacre, Johannine Polemic, p. 86.
32. Haenchen, John. I. A Commentary, p. 220. Specific references cited by
Haenchen and others include Prov. 13.14; 18.4; Jer. 2.13; 17.13; and Sir. 24.21.
33. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.170; Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 102;
Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 121.
34. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 234; Eslinger, T h e Wooing',
p. 178, however, considers (|>peap a double entendre used by the woman to refer to
her own 'well'.
what Jesus has said not merely curious, but impossible. Unlike
Nicodemus, however, she moves from that to ponder who Jesus claims
to be. She shows Jesus respect by addressing him as icupie and as he
invited a response from her, she in turn invites him to declare whether
he considers himself one like Jacob who could provide water by an act
of superhuman strength or supernatural power. For the reader, her
question presses another point. The prologue detailed the superiority
of Jesus to Moses (1.17) and other passages have implied his pre-
eminence to Jewish tradition (2.18-21; 3.13-14). More than merely
asserting the superiority of Jesus to the Samaritans, this question
continues the development of the theme of the priority of Jesus to all
Jewish traditions that will climax in 8.58 when he claims astounding
precedence over Abraham, the father of Judaism.35
This time Jesus responds to the woman directly. To this point she
thinks of water only as a natural element that can quench a basic human
need, but her arrival at the well, as indeed his earlier request for a
drink, bears witness to the fact that even a drink of the water from
Jacob's Well does not quench thirst indefinitely (4.13). At that point
Jesus claims superiority to Jacob. The water he offers surpasses that of
Jacob in two ways: it is 'continuously self-replenishing' and 'of a com-
pletely different kind'.36 Jesus can provide water that sates thirst for
ever and, even more, will become a source of water 'welling up into
eternal life' (4.14). By accepting his gift, the woman can receive both
eternal life for herself and also the gift of eternal life which she can
provide for others. In addition to offering the woman a gift she did not
expect, Jesus also challenges her to accept a commission to bear that gift
to others, a commission she will accept in the ensuing verses (4.28-29).
The woman of Samaria then makes the response to Jesus that most
clearly distinguishes her from Nicodemus: 'Sir, give me this water, so
that I will neither thirst nor come here to draw' (4.15). Her continued
focus on the well and water that one can draw indicates that she does
not yet discern the precise nature of what Jesus offers. She does, how-
ever, request what he has to give. In contrast, Nicodemus never reached
the point of asking for what Jesus could provide. The woman brings
this portion of the dialogue to a close with the same imperative with
which it began (86q; cf. 4.7, 15). She has at least perceived that Jesus
has something to offer that she cannot provide for herself. The narrator
35. Neyrey, 'Jacob Traditions', p. 420; Whitacre, Johannine Polemic, p. 45.

36. Boers, Neither on This Mountain, p. 47.
scarcely could have drawn the contrast with Nicodemus more sharply
and thus reinforces for the reader the nature of what Jesus provides,
(b) 4.16-20 Request for truth. After the woman of Samaria asks for
what he has to offer, Jesus changes the direction of the conversation
with his second imperative statement of the dialogue, 'Go, call your
husband, and come here' (4.16).37 When the woman responds to this
request by declaring that she has no husband (4.17), Jesus confirms
her report and adds, 'you have had five husbands and you now have
one who is not your husband' (4.18). This exchange has prompted
variety of interpretations, most of which do not flatter the woman.
Commentators frequently regard the woman as a symbol of Samaritan
faith, considering her five husbands representative of the five deities of
the Samaritans and her present marital status an indication of the con-
temporary apostasy of her people in the eyes of the Jews.38 According
to this interpretation, Jesus exposes her sin and shame before moving
further in the dialogue with her. Such an interpretation, however, seems
out of character for this dialogue. When the woman first expresses
surprise that Jesus, a Jew, would initiate contact with her, a Samaritan
(4.9), Jesus ignores the troublesome question of Jewish and Samaritan
relations. Nor to this point in the dialogue has Jesus indicated any
prerequisites, apart from willingness on the part of the individual,
to receiving the gift he offers. As held true in the dialogue with
Nicodemus, Jesus calls for acceptance of him personally and nothing
more or less. Indeed, at no point in the Gospel narrative has he
demanded confession of moral or ethical impropriety before (or after,
for that matter) calling people to faith. It therefore seems much more
appropriate here for the reader to view this exchange solely as evidence
of the powers of discernment of Jesus, which further reveals his
identity, gives her reason to trust him in that which he will soon reveal,
and invites her to become a source of living water like that he pre-
viously mentioned (4.14). Jesus' remarks do not attempt to shame the
37. Botha, Jesus, pp. 138-43, considers this change of direction an indication
that the conversation was failing. It can also be interpreted, however, as a way for
Jesus to reveal his omniscience (cf. 2.25) of the true barrier between the woman and
the living water; see also Stibbe, John's Gospel, pp. 18-19.
38. O. Betz, " T o Worship God in Spirit and in Truth": Reflections on John 4,
20-26', in A. Finkel and L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing Before God: Studies in Prayer
in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 53-72 (57);
Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 186.
woman, but, quite to the contrary, call her to deepen her understanding
and acceptance of him.39 By continuing his conversation with her
despite the absence of a man, Jesus will transcend yet another barrier.
He will discuss true worship with an independent woman (a Samaritan
one at that)!40
The woman of Samaria responds favorably to this invitation,
beginning by stating that she recognizes Jesus as a prophet (4.19).
Although this title falls far short of a complete confessional statement,
it nonetheless indicates that she has advanced from where she began.
She previously called Jesus only a Jew (4.9), but now recognizes him
as a person who speaks on behalf of God. This, in turn, leads her to
ponder once again why Jesus has spoken to her. She cites a funda-
mental difference between Jewish and Samaritan worship (4.20), prob-
ably tacitly inquiring between the lines of her indicative statement,
'Have you come to ridicule or to condemn the religious practices of
my people?' Her acknowledgement of him as a prophet tacitly indi-
cates her awareness of his ability to address this issue. The significance
of this comment emerges when we contrast yet again the woman of
Samaria with Nicodemus. Whereas the leader of the Jews could only
ask 'how' and never overcame his incredulity regarding what Jesus said,
the woman of Samaria attempts genuine dialogue with him regarding
matters of faith despite any confusion she experienced. While it would
prove premature to consider her ready to become his disciple, she has
moved to the point of willingness to ponder openly what he has to say.
Jesus will request even more from her in the final portion of the
dialogue, but she seems prepared to meet that challenge. As Boers notes,
she knows that the place where they stand is sacred ground.41 Since
Jesus has entered that realm compelled by God (cf. e5ei in v. 4), what
transpires will have significance for both Jews and Samaritans. The
reader knows Jesus stands open to such possibilities. By her knowledge
of the sacredness of the site and her recognition of Jesus as a prophet,
the woman indicates that she does as well. No one in the Gospel
39. Stibbe, John's Gospel, pp. 67-68, even suggests that the fact that the woman
has been married five times and now has a sixth man makes Jesus 'the seventh and
therefore perfect man in her life'. This may push the symbolism too far, but seems
more plausible than the interpretation of Eslinger, T h e Wooing', p. 180, who
concludes that Jesus' command is 'a rebuke to her carnal misconceptions'.
40. Boers, Neither on This Mountain, pp. 171-72.
narrative has entered this fully into dialogue (or relationship?) with
Jesus.
(c) 4.21-26 Request for faith. In its third and final phase, the con-
versation between Jesus and the woman of Samaria climaxes as Jesus
asks the woman to believe that an 'hour' comes when worship of God
will have its center neither on the mountain where they stand nor in
Jerusalem. Jesus begins this sub-unit with the imperative, 'Believe me,
woman' (4.21). Although many interpreters regard this imperative
simply as an asseverative comparable to the more frequent, 'truly,
truly I say to you',42 it appears much more forceful. The site of this
dialogue and the following distinction between true and false worship
may bring to the minds of readers familiar with Hebrew Scriptures
the scene in Joshua 24 in which the leader who represents God demands
of the people, 'choose this day whom you will serve' (Josh. 24.15).43
More than merely asking the woman to trust him, Jesus calls her to
faith. In one of his farewell addresses, Jesus will issue a similar call to
his gathered disciples. When Philip asks to see the Father (Jn 14.8),
Jesus will demand, 'Believe me, I am in the Father and the Father in
me' (14.11). More than a mere asseverative, the imperative calls for a
faith response. The woman may not realize how near the 'hour' she
stands, but she can believe that the one who offers her 'living water'
also offers her and her community an opportunity to accept a unique
development in history.
As Jesus continues his remarks, he appears to express the prejudice
against the Samaritans he avoided at the beginning of the dialogue. He
advises the woman that she and her people44 worship what they do not
know, while he and his people worship what they know, and declares
that salvation is from the Jews (4.22). Although this remark certainly
flatters neither the woman in particular nor Samaritans in general, the
context makes it clear that Jesus intends no debasing insult. He already
has announced the coming of a day in which worship will have its
center neither in Samaria nor Jerusalem (4.21) and the verse to follow
further distinguishes that worship. Rather than belittling the woman,
Jesus echoes the statement of the prologue that he comes 'to his
own' (1.11). What he offers will transcend present boundaries, but
42. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 236; Kysar, John, p. 166; Lindars,
Gospel of John,?. 188.
43. Betz, 'To Worship', p. 60.
44. The verbs are in the second person plural.
it begins in Judaism and he himself is a Jew.

Jesus then returns to his discussion of the 'hour', declares it already
present, and states that true worship must take place 'in spirit and
truth' since the Father seeks such worship (4.23-24). With the ambig-
uous announcement of an hour to come that has already arrived (4.23),
Jesus challenges the woman to perceive the opportunity he affords
her. At that very moment the Father seeks her through him. Worship
in spirit and truth refers not to an arbitrary distinction between
external acts of worship and worship of God in the inner recesses of
the heart,45 but to acceptance of Jesus. Nor should the reader attempt
to distinguish worship in spirit from worship in truth.46 As in the case
of the birth 'of water and spirit' in 3.5, it seems best to consider these
nouns joined by the copulative conjunction Kai which functions epexe-
getically. True worship takes place in spirit, that is to say, in truth.
These words build upon the earlier presentation of Jesus as the true
light (1.9) and the bearer of truth (1.14, 17), and anticipate the gift of
the Spirit sent from the Father and/or Jesus (14.17, 26; 15.26; 16.13;
20.22) and the depiction of Jesus as the true vine (15.1), the giver of
true bread (6.32), and the bearer of truth (8.32, 40, 45; 14.6; 18.37).
True worship will entail worship in and through the one before whom
the woman stands. Yet another appearance of the theologically signifi-
cant impersonal verb 8ei (4.24) reinforces the imperative of such
worship. As one must experience birth anew to enter the realm of God
(3.7), as the Son of Man must be lifted up to make eternal life available
(3.14), and as John the Baptist must diminish while Jesus gains (3.30),
so also must true worship entail worship in and through Jesus.
All of this might leave a lesser dialogue partner in stunned silence,
but the woman of Samaria proves equal to the occasion. She continues
the conversation, stating that she knows the messiah is coming, who is
called Christ and who will reveal 'everything' (4.25). By having her
declare in the present tense that she knows the messiah 'comes', the
narrator has the woman of Samaria seek the right thing at the proper
time. Although she does not ask Jesus whether he is the messiah, she
moves in that direction. He has revealed a great deal to her and she
will later tell the villagers that he told her 'all I ever did' (4.29).
Jesus then answers her tacit question by announcing, 'I, who speak
to you, am he' (4.26). When Nicodemus conversed with Jesus, he grew

more and more reticent as he found Jesus' words harder and harder to
accept. The woman of Samaria, however, has sought what Jesus has to
offer and now hears in plain speech (cf. 16.25) his words of revela-
tion and self-disclosure. The reader anxiously awaits to discover how
she will respond, but the arrival of additional characters at the scene
will bring this private conversation to an end, leaving the reader in
suspense.
4.27-38 The disciples return to the well and the woman returns to the
village. The third unit of this narrative section begins when the disciples
suddenly return from their trip to the village. Although they do not
interrupt the dialogue—indeed, they remain strangely mute—the
woman leaves the well and returns to the village where she tells the
people about Jesus. Following her departure the disciples ask Jesus to
eat. He responds that he has food to eat of which they have no knowl-
edge and begins a discourse on the harvest. Thus the unit divides into
two sub-units: (a) the woman tells her people about Jesus (4.27-30)
and (b) Jesus tells his disciples about the harvest (4.31-38).
(a) 4.27-30 The woman tells her people about Jesus. When the disci-
ples return, the narrator reports that 'they marveled' (e0a\)|iaCov) at
the sight of Jesus speaking with the woman but did not question him
concerning his conduct (4.27). The amazement of the disciples implies
that they felt the prejudice toward Samaritans about which the woman
earlier questioned Jesus. Although the narrator did not have to record
the shock of the disciples in order to bring the dialogue between Jesus
and the woman to a close,47 the use of the verb 9a\)îdêiv foreshadows
what will become by the end of the narrative a contrast between them
and the woman of Samaria that will find them lacking. In his dialogue
with Nicodemus, Jesus instructed the Jewish leader, 'Do not marvel
[|ifi 0a\)|idcrri<;] that I say to you, "You must be born anew"' (3.7). The
disciples react with a response Jesus has declared inappropriate.48
Even though they do not open their mouths, the reader can discern
that they have headed in the wrong direction.
The silence of the disciples further develops the contrast between
them and the woman of Samaria. The woman may not always have
understood what Jesus said to her or why he did what he did, but she
47. S.M. Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in
the Contemporary Church', BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45 (40).
at least remained in dialogue with him, a dialogue which eventually

led to his words of self-disclosure. The disciples, quite to the con-
trary, repress their questions and thus diminish their possibilities for
further illumination. By choosing to report the marvel and silence of
the disciples in a way that has it intrude on the increasingly significant
conversation between Jesus and the woman, the narrator heightens this
tacit negative portrayal. The stunned and mute disciples stand in the
foreground, blocking the ability of the readers to follow the exchange
between Jesus and the woman in the background which has held their
attention for the previous twenty verses.
Instead of resuming the dialogue between Jesus and the woman, the
narrator reports that she left behind her water jar and returned to the
city. Various interpreters have concluded that the woman abandoned
her water jar so Jesus could drink from it,49 because of her haste to
return to the city with news of Jesus,50 because she had found some-
thing of greater importance than what she came to the well to secure,51
and as an indication that she would return later.52 The narrator would
not have included this detail without some reason53 and all of the above
explanations except the first one appear valid. The most significant
impact of the abandoned water jar, however, rests in the continued
contrast between the woman of Samaria and the disciples. The disciples
stand motionless at the well with their hands filled with food brought
from the town but their mouths shut. The woman of Samaria leaves
the well in a hurry, empty-handed but filled with a message to proclaim
to the townspeople. What Jesus has said to her has welled up within
her and replaced her interest in sating her physical thirst (cf. 4.14).
After arriving in the city, the woman issues an invitation and a ques-
tion to the people: 'Come see a man who told me everything I have
done. Could this be the Christ?' (4.29). This question, introduced by
49. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 240; Daube, 'Jesus', p. 138.

50. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 63; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John,
1.443.
51. Boers, Neither on This Mountain, pp. 182-83; Botha, Jesus, pp. 163-65;
Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.173; Marsh, John, p. 221.
52. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 193; O'Day, Revelation, p. 75; idem, The
Word Disclosed, p. 47.
5 3. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, p. 192, compares this action of the woman
with the disciples in the synoptics who left behind their nets and families to follow
Jesus. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 170-71, notes the significance of d(()ir|(ii elsewhere
in the Fourth Gospel.
the negative particle |if|Ti, appears to express some doubt about whether
or not the woman believes Jesus is the Christ. The fact that she identi-
fies Jesus as 'a man who told me everything I have done' (4.29), how-
ever, diminishes the force of this. Although she appears to base this
comment on Jesus' miraculous knowledge about the men in her life,54
in her last words before her proclamation to the people of the city she
declares that when the messiah, the one called Christ, comes he will
reveal everything (4.25). While her announcement that Jesus told her
'everything' does not prove she accepted him as the Christ, it at least
sufficiently places it in the realm of possibility to stimulate the interest
of the people. Regardless what conclusions she herself has drawn, her
exposure to Jesus has appealed to an inner yearning55 and has turned
her into an evangelist. Unlike Nicodemus, she leaves Jesus with a
message to proclaim. Although lacking exact verbal parallels, her
words echo those of Philip when he invited his brother Nathanael to
'come and see' Jesus for himself (1.46). Whether or not the woman of
Samaria believed Jesus was the Christ—and it seems she did— her
words had the effect Jesus would have desired. The narrator tersely
reports that those who heard her left the city and began making their
way to Jesus (4.30). Once again, however, the reader must await the
denouement of the scene; for the narrator leaves the Samaritans and
returns to the well and to Jesus and the disciples,
(b) 4.31-38 Jesus tells his disciples about the harvest. The narrator
returns to the scene at the well with the temporal marker 'meanwhile'
(4.31), which invites the reader to picture the Samaritans traveling
toward Jesus as the following series of events at the well unfold. The
dialogue begins with disciples asking Jesus to eat (4.31). His response
leaves them understandably confused, but once again they fail to ques-
tion him and instead discuss the matter among themselves (4.32-33).
Their hesitancy to ask Jesus what he means contrasts with the woman
of Samaria, thus making her appear even more favorable to the reader.
The fact that Jesus uses the emphatic pronouns eyco and \)|H£i<; when
addressing them (4.32) implies that he distances himself from them
in a way not characteristic of his conversation with the woman. The
readers can also feel superior to the disciples. They know what has
transpired between Jesus and the woman. The narrator, while not
condemning the disciples for their inability to understand, does tacitly

55. Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 193.
chide them for not seeking clarification.

Jesus then begins a monologue in which he declares that the time for
the 'harvest' (4.35) has arrived (4.34-38). Although the narrator does
not describe their reaction to this monologue, the disciples, who can-
not discern the nature of the food Jesus has to eat because they have
not asked him about it, must remain confused. Through Jesus' words
the narrator addresses the reader directly. When Jesus tells the disci-
ples to look up and notice that thefieldsare white for the harvest (4.35),
the reader can visualize the band of Samaritans making their way to
the well. Samaritans will gain entrance into the believing community by
the initiative of Jesus himself. These words also continue the contrast
between the woman of Samaria and the disciples. After receiving the
word herself, the woman has sown the seed that now stands ready for
the harvest. The disciples can benefit from her labors by 'harvesting'
those she has sent to them. The disciples will not even speak to Jesus,
but the woman of Samaria became first his worthy dialogue partner
and now his co-worker.56
4.39-42 An extended stay in Samaria. The narrator now returns to the

Samaritans and, before inferring their arrival at the well, describes
the reason they decided to travel there. They want to meet Jesus because
the witness borne by the woman has led them to believe in him (4.39).
The narrator has not assessed the level of faith of the woman and
appears to have little interest in so doing. She is nonetheless portrayed
positively because these words complete the depiction of her as a
disciple, one who bears witness to Jesus, in a way that makes her appear
more effective as an evangelist than Andrew and Philip were earlier
(1.40-46).57
Once they arrive at the well, the Samaritans immediately ask Jesus
to stay (|ieivai) with them, which he does for two days (4.40). This
infers even greater effectiveness for the witness borne by the woman.
The narrator has already explained the typical lack of contact between
Jews and Samaritans (4.9), yet what the woman told them about Jesus
has so impressed these Samaritans that they invite him to stay with
them even before he opens his mouth.
Following the brief visit, still more of the Samaritans come to faith
and announce that they no longer base what they believe on the report

57. Countryman, Mystical Way, p. 37.
of the woman, but have experienced Jesus personally in a way that

leaves them convinced he is 'the Savior of the world' (4.41-42). While
these words do not discount the role of the woman, they do place them
in a carefully defined perspective. Her witness helped them begin their
journey to faith, but only their personal interaction with Jesus could
complete the process. Nevertheless, the woman has helped to lead the
Samaritans to a striking christological confession, a confession made
all the more noteworthy if the reader remembers the less than satisfac-
tory responses made to Jesus thus far in the narrative by leaders and
members of the Jewish community. Jesus has reaped the fields ripe for
the harvest (4.35) and the reader can now discern the necessity of
traveling through Samaria (4.4).

The task of determining the meaning and function of water within and
as a result of this narrative segment can begin with a comparison of the
water of Jacob's Well with that offered by Jesus. The water of the well
had a rich tradition associated with it and satisfied physical thirst, but
it could be rendered unacceptable. The water offered by Jesus, on the
other hand, both challenged and transcended tradition, sated a deeper
spiritual thirst, and 'welled up' within the recipient. Each of these dis-
tinctions becomes more significant when examined in greater detail.
Although not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in this narrative Jacob's
Well represents the traditions of Judaism.58 As previously noted, not
only Jacob (Gen. 29) but also Isaac (Gen. 24) and Moses (Exod. 2)
gained their wives as a result of an interchange at a well. Thus every-
thing Jewish had some connection with a well. This, of course, included
the Torah for which water stood as a symbol, particularly in rabbinic
tradition, because of its ability to cleanse the faithful, to satisfy thirst
for knowledge, and to promote life.59 This association connects the
well with the question of purification that has already arisen twice in
the Gospel narrative (2.6; 3.25). The woman of Samaria refers to this
issue when she expresses surprise that Jesus would ask her for a drink.
If she, a Samaritan, handed Jesus a drink, even from the well of the
58. F.W. Beare, 'Spirit of Life and Truth: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in
the Fourth Gospel', Toronto Journal of Theology 3 (1987), pp. 110-25 (113);
Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 169; Dodd, Interpretation, p. 312.
famous patriarch Jacob, that contact with her would contaminate him.
That reveals its frailty.
Yet, with the mention of 'living water', Jesus appeals to something
shared by Samaritans and Jews. The scriptures of both groups con-
sidered living water a means of purification.60 Jesus builds upon that
shared tradition with his request and his invitation. Far from fearing
contamination, he not only implies willingness to share a drinking
vessel with the woman but also directly offers to give her the water he
can provide. As he earlier replaced the water in the purification vessels
at Cana, so now he offers a gift not bound to the ritualistic constraints
imposed on the water drawn from Jacob's Well.61 The water Jesus
offers both anticipates and initiates a day when worship will not be
divided between locations favored by the Samaritans and the Jews
(4.21), a day when worship will occur in spirit and truth (4.23). At
the close of this narrative unit the Samaritans will proclaim their recog-
nition of Jesus' distinctiveness and of his gift with their declaration of
him as 'the Savior of the world' (4.42).
The water of the well satisfied physical thirst and did so with ample
supply (4.12). Yet, as the thirst of Jesus and the presence of the woman
at the well indicate, such satisfaction had only a temporal effect. The
water offered by Jesus meets a deeper and spiritual need. It has the
ability to end thirst as it becomes a 'spring of water welling up to
eternal life' (4.13-14).62 Jesus offers 'a spiritually enlivening water'.63
The water Jesus provides, therefore, symbolizes, at the very least, a
new reality which is spiritual in nature and which generates further
blessings. Considering the meaning(s) added to water by calling it
'living water', a phrase which has prompted a variety of interpretations,
further develops these conclusions.
Marsh considers living water an image for the Torah. He bases this

61. Since running water also symbolized sanctification and purity in Greek
thought, Jesus offers to transcend that as well. What he offers transcends both the
purification rites of the Jews and the sanctity of Dionysus. See E.R. Goodenough,
Jewish Symbolism in the Greco-Roman Period. VII. Pagan Symbols in Judaism
(New York: Pantheon, 1958), p. 70.
62. In Pss. 87.7; 104.10; 107.35; 114.8; and Isa. 41.18; 58.11, flowing
spring water symbolizes the goodness of God. See J.P. Oleson, 'Water Works', in
D.N. Freedman (ed.) The Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI (New York: Doubleday,
1992), p. 884.
63. Staley, Print's First Kiss, p. 102.
conclusion on the rabbinic writings in which the phrase frequently

functions that way. This leads him to conclude that Jesus told the woman
that if she and her people understood Torah, she would perceive his
nature and the Samaritans would number among those who would
come to him for that he alone could offer.64
Does the narrative, however, support such a conclusion? Jesus
attempts to make neither the woman nor the Samaritans 'good Jews'.
Although insisting that salvation comes from the Jews (4.22), he has
greater interest in fostering worship that transcends human boundaries
(4.21, 23-24). Later in the gospel Jesus will infer that if his Jewish
opponents had understood Scripture they would have accepted him,65
but he levies no similar charge against the characters in this scene.
Jesus does not hesitate to enter a dialogue with the woman despite her
Samaritan origins and the Samaritans do in fact come to faith in him
after he, in violation of the Torah, stays with them for two days.
Odeberg considers living water a symbol of the teaching and/or
doctrine not of Judaism in general but of Jesus in particular. He posits
that it represents a gift that can come only from God and that Jesus
alone can mediate. As such, living water transcends both Torah and the
wisdom necessary for moral life. Water represents a spiritual teaching
that can become both the source of life and life itself. In other words,
living water is not merely teaching about spiritual realities and about
eternal life, but rather is spiritual reality and eternal life.66 This ties
the meaning of living water closely to the statement about birth of water
and spirit which Jesus earlier made to Nicodemus (3.5) and effectively
links it with the necessity of worship in spirit and truth (4.24).
Bultmann connects living water much more closely with Jesus and
considers it a symbol of the revelation of Jesus or of the gift bestowed
by that revelation. He bases this largely on passages in the Odes of
Solomon which, as this one, link water and thirst in a way that makes
them indicative of the fundamental human desire to live.67 The self-
disclosure of Jesus which brings his conversation with the woman to a
close (4.26) and the fact that the Samaritans had their initial faith con-
firmed and deepened after personal contact with Jesus (4.41-42) lend
64. Marsh, John, p. 213; see also Koester, Symbolism, pp. 169-70.
65. Jn 5.39-47; 7.14-24; 11.31-39.
66. Odeberg, Fourth Gospel, pp. 168-69.
67. Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 184-86.
support to this conclusion and to the related one that living water
symbolizes Jesus himself.68
Others have interpreted the living water as a symbol of the teaching
and/or the revelation of Jesus and of the Spirit which believers receive
from Jesus and/or God. Brown considers living water representative
not of Jesus himself but of something spiritual which he offers.
Similarly, it manifests not eternal life itself but something which leads
to eternal life.69 This understanding builds on the description of living
water as a gift that 'will become... a spring of water welling up into
eternal life' (4.14). Like the hour that both now is and is to come
(4.23), living water changes the present state of the recipient but is a
provision for a future reality more than an end in itself. O'Day echoes
much of this in calling living water a spiritual gift that avails one to
the life-giving power of God. She maintains that it does not matter
whether one understands that gift to be the teaching of Jesus or to be
the Holy Spirit as much as it matters whether or not one accepts that
gift.70 Schnackenburg uses slightly different words to draw a similar
conclusion. He considers living water symbolic of the Spirit or of the
divine life made available through Jesus and/or God and defines it as a
gift from God that quenches the thirst of humanity for life.71 This gift
is both available and significant now and preparatory and important
for realities yet to come.
Koester focuses on the knowledge represented by the living water. At
the beginning of the narrative the woman does not know Jesus and her
people do not know what they worship. By the end, however, her
knowledge of him increases and they know that he is the Savior of
the world. The gift of water yields the blessing of insight into Jesus'
identity.72
With the exception of the understanding of living water as symbolic
of the Torah, all of these interpretations seem valid. Because living
water makes its initial appearance in the Gospel in this passage, a reader
encountering the Gospel for the first time must rely on the present con-
text and any previous meanings of water when attempting to discern
68. E. Pinto, 'John: The Gospel of Life', TBT23 (1985), pp. 397-402 (399).
69. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.178-79; cf. Whitacre, Johannine
Polemic, p. 45.
71. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 1.431 -32.
what difference it makes to call the water Jesus offers 'living'. Water
has previously denoted primarily Jesus' uniqueness and the availability
of something new in and through him and has distinguished believers
from non-believers. Those connotations continue in the offer of living
water to the woman of Samaria regardless whether the reader considers
living water symbolic of the teachings and/or revelation of Jesus, a
manifestation of the person of Jesus, or the Spirit as a gift offered by
Jesus. As water symbolically represented the means of revealing Jesus
to Israel in the acts of John the Baptist (1.29-34), so too living water
distinguishes Jesus as the bearer of a gift from God (4.10). As the
miracle performed with water manifested Jesus' glory to his disciples
at the wedding at Cana (2.1-11), so also the discussion of living water
prepares the woman for fuller understanding of his identity (4.26). As
the dialogue with Nicodemus identifies water with the birth anew that
provides entrance and access into eternal life (3.3-8), so also living
water satisfies an immediate longing and becomes a source of life
eternal (4.14-15). To this point in the narrative, the narrator has linked
all of these images loosely together and left readers to discern for
themselves how or whether they merge into a composite whole.
When viewed from the perspective of the Gospel as a whole, how-
ever, it appears that the narrator begins here to prepare the reader to
unite all of the various images and meanings of water under the general
heading of the pre-eminent gift of the Spirit.73 Jesus offers the woman
of Samaria living water that quenches all thirst and is preferable to the
water of the well which satisfies only temporarily. The narrator will
later have him identify the Spirit as the author of life, life for which
flesh is no avail (6.63). Jesus says this living water will become a spring
of water welling up into eternal life. The narrator will later identify the
rivers of living water which Jesus makes available as the Spirit (7.38-
39). Similarly, Jesus will later identify the Spirit as the one who will
teach 'all things' (14.26) and who will guide believers 'into all the truth'
(16.13).
This passage begins to wed the symbol of water to the fullness of
what Jesus has to offer. The one identified by the prologue as the bearer
of life (1.4) and who gives people the opportunity to have life in his
name (20.31) not only is revealed with the help of water, uses water in
his signs and teachings, and baptizes with water, but also offers living
73. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 228, 233-34.

water which yields access to the life he bears and comes to make
available.
Before turning to the next narrative section in which water appears,
let me mention briefly the relationship of this passage with the ques-
tion of baptism. A number of commentators find a baptismal motif
present here. The context of this section within the Gospel narrative
lends some support to this conclusion. The opening verse makes refer-
ence to the rite of baptism and, as Brown has noted, this dialogue has
a close association with the one between Jesus and Nicodemus in which
the issue of baptism may have been implied and a passage which dis-
cusses baptism separates the two.74 Others have found additional sup-
port for baptismal imagery in statement of Jesus that whoever 'drinks'
(7ctTi) (4.14) the water he offers will not thirst again, maintaining that
the appearance of the verb 'drinks' in the aorist tense implies a single
drink of water and thus refers to the practice of baptism.75
This evidence, however, is not conclusive. In the first place, despite
the fact that the Samaritans certainly came to faith in Jesus and the
woman probably did too, the narrator nowhere directly states that Jesus
or the disciples baptized any of them. A more 'vocal' characteristic of
the text strengthens this argument from silence. The contrast between
the water of the well which cannot quench thirst for ever and the
living water which has such power and between the physical food the
disciples brought Jesus to eat and his insistence that he had food to eat
of which they did not know (4.31-34), coupled with the abandonment
by the woman of the water jar she brought to the well when she
returned to the city (4.28), repeat the warning the reader earlier
received in the dialogue with Nicodemus not to take Jesus' words and
message too literally. The narrator consistently contrasts the physical
elements in the scene with the more significant spiritual realities made
available by Jesus. That does not rule out the possibility of baptismal
imagery in this passage, but it does cast a shadow of suspicion on any-
thing primarily physical in nature. The narrator does not speak against
the practice of baptism, but a narrator who intended to support the
practice and significance of the sacrament failed to exploit this text
which would have served well in achieving that goal.
In this narrative section water symbolizes a gift from God which

75. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 183; M J . Taylor, John: The Different Gospel
(New York: Alba House, 1983), p. 46.
Jesus alone makes available and which provides the recipient with not
only immediate benefits but also the potential for future and eternal
life. Water represents both the teaching/revelation and the unique per-
son of Jesus and those who accept it become distinguished from those
who continue to thirst. As a symbol, water not only conveys informa-
tion about the gift Jesus offers but also makes that gift manifest.76
Like water, what Jesus offers refreshes and renews. As water, what
Jesus offers ends thirst for ever. The readers now have a broad range
of meanings to apply to the symbol when it next appears.
2. Narrative VI: Jesus and the Royal Official (4.46-54)

The sixth appearance of water takes place in the final narrative section
of John 4, a chapter in which all the scenes take place outside Jerusalem
and Judea. Upon his return to Cana, Jesus encounters an unnamed
official who seeks his aid for his son who lies near death in Capernaum,
a considerable distance to the northeast. The only mention of water
occurs in the introductory verse of the passage and has more to do
with the location of the narrative than with the events themselves. An
examination of the passage will reveal that this reference to location
does not lack significance.

The healing of the son of the royal official follows a brief section of
three verses (4.43-45) that separates this narrative from that of the
passage through Samaria (4.1-42). Following his visit to Samaria,
Jesus resumes the journey to Galilee (4.43). This movement requires
no explanation because the narrator began the Samaritan episode by
announcing that Jesus had to traverse Samaria on his way to Galilee
(4.3-4). Yet, the narrator chooses to justify this change of location by
means of the puzzling comment that Jesus knew a prophet had no
honor in his own country (4.44). Discerning the identity of 'his own
country' presents the reader with a difficult task and has prompted
varying explanations. The phrase certainly does not refer to Samaria,
the area most recently vacated by Jesus, and therefore refers either to
Galilee or Judea.77 The positive response Jesus has received already in
76. For discussion of this function of a symbol, see, among others, Lee,
Symbolic Narratives, p. 29, and Mackler, 'Symbols', p. 292.
77. Boers, Neither on This Mountain, p. 154, maintains that the phrase refers
Galilee (2.11) and the impact he will have on the official (4.50, 53-54)
make it difficult to accept Galilee as the referent for this phrase. This
stands true despite the fact that the response of the Galileans seems
dependent on what they saw at the feast in Jerusalem (4.45), a res-
ponse the narrator has previously cast in a negative light (2.23-25),
and despite the possible rebuke of the official by Jesus for inability to
believe without the aid of signs and wonders (4.48). The Galileans may
not have the depth or kind of faith Jesus hoped to prompt, but they at
least display some faith. The earlier demand of the Jerusalem Jews for
a sign (2.18), the inability of Nicodemus to come to faith (3.9-12),
and the implied opposition of the Judean Pharisees which provoked
Jesus to depart through Samaria for Galilee (4.1-3) combine to suggest
that the Judeans stand as the ones least willing to honor Jesus. Thus
understood, the three verses which precede this narrative section depict
Jesus continuing his movement away from Judea and anticipate a more
positive response than he has received there.
In the passage which follows this narrative section, Jesus returns to
Jerusalem and heals a lame man, an act which results in even more
intense opposition to him (5.1-18). The narrator positions the healing of
the son of the royal official between a vague rebuke of Judean Jews and
a presentation of their outright rejection of Jesus, a context that makes
any positive response to Jesus by the official even more noteworthy.
The narrative section opens and closes with spatial references to
Galilee (4.46, 54), a continuation of the journey begun at the start of
John 4 (v. 3) and a different setting than the scenes of John 5. The
announcement of the need for healing and the report that healing has
occurred establish the narrative boundaries and the final verse com-
pletes this narrative section and brings the chapter to a close.

Development
Despite the fact that a request for and a report of a healing appear
within it and help to establish its boundaries, this narrative section has
as its focal point not a miraculous event but rather the issue of faith.
The narrator provides no detailed account of the actual healing but
does employ the verb 'to believe' (niaxevco) three times (4.48, 50,
not to a place but to 'his own people'. That makes it ironic that the people of his own
country do not honor Jesus but the Samaritans honor him as the Savior of the world
despite the fact that they do not know what they worship (4.22).
53). Jesus sternly announces that although many seek signs he wants
people to exhibit faith independent of such aids (4.48). The official
fulfills that desire, responding in faith first to what Jesus says (4.50)
and then to the confirmation of those words (4.53).
Four units of unequal length comprise this narrative section. It
opens with a brief introduction (4.46), moves to announcements of
healing and faith (4.47-50), and then confirms that healing and faith
(4.51-53), before ending with a terse conclusion (4.54).
Because water appears only in the introduction of this narrative
section, I will conduct a less detailed examination of it. I will, how-
ever, draw attention to features of the passage that may facilitate the
symbol's meaning and function.
4.46 Introduction. The introductory verse of this narrative section

announces a change in geographic location and the appearance of a
new character. Jesus returns to Cana of Galilee, which the narrator
further identifies as the place where Jesus 'made the water wine'. This
reminder of the earlier event at Cana, coupled with the consecutive
numbering of the miracles performed there with which the narrative
section ends, links these two stories closely together.78 The events to
follow will make this relationship even more obvious. In both accounts
someone asks Jesus to meet a need, but receives a rebuke before he
responds to the exigency. Even before describing what happens on this
return trip to Cana, however, the narrator provides a hint of what the
reader can expect. When Jesus turned the water into wine, the disciples
responded with faith (2.11). The elaborate description of the location
for this scene invites the reader to prepare for another call to and
opportunity for faith.
The narrator then introduces a new character. Although the name
of this individual remains unknown, the reader does receive a fairly
complete description of him. He is a royal official (PaaiîKoq), who
has a sick son in distant Capernaum. The term, PaaiXiKoq, could imply
either a person of royal blood or an officer in the service of a king.79
In a Gospel that has already seen a Jewish leader fail to respond to
Jesus (3.1-15) but a group of Samaritans confess him to be the Savior
78. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.194; Countryman, Mystical Way,

p. 39; Craddock, John, p. 40.
John, 1.190.
of the world (4.42), the reader knows that the heritage of the official
will matter less than whether or not he responds favorably to Jesus.
4.47-50 Announcements of healing and faith. After noting the change

in location and the appearance of a new character, the narrator
quickly sets events in motion. Without providing a single indication of
how the royal official gained his knowledge of Jesus as a healer, the
narrator declares that when this man discovered that Jesus had entered
Galilee he urgently requested that he heal his son who lay at the point
of death (4.47). The narrative context makes it conceivable that the
official numbered among the Galileans who welcomed Jesus because
they 'had seen the things he had done in Jerusalem at the feast' (4.45).
Jesus responds to this urgent request with words that sound even
colder and more distant than his initial reaction when his mother
informed him of the shortage of wine at the wedding at Cana: 'Unless
you see signs and wonders, you will not believe' (4.48). Although those
words do not necessarily reject the official's request, they certainly
place him in an awkward position and, at the very least, call for faith
not dependent on miracles alone. Jesus appears to speak directly to the
official (4.48), but the second person plural forms of the verbs for
seeing and believing in Jesus' comment weaken any implied personal
rejection. The rebuke addresses not merely this official but a larger,
unidentified audience. Although the readers know nothing about this
larger audience, they can perceive that the official already has some
degree of faith. Applied to him, Jesus' words represent not a rebuke
but a challenge to deepen the faith he has by freeing it from dependency
on signs.
Like the mother of Jesus at Cana, the royal official takes no umbrage
at Jesus' remarks. He repeats his request and the narrator intensifies
the plea by recording it in direct discourse: 'Lord, come down before
my child dies' (4.49). The official does not need a miracle to convince
him of the power resident in Jesus. He already believes enough to
consider Jesus capable of saving his child from certain death.
Jesus then dismisses the official with an assurance that his request
has been granted: 'Go, your son lives' (4.50). Jesus will not travel to
Capernaum with the official. The one who can provide living water
even without a bucket to dip into the well can also grant life even
though not physically present. By commanding the man to return
alone, Jesus tacitly puts his faith to the test.
The official passes the test. The narrator reports that he believed
what Jesus told him and left.80 He does not have to see, but returns
home confident that his son will remain alive. While the lack of overt
confession or recognition of Jesus as messiah suggests to some that the
official does not yet have complete faith,81 by returning home he
obeys the only command Jesus has given him. As the Samaritans pro-
gressed in faith from believing because of what the woman told them
when returning from the well to believing because of the word of
Jesus (4.41-42), so also the royal official progresses from his initial
request for Jesus to come with him and to heal his son to the point of
believing that the word of Jesus will prove true whether or not he
travels personally to the bedside.
4.51-53 Confirmations of healing and faith. While on his way home

the royal official encounters one of his servants who greets him with
the good news that his son remains alive (4.51). The official responds
to this not with the emotion and relief we might expect from a
worried father, but with curiosity. He asks at what time the child's
condition began to improve (4.52). After the servant responds that the
recovery began during the seventh hour of the preceding day, the
narrator reports that the official knew Jesus had declared that his son
would live at exactly that time (5.43). The narrator then announces
that 'he and all his household believed' (4.53).
This sequence of events does more than confirm the faith of the
royal official. Equally important in the narrative is the fact that it also
brings his household to faith. The members of the household pre-
viously knew only that the child recovered. Thanks to the exchange on
the road, they now can know the source of the healing and can believe
in Jesus as well. As the woman of Samaria bore witness to the towns-
people that led to their discovery of faith, so does the exchange on the
road lead those associated with the royal official to faith. Both stories
enforce the positive impact of one who responds to Jesus favorably
and obeys his directives.
This exchange also has a profound impact on the reader. The men-
80. The verb translated 'left' is the imperfect middle form of the same verb used
in the command of Jesus (nopevo\mi). By repeating the verb, the narrator implies
that the official did exactly what Jesus told him to do.
John, 1.191.
tion of the precise hour of the recovery not only lends veracity to the
text but also reinforces the positive portrayal of the official who left,
as Jesus commanded, with no physical proof that Jesus had healed his
son. The official believed the word spoken by Jesus, a positive por-
trayal since Jesus made it clear that he prefers and solicits faith that
stands independent of signs and wonders (4.48). That does not, how-
ever, negate the value of signs and wonders for the strengthening faith
previously established. Jesus has healed a child separated by a sizeable
distance without even seeing him. This helps readers believe, despite
the distance in time which separates them from Jesus, the promises of
the gospel that apply directly to them.
4.54 Conclusion. As previously noted, the final verse of this narrative

section also completes the journey of Jesus to Galilee which began in
the opening verses of the chapter. The narrator offers no additional
comments regarding the healing or its impact on the royal official and
his household, but ends the story by identifying the healing as the
second sign performed by Jesus. The fact that the narrator calls the
healing a sign, despite the frustration Jesus expressed regarding those
who need signs and wonders to believe, indicates that confidence in
signs, in and of itself, need not prove detrimental. Signs can help people
perceive Jesus' identity. The problem lies in those who must have or
who demand such signs as a prerequisite to faith.
As observed above, in calling this Jesus' second sign, the narrator
invites the reader to compare this narrative section with that of the
changing of the water into wine at Cana (2.1-11). Both narrative
sections depict individuals coming to faith and/or having their faith
deepened. When the miracle performed at Cana manifested the glory
of Jesus, his disciples believed in him. When Jesus announced the
healing of his son, the royal official believed his word and had that faith
confirmed during a discussion on the road. In both situations Jesus
acted with some hesitancy. He did not provide wine for the wedding
feast simply at the insistence of his mother. Nor did he heal the son of
the official merely because of the request made to him. In the former
case he observed that his hour had not yet arrived and in the latter he
complained about those who needed signs to have faith. Yet, when his
mother displayed confidence that he would act appropriately and when
the official persisted, Jesus responded. He permits no one to determine
his course, but he does respond to those who persevere.

The word 'water' appears only in the introduction of this narrative
section (4.46), where it identifies the Cana to which Jesus came at the
end of his journey to Galilee (cf. 4.3). Although not repeated in the
main body of the narrative, this reference to water does not lack
significance.
Earlier the narrator let the description 'Cana in Galilee' (2.1) suffice
to identify this location. Now, however, the town receives the additional
description of being the place where Jesus made the water wine. This
not only links the narrative section that follows with that of the miracle
at the wedding feast, but also invites readers to expect something to
happen even before the narrator has introduced a new character. Jesus'
statement about the lack of honor a prophet receives in his own country
(4.44-45) heightens this expectation. Within the Gospel narrative, the
ministry of Jesus has had little impact in Judea and Jerusalem (2.13—
3.21). The narrator hints that Jesus had to leave Judea (4.1) as a result
of the positive response he did receive (3.26). But in Cana, Jesus
proved able to manifest his glory and to increase faith (2.11).
This extended description reveals that Cana now has a new identity.
No longer merely a town in Galilee, it now has the distinction of being
the location of the first sign of Jesus. Although the narrator does not
develop this theme, Cana symbolizes what happens when people accept
what Jesus has to offer. As Jesus can change water into wine, so can he
change followers of John the Baptist into disciples of the messiah (1.35-
51) and normally despised Samaritans into believers in the 'Savior of
the world' (4.1-42). New identity comes with positive and enduring
response to Jesus. This enhances the earlier identification of water as a
symbol of new beginning.
3. Narrative VII: Jesus and the Lame Man at the Pool (5.1-18)
Water next appears in a scene that opens with an encounter between
Jesus and yet another unnamed character, a man who had suffered
from lameness82 for thirty-eight years. Jesus dominates the action, as
82. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 137, correctly notes that the narrator does not
specifically indicate that the man at the pool was lame. Verse 8, however, appears to
assume that the man could not walk prior to Jesus' arrival. The exact nature of the
illness matters less than the fact that the man carried his pallet on the Sabbath as
directed by Jesus.
in nearly every other scene in the Fourth Gospel, despite the fact that
he is the subject of only five sentences.83 After healing the lame man,
Jesus instructs him to leave the pool carrying his bed. Since the healing
takes place on the Sabbath (that, itself, a breech of the law), when the
Jewish authorities observe the man carrying his bed they take issue
first with him and then with Jesus for this defiance of Sabbath regula-
tions. What began as a healing story becomes a conflict narrative84 and
results in even greater antagonism between Jesus and the authorities.85
The controversy narrated here sets in motion a series of controversial
dialogues that comprises much of chs. 5 through 12 of the Gospel.86
Although present throughout most of the scene, the lame man
remains essentially unknown. In one of the many contrasts between
this narrative and that of the blind man in ch. 9, the lame man displays
faith neither before nor after the healing and does nothing that invites
appreciation of him. The initial sympathy the reader has for him due
to his long illness quickly wanes when he appears more than willing to
help to fuel the fires of the hostility the authorities feel toward Jesus.
The word 'water' appears only once (v. 7) in this narrative section
and is associated with the pool and the cure the man sought from it
rather than with Jesus.87 Although Jesus does not use this water in the
healing of the lame man, it deserves our attention. The narrator
informs the reader that the man had been at the pool for a long time
(5.6). His long and futile wait contrasts sharply with the nearly
immediate cure he receives once Jesus arrives.

Changes in time, location, and characters separate John 4 and 5. The
fourth chapter ends with Jesus in Galilee. The opening sentence of
John 5 notes that after his trip to Galilee (jLtexd Toruxa), Jesus returned
83. Jn5.1, 6, 8, 14, 17.

84. L.T. Witkamp, The Use of Traditions in John 5.1-18', JSNT 25 (1985),
pp. 19-47 (31).
85. Borg considers this and the other Sabbath controversies of the Fourth Gospel
manifestations of a conflict between emphasis on holiness and emphasis on mercy.
See M.J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (New
York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984), pp. 145-49.
86. J. Painter, Text and Context in John 5', AusBR 35 (1987), pp. 28-34 (28).
87. vScop also appears twice in 5.3b-4, but, for reasons detailed below, we will
not discuss those verses here.
to Jerusalem at the time of a Jewish feast.88 The royal official, whose

son Jesus healed at the close of John 4, disappears from the narrative
and Jesus encounters a lame man and the Jewish authorities.
John 5 comprises one of the larger narrative divisions of the Fourth
Gospel. Jesus remains in Jerusalem throughout this chapter, entering
yet another conflict with the Jewish authorities as a result of healing a
lame man on the Sabbath (5.1-18) and delivering an extended dis-
course to the Jews in which he defends his apparent disregard for their
laws on the basis of his unique relationship with the Father (5.19-47).
When John 6 begins, Jesus moves to the other side of the Sea of Galilee
(6.1) and leaves behind the authorities to spend time with the multi-
tudes who followed him (6.2).
The events immediately surrounding the healing of the lame man
comprise a distinct narrative section within this larger narrative divi-
sion. Jesus' return to Jerusalem in v. 1 reminds the reader of his earlier
decision to leave Judea because of the attention given to his baptismal
ministry by the Pharisees (4.1-3). As the reader might expect, this
reappearance in Jerusalem results in conflict. Following the healing of
the lame man, the dialogue between Jesus and the Jews results first in
their decision to persecute him (5.16) and then in their desire to put
him to death (5.18). The conflict between Jesus and the authorities
reaches a new height and fulfills the expectations created in the opening
verse.
The monologue delivered by Jesus, which continues from v. 19 to
the end of the chapter, has a close relationship with this narrative
section. In it Jesus responds to the Jewish objection to his working on
the Sabbath and to their indignation when he sets himself on a level
equal to God. But Jesus does more than merely defend his actions when
healing on the Sabbath. He moves from the microcosm of the healing
and conflict story to the macrocosm of his mission and the almost
unavoidable rejection of it by the Jews. The healing of the lame man
provides the occasion for his remarks but does not define their para-
meters. Jesus moves from a brief defense of his Sabbath healing to an
extended explanation of his absolute dependence on and obedience to
the Father and of the reasons for the Jewish refusal to accept him. In the
88. This phrase frequently marks transitions in the Fourth Gospel, as has been
noted by R.A. Culpepper, 'John 5.1-18: A Sample of Narrative Critical Commentary',
in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1993),
pp. 193-207 (196).
chapter as a whole the rift between Jesus and the Jews expands greatly.
The smaller narrative section which revolves around the healing sets
this in motion, but the remainder of the chapter significantly expands it.
John 5.1-18 asaNarrative Section: Literary Structure and Development

As previously noted, this passage begins as a healing story but, after
the announcement that the healing took place on the Sabbath (5.9),
quickly becomes a conflict narrative. The narrator draws far more
attention to the conflict than to the miracle. The lame man makes no
response to the healing other than strictly following the instructions
Jesus gave him (5.8-9). When questioned by the authorities, he places
the blame for the Sabbath violation on the one who healed him (5.11)
and later informs them of the identity of the healer (5.15). The narra-
tor does not mention what happened to the lame man after that, but
concludes that his actions resulted in increased friction between Jesus
and the Jews. The healing serves primarily as the occasion for increased
tension between Jesus and the authorities.
The following examination of this narrative section will omit words
often added after verse three:
waiting for the moving of the water, for an angel of the Lord went down
from time to time into the pool, and troubled the water and whoever stepped
in first after the troubling of the water became healed of whatever disease
he had (5.3b-4).
Although scholars are not unanimous in their omission of these verses

as the most authentic reading of the text,89 most consider them a later
addition that helps explain why those seeking healing lay at the pool.90
Such early and widespread textual witnesses as papyri $p66 and $p75
and codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and Claromontanus do not
include these verses. The debate over their authenticity will, no doubt,
continue, but whether one omits or includes these verses makes little
difference in the interpretation of the text. The water of the pool plays
89. For an argument in favor of including these words in the authentic text, see
Z.C. Hodges, T h e Angel at Bethseda—John 5.4', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 25-39.
John, 1.207; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 241; G.D. Fee, 'On the Inauthenticity of
John 5.3b-4\ EvQ 54 (1982), pp. 207-18 (208); Kysar, John, p. 76; Lindars,
Gospel of John, p. 214; B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 209; and Schnackenburg,
Gospel according to St John, 1.182; 2.95.
no part in the healing of the lame man and the contrast between the
long-awaited healing and the rapid cure by Jesus remains the same
whether or not the reader knows the tradition of the troubling of the
waters.
The narrative section consists of an introductory verse followed by
five scenes, eachof which features two principal characters.91 The
introductory verse moves Jesus into Jerusalem (5.1). After that the
narrative moves rapidly from scenes featuring Jesus and the lame man
(5.2-9), the Jews and the lame man (5.10-13), Jesus and the lame man
(5.14), the lame man and the Jews (5.15), and Jesus and the Jews
(5.16-18). The healing of the lame man takes place in the initial scene,
but the implications of the healing continue throughout the remaining
ones. This supports the earlier conclusion that the narrator has greater
interest in the conflict that resulted from the healing than in the miracle
itself.
5.7 Introduction. The opening verse of this narrative section separates

the events that follow from John 4 with the phrase jiexd xccuTa and
moves Jesus into Jerusalem in time to attend a 'feast of the Jews'.
During his initial visit to Jerusalem in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus
encountered opposition from the Jews for driving the vendors and
money-changers out of the temple (2.13-22), had no faith in people
whose faith in him resulted from the signs he performed (2.23-25),
and had a disappointing conversation with a member of the Sanhedrin
named Nicodemus (3.1-21). He does not enter Jerusalem a stranger to
the Jews. That, added to the fact that Jesus told the woman of Samaria
a time would come when worship of God will not continue in Jerusalem
(4.21), gives the reader ample reason to anticipate an unfavorable
reception.
Many have concluded that the unnamed feast refers to Pentecost.92
The narrator, however, shows no interest in declaring which feast
Jesus attended. This probably reflects the fact that the feast itself has
little significance in the narrative, whereas the later observation that
the healing occurred on the Sabbath does.
91. Culpepper, 'John 5.1-18'; Martyn, History and Theology, pp. 68-70, also
divide the narrative according to the rule of the two.
92. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 251; Ellis, Genius of John, p. 88;
Guilding, Fourth Gospel, pp. 85-86; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John,
2.93.
Culpepper points out how skillfully the narrator uses spacial and
temporal markers to slow the pace of the narrative. The reader quickly
notes Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, observes the scene at the pool, and
notes the condition of the man before Jesus speaks. This moves the
reader 'from summary, to description, to dialogue'.93
5.2-9 Jesus and the lame man. The scene featuring Jesus and the lame
man divides into four parts: (a) a description of the pool and of the
condition of the lame man Jesus encounters there (5.2-3, 5), (b) the
confrontation of the lame man by Jesus (5.6), (c) the response of the
lame man to Jesus (5.7), and (d) the healing of the lame man by Jesus
(5.8-9).
Jesus dominates the action throughout this scene. He notices the
lame man, perceives both his condition and the length of time he has
suffered from it, and initiates the discussion that results in the healing.
By portraying the scene through Jesus' eyes, the narrator focuses on
the fact that Jesus performed a healing more than on the impact of the
miracle for the lame man. Further, by not mentioning that the healing
occurred on the Sabbath until the final sentence of the scene, the narra-
tor adds dramatic tension to the proceedings. Jesus initiates an action
that results in a violation of Sabbath law. This confirms the suspicion
generated by the introductory verse that he would not receive a
favorable response in Jerusalem.
(a) 5.2-3, 5 The condition of the lame man. The narrator begins the
scene with an extensive description of the location: calling attention
to a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem, providing the Hebrew
rendering of its name, noting its five porticoes, and observing that a
crowd of people suffering from various ailments lay there. The textual
witnesses offer a variety of readings for the Hebrew name of the pool,
but the name itself lacks significance in what follows and functions
solely to increase the reliability of the narrator.
The mention of the five porticoes may have greater significance.
Although the physical description of the surroundings could merely
continue to establish the reliability of the narrator, the reader can also
view the five porticoes as symbolic of the five books of the Law.
Nothing in the text demands this interpretation, but the fact that a con-
troversy over a violation of the law soon erupts makes it likely. The
probability of this symbolic meaning increases when the reader recalls
93. Culpepper, 'John 5.1-18', pp. 201-202.

the scene of Jesus at the well in ch. 4, in which he violated the Law by
contact with the woman of Samaria, and when a reader familiar with
the Gospel notes the role interpretation of Scripture plays in the mono-
logue Jesus delivers later in this chapter (5.39-40).
The mention of the various invalids who lay near the pool tacitly
provides a need for Jesus to meet. Although Jesus has not previously
come into contact with a group of people with such physical needs, the
reader can expect one who provided wine for a wedding when the
supply ran short and who healed the son of a royal official to make some
response to obvious human suffering. First century readers accustomed
to associating springs and pools with gods of healing would almost
certainly approach this passage with heightened expectations.94
Although not as complete as the description of the location, the
portrait of the lame man does include one intriguing detail. The narra-
tor points out that he has suffered from his ailment for thirty-eight
years (5.5). Some commentators consider this an allusion to Deut.
2.14, which states that it took the Hebrew people thirty-eight years to
complete their wilderness wanderings.95 Others consider such an allu-
sion improbable96 and one concludes that in the mention of the thirty-
eight years 'another flight of fancy presents itself to those who think
that numbers must always have meanings'.97
As previously noted, numbers seldom have symbolic meaning in the
Fourth Gospel. This scene, however, has already provided a possible
exception to that. If one considers the five porticoes symbolic of the
Law, it would also appear appropriate to consider the thirty-eight
years of suffering of the lame man an allusion to the time the Hebrew
people spent wandering through the wilderness before receiving the
Law and entering the promised land. If this narrative section included
only the record of a healing, such an interpretation would not seem
likely. But the healing of the lame man has significance primarily
because it took place on the Sabbath and prompted a dispute between
Jesus and the Jews over adherence to the Law. As the Hebrew people
entered the promised land with the Law following thirty-eight years
of wandering through the wilderness, so will Jesus send the lame man,
94. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 172-73.

95. Bruns, Art and Thought, p. 64; Roth, 'Scripture Coding', p. 11.
p. 265.
97. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 214.
carrying his pallet, into a new life following thirty-eight years of

debilitation. The Jews, however, will oppose this action on the basis of
the Law. At that point, the reader may hear in the background the echo
of the words of the prologue, 'the Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' (1.17). Jesus will offer the
lame man a new beginning. The Jews, tied firmly to Moses alone, will
attempt to invalidate it. While the reader does not have to make such
an allusion to understand this narrative section, it appears appropriate
and no flight of fancy to do so.
(b) 5.6 Jesus confronts the lame man. Jesus makes a thorough and
rapid response to the lame man. He perceives how long the man has
been in this condition and asks what we could consider a question with
an obvious answer: 'Do you want to be healed?' Jesus' omniscience
reflects his supernatural origin and comes as no surprise to the reader.
The question he asks, however, does appear unusual.
One would assume that an individual who had endured a debilitating
condition for thirty-eight years would welcome release from it. Jesus
may here refer not merely to the cure of the physical aliment but also
to a deeper and more spiritual wholeness which the adjective \)yif]<;
can also convey. Before this narrative ends, the lame man will appear
somewhat less than appreciative of the one who cured him. Jesus'
unusual question may anticipate that reaction and provide a subtle hint
of the lame man's later cooperation with the Jews.
(c) 5.7 The lame man responds to Jesus. If the question asked by Jesus
has a deeper meaning, it goes unnoticed by the lame man, who responds
by declaring that he has no one to put him into the pool when the
troubling of the water occurs and therefore someone else always enters
the water first. The curative powers of the water evidently faded
quickly and only one person or a few at a time could benefit from
each disturbance of the pool. The lame man is alone, possibly helpless,
and apparently resigned to the fact that he will never find relief from
his condition.
The reader can also note that the lame man does not explicitly answer
Jesus' question. Unlike the case of the two previous miracles, if Jesus
acts here he will do so solely upon his own initiative.98 From the point
98. Countryman, Mystical Way, p. 40, and Witkamp, 'Use of Traditions',

p. 29, conclude that Jesus always acts on his own. In the two miracles at Cana,
however, Jesus determined the time and nature of his actions but did so, at least in
part, in response to a need brought to his attention by another character.
of view of the narrative, the actions of the lame man are defensible
because he does not know to whom he speaks. From the perspective of
the reader, however, the lame man's condition seems more tragic.
Before him stands one who can offer release. Yet, he does not even
perceive enough to request a cure. He thinks only about his inability to
make his way into the troubled waters of the pool. He has no aware-
ness of the fact that the one with whom he speaks can offer both a cure
and living water. His lack of discernment adds drama to the narrative,
as the reader anticipates a healing and wonders how the lame man will
respond to it.
(d) 5.8-9 Jesus heals the lame man. The healing takes place quickly.
Jesus asks nothing of the lame man, but instead merely instructs him to
rise, pick up his pallet, and walk (5.8). As in the healing of the son of
the royal official (4.50-53), the miracle occurs as soon as Jesus utters the
word. In this case, the confirmation of the miracle also comes immedi-
ately, as the man rises, picks up his pallet, and walks (5.9). The narrator
mentions no act or word of faith on the part of the lame man.
A note of tension enters the text with the narrator's observation that
the miracle occurred on the Sabbath. That, of course, makes the healing
a violation of the law, but it also makes Jesus guilty of advising the once
lame man to break the Sabbath law by instructing him to pick up and
carry his pallet. A reader aware of Jewish Sabbath regulations now
expects conflict to follow.
5.10-13 The Jews and the lame man. In this scene the Jews appear and
question why the man violates the Sabbath by carrying his pallet. In
the dialogue that follows, interest in the healing disappears and the
instructions given by Jesus along with it become the center of atten-
tion. The religious authorities express no concern over the fact that a
healing has occurred on the Sabbath. Quite to the contrary, when they
appear and begin their questioning they make no reference to a miracle
and Jesus has disappeared from the narrative. The authorities want to
know what has prompted the healed man to violate the law. By the end
of the narrative section, their opposition to Jesus will increase not
because of actions he himself has taken, but because of the guilt he has
caused another to incur. Readers sympathetic to Jesus feel not only
that the authorities attack him, but also that they attack them,
(a) 5.10-11 Initial questioning and response of the lame man. The
Jews appear for the first time as characters in this narrative section
(5.10) and immediately take on an adversarial role. The narrator

makes no mention of the Jews at the pool prior to the healing, but they
burst into the scene so quickly after the announcement that Jesus had
healed on the Sabbath that the reader feels as if they confront the
healed man almost before he has an opportunity to stretch his long-
idle limbs. Yet, the Jews do not mention the healing. They focus their
attention on the fact that the man from the pool is carrying his pallet
in violation of Sabbath law. If they witnessed the healing, it has not
impressed them. If they appeared after the miraculous cure, they have
interest solely in the violation of the Sabbath and not in what or who
prompted it.
The man from the pool wastes no time in placing the burden of the
blame on Jesus. He does not accept personal responsibility for his
actions, but instead, in direct discourse, reports that he is following
the precise instructions of the one who healed him (5.11).
(b) 5.12-13 Final questioning and response of the lame man. The Jews
follow the lead of the man from the pool and, again using direct dis-
course, ask who instructed him to pick up his pallet and walk (5.12).
This marks the third repetition in this narrative section of Jesus'
words to the lame man (5.8, 9, 11). This emphasis on Jesus' words has
an ironic effect. The man has suffered from an illness for thirty-eight
years. Yet, no one rejoices in his cure, but everyone expresses interest
in his violation of the Sabbath as he walks away from the pool a healed
man. At this point readers may still have some sympathy for the man,
but their frustration with the authorities for their cold response to an
act of kindness grows with each passing verse.
In the final verse of this scene, the man from the pool tells the Jews
he does not know who performed the healing and the narrator explains
that Jesus has disappeared into the crowd (5.13). Since the healed man
was not blind, he should have been able to identify Jesus. He does not
say that he cannot identify Jesus, but that he cannot find him. Unlike
the blind man whom Jesus will heal in ch. 9, this individual exhibits
no desire to protect or to defend Jesus. He apparently has no faith
in his benefactor and expresses no appreciation for the favor rendered
to him.
5.14 Jesus and the lame man. After the Jews have questioned the healed
man, they disappear and a brief scene featuring Jesus and the man
begins. Jesus takes the initiative and finds the man in the temple, where
he advises: 'See, you were cured. Sin no more, that nothing more
severe may happen to you'.
These words take the reader by surprise because nothing in the
narrative has identified the man at the pool as a sinner. Although a
reader familiar with the Gospel can note a contrast between the impli-
cation of the sinfulness of this character and the absence of such
connotations in the case of the blind man in ch. 9, little in the present
context supports a negative judgment of the man from the pool and it
seems premature to denounce him at this point. He has exhibited some
willingness to cooperate with the authorities and, thus, to side with
them against Jesus, but as yet he has done nothing to effect that will.
Jesus finds and confronts the man for that very reason. A reader
would expect the man to feel some loyalty toward or, at least, to express
some gratitude to the one who healed him. Yet, the man has inferred
that Jesus should bear the blame for any wrong he has committed and
has implied that, if possible, he would identify Jesus to the authorities.
Jesus reappears to inform the man of the gravity of the decisions
facing him. As noted above, the word for cure or heal Cuyuic;) can
also mean 'whole'. Jesus has given the man an opportunity for new life.
His physical healing represents the opportunity to become spiritually
well also. Jesus returns to him in order to warn him to take advantage
of this opportunity, that is, not to ally himself with the authorities. To
accept the healing without also accepting the one who healed him
would result in a condition far more severe than even a thirty-eight
year ailment.
5.75 The lame man and the Jews. A brief scene now begins which
features the healed man and the Jewish authorities. In this scene the
healed man fails to heed the warning given by Jesus. He goes to the
Jews and informs them that Jesus healed him and commanded him to
pick up his pallet and walk. The rapid pace of the narrative makes it
appear that he intentionally sought the authorities to provide the identity
of the healer. This act amounts to a betrayal of Jesus because the man
should have known from their earlier questions (5.10) that they would
then vent their anger on him. The man's actions again stand in stark
contrast with those of the blind man in ch. 9, who will refuse to betray
Jesus even at the expense of expulsion from the synagogue. Despite the
healing, the lame man feels no loyalty toward Jesus. He betrays him
without hesitation." Culpepper has observed that the man regularly

seeks to pass responsibility from himself to others and that Jesus
implies that he is a sinner in 5.14.100 The man shows no tendency or
willingness to respond to Jesus with faith, thanks, or even respect.
This act of betrayal reinforces a conclusion previously drawn by the
narrator. After the signs which Jesus performed in Jerusalem at the
Passover, the narrator comments that many believed in him but that
Jesus did not trust them (2.23-25). Nor did Jesus show Nicodemus
preferential treatment when he announced that he believed Jesus came
from God because no one could accomplish what he did unless God
were with him (3.2). In the Fourth Gospel, not everyone who receives
the benefits of the signs performed by Jesus comes to faith. The
accounts of the turning of the water into wine at Cana (2.1-11) and of
the healing of the son of the royal official (4.46-54) reveal that the
narrator does not present the signs in an utterly negative light, but
neither does the narrator automatically consider them a prelude to
faith in Jesus and acceptance of him.
5.16-18 Jesus and the Jews. The final scene of this narrative section
describes an exchange between Jesus and the Jewish authorities.
Although the narrator presents the positions of both characters, the
scene includes no true dialogue. Instead the narrator frames a direct
discourse statement of Jesus (5.17) between two reports of the res-
ponses of the authorities: a report of their initial persecution of Jesus
because he violated the Sabbath (5.16), and a report of their increased
desire to put him to death as a result of the relationship he claimed to
have with God (5.18). This arrangement of the narrative not only
draws attention to Jesus' statement, but also, by summarizing their
actions rather than having them speak for themselves, presents the
Jewish authorities in a negative light.
99. Staley objects to such a reading and argues that we could interpret the man's
response in 5.11 as a way of questioning who had the greater authority: the healer or
the legal experts. Since the man did not know the identity of the healer in 5.13, when
he returns to the authorities armed with that knowledge, we could interpret his
revealing of Jesus' name as an attempt to impress them and win the argument. Staley
defends this reading well and correctly notes that only the narrator and the Beloved
Disciple truly grasp Jesus' full identity. I, however, find the man utterly reticent before
Jesus and far too willing to converse with the authorities. He seems far more willing
to betray than to testify. See Staley, 'Stumbling in the Dark', pp. 55-80 (60-64).
100. Culpepper, 'John 5.1-18', p. 204.
(a) 5.76 The persecution of Jesus by the Jews. After informing the
authorities that Jesus cured him, the healed man abruptly disappears.
The narrator does not mention a subsequent exchange between Jesus
and the authorities over this issue. Instead the narrative immediately
reports that the Jews used this healing as the basis for their persecu-
tion of Jesus. Once again the rapid pace of the narrative creates an
atmosphere of tension, implying that the authorities initiated their per-
secution of Jesus without even questioning him regarding his motiva-
tion or explanations for what transpired. They assume his guilt without
a trial and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
The narrator thus depicts the authorities as unyielding advocates of
rigid adherence to the law. They appear to have no compassion for the
healed man, despite the extent of his suffering, and they exhibit no
tolerance of Jesus' merciful act because it took place on the Sabbath.
The narrator earlier made the fact that the healing occurred on the
Sabbath seem almost insignificant by reporting the day after the
healing had taken place. The authorities scarcely see beyond that fact.
(b) 5.77 The response of Jesus. After reporting the decision of the
authorities to persecute Jesus for his violation of the Sabbath law, the
narrator provides a direct statement of Jesus which defends his actions:
'My Father is still working and I am working'. The initial clause of
this defense implies that the authorities consider the work of God
completed.101 As a result, they view the Sabbath law as binding not
only on humanity but also on divinity. Jesus assumes the continuance
of divine activity. His very presence declares God still at work in the
world (cf. 3.16-17). The final clause does not declare observance of
the Sabbath defunct for everyone, but does justify Jesus' actions.102 He
has the prerogative to work on the Sabbath because of his relationship
with God. As he has transformed into wine water from vessels used in
purification rites (2.1-11), cleansed the temple (2.13-22), declared
birth anew a prerequisite for entering the realm of God (3.1-6), and
announced the advent of a day on which God will not be worshipped
in Jerusalem (4.21), so also can he transcend Sabbath regulations. As
the Father works in him to save the world (3.17), so Jesus continues to
work on behalf of the people.

102. For a summary of the traditional interpretations of these words, see
S. Bacchiocchi, 'John 5.17: Negation or Clarification of the Sabbath?' AUSS 19
(1981), pp. 3-19(4-9).
These words of defense imply that Jesus has unique authority and
place him in direct conflict with the Jewish leadership. They will have
to reshape their concept of God and abandon parts of the Law given
by Moses in order to accept the grace and truth Jesus proclaims (cf.
1.17-18). This, of course, will prove more than they can tolerate,
(c) 5.78 The desire of the Jews to put Jesus to death. The narrative
section closes with a report of the impact of Jesus' defense on the
Jewish authorities. The opening clause of this report summarizes the
immediate result: 'for this reason the Jews sought all the more to kill
him'. Although the narrator has already hinted that tension existed
between the Jewish authorities and Jesus (2.18-20; 4.1-3), this initial
mention of a plot against Jesus' life arises abruptly103 and appears
unduly harsh. By recording it before detailing how they justified it,
the narrator makes it seem even more extreme and depicts the authori-
ties as almost as rash as they are hostile. They appear to waste no time
in planning to put Jesus to death, just as they earlier seemed to con-
front the healed man almost as soon as he rose to stretch his long-
crippled legs.
Then the narrator provides the reason for this intense reaction:
'because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his own
father, making himself equal to God'. Jesus has gone far beyond vio-
lating the Sabbath. He has claimed oneness with God, which, of course,
the Jewish leaders cannot tolerate. In one of the many paradoxes of
the Fourth Gospel, the authorities have perceived the truth proclaimed
in and by Jesus but that perception results not in acceptance of him but
rather in further rejection. For the second time a trip to Jerusalem has
resulted in deepening tension between Jesus and the Jewish authorities.

If we omit the highly disputed fourth verse of this chapter, water
appears only once in this narrative section (5.7). Whether or not we
include v. 4 in the narrative, in this passage water has no obvious or
intimate connection with Jesus. Nor does the narrator link the water
of the pool with Jesus' curative powers. The water of the pool, which
offers healing when troubled, primarily relates to the years the lame
man spent in futile waiting for a cure. The narrator does not reject the
possibility of receiving a cure from the pool's troubled waters, but
103. J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1991), p. 137; Kysar, John, p. 78.
does depict any curative abilities of the water as substantially limited.

Because the lame man had no one to help him reach the water when it
was troubled, he gained no relief from his ailment despite his long
wait. While lying at the pool, he represents all those in need of whole-
ness but unable to receive it by traditional means.104
The limited curative properties of the water contrast with the
healing offered by Jesus, who cures the lame man without asking him
to enter the pool. This reflects the more significant contrast made by
the narrative section as a whole. The Jewish authorities became indig-
nant when they saw the man carrying his pallet on the Sabbath and
discovered that Jesus had instructed the man to break the Sabbath law.
Jesus, however, claimed, by virtue of his relationship with God, the
freedom to heal and work even on the Sabbath. This contrast once
again presents to the reader the theme of Jesus' uniqueness and the
new reality operative and manifest in him. As Jesus has power not as
limited as that of the water, so also does his ministry extend beyond
the boundaries of traditional experience and regulations.
Within the framework of this larger theme, the narrator issues a
subtle warning. Exposure to Jesus, in and of itself, does not suffice to
produce attachment to him. The lame man, after receiving a miracu-
lous cure, willingly aided those opposed to Jesus. This tacitly under-
scores the requisite of commitment to Jesus in order to avoid further
suffering. Although the healed man does not lose his restored health,
he walks into an uncertain future. He has ignored the caveat, 'Sin no
more that nothing more severe may happen to you' (5.14). By failing
to commit himself to Jesus, the once lame man joins the ranks of those
opposed to him and unaffected by his ministry.
Beginning in patristic days and continuing into the present century,105
some readers of the Fourth Gospel have found a baptismal motif
present in this passage. The narrative itself, however, will not support
such an interpretation. Not only can we observe that the mention of
water seems incidental to the story and that the narrative emphasizes
the Sabbath setting more than the healing itself, but we can also note
that the lame man never enters the water. Unlike the blind man of ch. 9,
Jesus does not tell him to go and wash (9.7, 11), but instead commands
him to rise and walk without intervening actions. Indeed, if a baptismal

105. Bouyer, Fourth Gospel, pp. 99-100; Brown, Gospel according to John,
1.211.
motif were present, the failure of the lame man to respond positively
to Jesus would call it into question more than it would support it.
In summary, in this passage water serves primarily as a way to
contrast the new and less restricted ministry of Jesus with the limita-
tions of the traditions of Judaism. The lame man had waited for a long
time for the water to heal him, but Jesus performed the cure almost
immediately. The Jewish authorities wanted to limit the miraculous
powers of Jesus for use only on appropriate times, but Jesus claimed
the freedom to work even on the Sabbath because of his unique relation-
ship with God. This passage has not expanded the range of meaning
possible for the symbol of water, but it has enhanced the previously
noted new reality that Jesus manifests and calls into being.
4. Narrative VIII: Jesus Walks on the Sea (6.16-21)

The account of the feeding of the five thousand (6.1-15) and related
discourses on the general theme of Jesus as the Bread of Life (6.22-
71) comprise the bulk of John 6. Between those two blocks of material
the narrator inserts the story of Jesus walking on the sea. Although the
word 'water' does not appear in this smaller narrative section, the
location of the scene justifies a brief examination of it.
Similar accounts of Jesus walking on the sea appear in Mk 6.45-51
and Mt. 14.22-27 and both of those accounts also follow the feeding of
the five thousand. The Johannine narrative, however, includes a num-
ber of distinct features.106 In the Fourth Gospel the narrator does not
make the storm appear quite as violent as in the Synoptic accounts and
thus presents the disciples in relatively less peril. In addition, only the
Johannine narrator comments on the darkness and includes a miracu-
lous crossing of the sea immediately after Jesus identifies himself to
the disciples.
Readers familiar with the story of the passage of the Hebrew slaves
through the sea while fleeing Egypt (Exod. 14) may find that tradition
reflected here as well.107 Brown has located a number of passages in the
Hebrew Bible which link together the water-walking, the exodus tradi-
106. For a complete listing and a fuller discussion of these, see B.H. Grigsby,
The Reworking of the Lake-Walking Account in the Johannine Tradition', ExpTim
100 (1989), pp. 295-97.
107. Guilding, Fourth Gospel, pp. 66-67.
tion, and the multiplication of the loaves.108 While the narrator may not
have intended such allusions to Jewish tradition, they remain plausible.
The fact that the previous narrative section studied (5.1-18) may have
reflected parts of that same tradition increases that possibility.
Unlike its Synoptic parallels and the exodus tradition it may reflect,
this passage does not emphasize miraculous control over the forces of
nature. It focuses on Jesus' ability to come to the aid of his troubled
followers and their joyous reception of him.

In the passage which precedes this narrative section Jesus miraculously
feeds a crowd of five thousand people with five loaves of bread and
two fish (6.1-15). As a result of the miracle, the crowd comes to the
correct, but inadequate, identification of Jesus as a prophet (6.14). The
danger of this inadequate response emerges when the narrator notes
that Jesus realized the people wanted to compel him to become king.
Since they did not understand the principle thrust of his ministry,
Jesus withdrew from them and sought the solitude of an undisclosed
mountain site (6.15). The reaction of the crowd indicates once again
that a proper response to Jesus must depend on more than signs alone,
a fact already underscored several times in the Gospel narrative.109
In the verses that follow the account of the walking on the sea, people
from that same crowd cannot find Jesus despite seeing his disciples
embark without him. They cross the sea to Capernaum seeking him.
When they locate him, he warns them to seek things of eternal rather
than temporal consequence and discloses himself to them as the Bread
of Life (6.35). In the verses which develop this image, Jesus calls his
flesh the life of the world (6.51) and insists that his followers 'eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood' (6.53). Understandably,
not everyone can accept such statements and they result in widespread
rejection of Jesus that contrasts with the decision of Peter and the
twelve to remain with him (6.66-69).
The narrative section in which Jesus walks on the sea stands between
an account of an inappropriate response to him based on his miracle-
working power and an account of a teaching that calls people to a
108. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.254-256; see also Guilding, Fourth
Gospel, pp. 63-67, and Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 246. For a rebuttal of this inter-
pretation, see Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.29-30.
109. Jn 2.23-25; 3.1-15; 4.48; 5.1-18.
decision regarding their loyalty to him. The surrounding material

indicates that miracles alone will not suffice for understanding Jesus
and that he wants to elicit not admiration but faith (6.29). That context
has significance for the interpretation of what takes place when the
disciples see Jesus walking on the water toward them in the midst of a
strong wind. Clearly, his water-walking (6.19) and his ability to trans-
port himself and the disciples across the sea instantaneously present
Jesus as far more than an earthly king. But, in light of the inappro-
priate response evoked by the previous miracle narrated in this chapter,
the narrator invites the reader to wonder how the disciples will respond
to these manifestations of divine power. Yet, apart from noting the
relief felt by the disciples when Jesus revealed himself to them, the
narrator says nothing about their reactions. Interest appears to lie not
in the impact of the events on the sea on the disciples, but in the impact
of this narrative on the reader. Regardless what the disciples felt, the
narrator uses this story to lead readers to a fuller understanding
of Jesus before plunging them into the presentation of him as the
Bread of Life, which will present one of the stiffest challenges to faith
presented thus far in the Gospel (6.51-58).

Development
The Johannine account of Jesus walking on the water is a terse and
quickly moving narrative that connects the story of the feeding of the
five thousand (6.1-15) with the related discourses on Jesus as the
Bread of Life (6.22-71). The lack of attention given to this super-
natural act typifies the narrator's attitude toward the miraculous. Jesus
performs miracles of major proportions, but the significance of each
rests not in the miracle itself but in the one to whom it points and the
faith it attempts to elicit in him. Apart from noting that they gladly
welcomed him aboard the boat after he spoke to them, the narrator does
not indicate how the disciples responded to this act or to the equally
miraculous instantaneous arrival at their destination. The narrator
focuses not on the disciples but on the reader, who is being further
prepared to accept the statements Jesus will make about himself in the
following discourses.
Two units of nearly equal length comprise the narrative. In the first,
6.16-18, the disciples board a boat alone but a strong wind hinders
them from reaching their destination. In the second, 6.19-21, Jesus
frightens them by walking toward them on the sea before identifying

himself, calming their fears, and moving them to their destination.
6.16-18 The disciples board a boat alone. The opening verses of this
unit include two references to darkness. The narrator first reports that
the disciples went to the sea 'when evening came' (6.16) and then adds
that 'darkness had already fallen' (6.17). The reader has previously
encountered the symbolic significance of darkness in the introduction to
Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus (3.2). If the narrator had mentioned
only that the events to follow took place in the evening, one could con-
sider the reference merely an attempt to lend credibility to the story.
The subsequent reference to darkness, however, intensifies the initial
temporal marker and lends it theological undertones.110 The narrator
will soon mention that a strong wind troubled the waters. An evening
wind storm on the sea causes concern in and of itself. The added note
about darkness suggests the disciples have entered a symbolic realm of
danger, especially since the prologue placed darkness in opposition to
the light of the Logos (1.5) and since Jesus later will warn the disciples
not to let darkness overtake them (12.35).111 By noting in the verse
immediately before this narrative section that Jesus sought to be alone
(6.15), the narrator does not appear to imply that the disciples have
chosen to separate themselves from him.112 Instead, it appears that once
apart from Jesus they enter an arena of danger from which he must
deliver them. He will come to meet them in the darkness, just as the
prologue announced that the light came to shine in the darkness (1.5).113
The final verse of this unit includes the note that the disciples encoun-
tered not only darkness but also stormy waters caused by a strong
wind. By mentioning the darkness first and drawing attention to it
twice, the narrator suggests that it and not the stormy waters pose the
110. J.P. Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of
Matt 14.22-33, Mark 6.45-52 and John 6.15b-21 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981), p. 146.
111. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 246, notes these parallels but does not consider
the theme of light and darkness present here.
112. Countryman, Mystical Way, p. 47, considers the mention of darkness an
indication that the disciples are 'out of touch with Jesus' true being and work'.
113. Ellis, Genius of John, p. 110, notes that the passage through the sea in Exod.
14.19-25 also took place at night. Nothing else in the narrative, however, suggests
that the narrator had this account in mind.
real problem faced by the disciples. The wind-tossed waves do, how-
ever, make the situation seem more urgent.
6.19-21 Jesus comes to them, walking on the sea. In the second half of
this narrative section Jesus walks on the sea toward the disciples, under-
standably causes them some alarm, identifies himself, and calms their
fears. When he boards the boat with them they immediately arrive at
their destination.
The sight or someone (or something) walking on water would strike
fear in the heart of anyone, so the reader has no reason to belittle the
disciples when they do not understand what they see. Jesus identifies
himself by saying, 'It is Y (eyco ei|ai), and tells the disciples not to
fear. The Hebrew Bible frequently uses the phrase, eyco ei|ii, as the
divine name and the phrase appears to function in that way elsewhere
in the Fourth Gospel.114 The miraculous events surrounding this dis-
closure certainly give the words of Jesus an epiphanic quality. Ordinary
people do not walk on water or transport a boat across the waves in
defiance of them and of time. This does not, of course, surprise the
reader, who has encountered the divinity manifest in Jesus at the
beginning and throughout the early chapters of the Gospel.
Here, however, the phrase serves primarily as a means of self-
identification.115 It brings the story to a climax, but the fact that Jesus
does not elaborate on his statement reduces its impact. Like this entire
narrative section, it links together the narratives which surround it.
Jesus will soon tell the crowd he miraculously fed that he is the Bread
of Life (6.35). Because of the events on the sea, the reader stands all
the more ready to believe him.
The immediate arrival of the disciples and Jesus at their destination,
which follows Jesus' self-identification, seems as miraculous as his
walking on the water. Yet, the disciples make no response to that. The
narrator has greater interest in what will follow and leaves reader to
guess the impact on disciples.

When Jesus walks on the water in the Gospel of Mark, the disciples
react with astonishment (6.51) and in the Gospel of Matthew they
114. Brown, Gospel according to John, 1.533-538.

115. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 281; Painter, 'Tradition and
Interpretation', pp. 430-31.
worship him (14.33). In the Fourth Gospel, however, the narrator

indicates only that they gladly received him aboard the boat once he
had identified himself. This relatively tame response does not detract
from the miraculous nature of the event. It certainly indicates the
superiority of Jesus over the forces of nature. Coupled with the imme-
diate arrival of the disciples at their destination, this passage illustrates
Jesus' ability to deliver believers from harm.
The primary function of this miracle rests not in its immediate impact
on the disciples, but in the way it fits into the overall framework of the
chapter. In the preceding narrative the crowd, inspired by the multipli-
cation of the loaves, wanted to force Jesus to accept the title of king.
The walking on the sea indicates the impropriety of Jesus accepting
that political role.116 His power and nature transcend earthly kingship.
In the narrative that follows Jesus claims divinity by calling himself
the Bread of Life (6.35). His actions in this narrative section both help
substantiate that claim and justify Peter's confession with which the
chapter ends: 'you are the Holy One of God' (6.69).117 Although the
reader could support that claim and confession with previous material
in the narrative, the account of the walking on the sea strengthens them.
The crowd has no idea who fed them or who speaks to them. The
disciples, represented by Peter, are moving closer to adequate com-
prehension. The readers, who at this point know far more than the
disciples, gain even deeper appreciation for Jesus.
In this passage water symbolizes the natural elements over which
Jesus exercises control. As he could transform water into wine (2.1-11),
so can he master both the wind and the waves. In the previous narrative
section water helped to indicate the way Jesus transcends the limits of
Judaism. Here it extends his realm of influence to all of nature. This
passage does not significantly expand the range of meanings possible for
water. Rather it enhances once again the previously noted new reality
which Jesus manifests and calls into being.
5. Excursus: Jesus, Bread (and Drink) of Life (6.22-59)

After the narrative of Jesus walking on the sea, the remainder of John
6 deals with the presentation of him as the Bread of Life and with the
consequences of the use of that image among those who believed in
116. Painter, Tradition and Interpretation', p. 431.

117. Heil, Jesus Walking, p. 173.
him (6.22-71). This material includes Jesus' reunion with the crowd
he miraculously fed (6.22-34), a series of discourses on the central
theme given by Jesus in response to questions from the crowd (6.35-
59), and the reactions of the disciples to the statements Jesus made in
his final discourse (6.60-71). I have interest in this passage primarily
because in it Jesus claims that those who come to him will not hunger
and will never thirst (6.35). The words, 'one who believes in me will
never thirst', echo a comment made to the woman of Samaria: 'whoever
drinks from the water I give will never thirst' (4.14).
Although the word 'water' does not appear in this narrative, the
passage depicts Jesus as the source of eternal end to thirst. Toward the
end of the discourses, Jesus identifies the drink he offers as his blood,
which would appear to indicate that the passage will have little bearing
on an understanding of the symbol of water. The passage clearly has
sacramental overtones. Jesus' blood refers to the wine of the Eucharist,
as the bread he provides refers to the loaf. According to these verses,
those who participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper indicate
that they have responded appropriately to God and receive in those
symbols assurance of their reception into life eternal.
It is important to note, however, that more than eucharistic imagery
is at work here and that water is a significant element in the other
images present. The people with whom Jesus speaks want to compare
him with Moses. Jesus, in turn, invites them to contrast the bread he
offers with the manna provided in the wilderness and, tacitly, the drink
he furnishes with the water which sprang from the rock. Through
Moses, God offered only transitory gifts. Through Jesus, God offers
eternal realities. In addition, Jesus' opening statement in the discourses
(6.35) also contains echoes of the wisdom literature, which depicts
wisdom as descending from heaven to dwell among the people and
offering to sate all hunger and quench all thirst. Finally, the promise
of an end to all thirst reminds the reader of a similar promise made to
the woman of Samaria (4.14). This narrative does far more than ordain
the practice of the Lord's Supper. It depicts Jesus as the heir and
fulfillment of his Jewish heritage and as the one through whom God
makes available to all willing to believe the blessings of that heritage
and more.
This narrative section also helps the reader to discover how to
interpret all of the Johannine symbols, especially those connected with
Jesus. The discourses repeatedly depict the Bread of Life not as some-
thing Jesus provides but as something he is. The same surely applies to
water. Jesus does not simply provide eternal refreshment; he is eternal
refreshment. Both bread and water refer to a variety of realities: the
revelation Jesus brings, the life abundant and eternal he offers, and the
Jewish milieu from which he springs and which he transcends. But they
also are symbols of Jesus himself. He does not simply offer these gifts;
he is these gifts. That makes acceptance of him absolutely essential.

Water appears or plays a role in five narrative sections in John 4-6.
Although these narratives involve different characters, settings, and
plots, in each of them water helps to identify the unique nature of
Jesus and his ministry and, at the same time, represents something the
reader must accept in order to believe in him.
The narrator uses the motif of water to depict Jesus as an heir of
Jewish traditions and as an individual whose unparalleled relationship
with God and unique ministry transcend those traditions. This func-
tion emerges first in the account of the conversation Jesus has with the
woman of Samaria. Jesus and the woman stand before Jacob's Well, an
important sight in both Jewish and Samaritan history. Yet, Jesus
immediately steps beyond the limits of his heritage by speaking to the
woman and implying willingness to share a drinking cup with her. He
then pushes the conversation and the narrative to a different level. In
an intentional contrast with the water of the well, he declares that
those who drink the water he provides not only will sate their thirst
for ever but also will have in themselves 'a spring of water welling up
into eternal life' (4.14). He does indeed claim superiority to Jacob, a
faith ancestor of both Jews and Samaritans.
In John 5 Jesus returns to Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, goes to
the pool of Bethzatha, whose five porticoes may symbolize the five
books of Torah, and encounters a man who has suffered from the
same ailment for thirty-eight years, the traditional length of time the
Hebrew people spent in the wilderness before entering the promised
land. Jesus stands in a place steeped with the traditions of Judaism, but
when he heals the man he again moves beyond that heritage. He pro-
vides a cure the man has sought in vain from the pool, does so on the
Sabbath and also instructs the healed man to violate Sabbath law, and
defends his actions with the inflammatory words, 'My Father is still
working and I am working' (4.17). Although Jesus' actions take place
within the context of Judaism, they reach far beyond it.

Similarly, in the lengthy discourse in John 6 Jesus builds upon the
image of the manna provided in the wilderness as he identifies himself
as the Bread of Life. He then transcends that image by stating that
those who come to him will not hunger and those who believe in him
will never thirst (6.35). Like the water of Jacob's Well, the manna in
the wilderness sated only a temporary need. Those who received it
hungered again and eventually died. But Jesus claims, 'My flesh is true
food and my blood is true drink' (6.55), and declares that those who
partake of them have eternal life (6.54).
The passages examined in the previous chapter also presented water
as a symbol of the new reality manifest in Jesus. Unlike those passages,
however, the narratives examined in this chapter depict Jesus as not
merely the giver but also as the gift. Jesus told the woman of Samaria
that if she knew the gift of God and who was speaking to her, she would
request and receive living water. After conversing with him, she leaves
the well with the gift of God, the news of a man who has told her all she
ever had done. Jesus does not merely bear living water; he is living
water which has welled up in her. Similarly, the lame man sought the
gift of healing from the troubled waters of the pool of Bethzatha, but
Jesus, in and of himself, met that need. He required no water to effect
the cure and he responded to the need immediately. The same holds
true in the Bread of Life discourse. Here Jesus does not merely claim
ability to provide the gift of eternal life, but insists that he is the true
bread and drink which impart eternal life.
The uniqueness of Jesus expressed in these narratives calls for a
decision. Jesus tells the woman of Samaria of a day when worship of
God will have its center not in Samaria or Jerusalem but in spirit and
truth (4.23). When the woman returns to the village, she leaves her
bucket at the well. She has found something more important than what
she came to the well to secure and her actions indicate that revealing
that discovery takes precedence over past concerns.
The lame man in John 5 faces a similar decision, but responds
differently. Jesus provides the physical cure the man came to the pool
seeking. Following Jesus' command, however, brings him into conflict
with the Jewish authorities. Unlike the woman of Samaria, he responds
not by celebrating and proclaiming what Jesus has offered him, but by
betraying Jesus to the authorities and initiating persecution against his
healer.
The call for a decision is even more stark in the Bread of Life dis-
course in John 6. When the Jews find the epiphanic statements of Jesus
progressively more revolting, he responds not by tempering them but
by declaring that those the Father gives him will come to him and that
they alone will receive eternal life. Deciding to accept Jesus ends not
only thirst but also association with the Jewish community. As Cana
received a new identity after Jesus turned the water into wine there, so
also do those who become believers in him take on new identity. One
cannot accept the living water without being changed for ever.
This function clearly establishes water as a symbol. As Fawcett has
observed, symbols are never neutral and thus they help readers 'deter-
mine their moral behavior and bring out their spiritual potentialities' -118
Schneiders echoes this by positing that symbols demand commit
ment before revealing themselves and thus call for a 'transforming
experience'.119 As the woman of Samaria moves toward accepting the
living water, she gradually commits more and more of herself to
Jesus. At first she appears to want little or nothing to do with him, but
before their conversation ends she exposes some of her dreams and
hopes. While doing this she has to go beyond her Samaritan heritage,
since Jesus insists that salvation comes from Jews and that a day is
coming when God will not be worshipped there. Her interest in what
Jesus has to offer and her deepening acceptance of him transform her
from a woman of Samaria into a person who can bear witness to Jesus
(4.39); that is, the living water she received now wells up in her and
flows from her. In contrast, the lame man at the pool undergoes no
transformation. He neither literally nor symbolically receives the living
water. The picture becomes complete in the account of those who hear
Jesus call himself true food and true drink. Confronted with this
symbol, they must decide. Those unwilling to commit themselves to
Jesus leave offended. Those willing to commit themselves are promised
transformation, they are promised they will live for ever (6.58). Once
presented with water/Jesus, neutrality is not possible.
Jesus offers and is himself 'living water'. He imparts new identity
and promises eternal life to all willing to accept him and the claims he
makes of himself. Such acceptance can bring trouble to the lives of
believers, but, as the account of Jesus walking on the sea reveals,
118. Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 36.

119. Schneiders, 'Symbolism', p. 225; see also Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament,
p. 18, and Lee, Symbolic Narratives, p. 29.
adverse winds and troubled waters will not keep Jesus from coming to
those in need. Although more than half of the Gospel remains, the
narrator has clearly drawn the dividing line between believers and
non-believers. Water is certainly not the only symbol involved in
drawing the dividing line, but it is an important one. How important
remains to be seen.
Chapter 4
LIVING WATER AND DIVIDED PEOPLE
In John 7 Jesus begins an extended stay in Jerusalem that will continue

until events there convince him to withdraw 'across the Jordan to
the place where John first baptized' (10.40). During this visit Jesus
encounters increasingly hostile opposition. Occasionally those close
to him (7.5) and would-be disciples (8.31-33) reject him, but most of
the opposition comes from the Jewish authorities. At the feast of
Tabernacles the ruling authorities try to arrest him (7.30) and his
teaching and the fact that he continued to evade their attempts to con-
trol him amaze the people (7.25-26). The inability of their officers to
bring Jesus into custody also results in division within the Jewish
leadership over how to respond to him. Twice during this visit the
Jews try to stone Jesus. The first attempt comes after he claims to have
existed before Abraham (8.58-59) and the second results from his
claim of oneness with the Father (10.30-31). The narrative clearly
seems headed toward a climatic confrontation.
Yet, not everyone opposes Jesus. Some begin to consider him a pro-
phet (7.40; 9.17) or the messiah (7.41), and others find the miracles
he performs so impressive that they cannot consider him evil (9.32-
33; 10.21). Although such people are fewer in number than Jesus'
adversaries, enough of them surface to indicate that the narrator is
leading the reader toward a time when all who encounter Jesus must
make a decision for or against him.
The motif of water appears in two narrative sections within this
visit to Jerusalem. The first appearance occurs at the end of the feast
of Tabernacles, when Jesus stands and invites the thirsty to come to
him and drink (7.37). He promises that living water will flow in and
from those who respond to his invitation. As one would expect, his
words receive a mixed response from the Tabernacles worshippers.
The second appearance takes place as Jesus exits the temple after an
angry mob attempts to stone him. He encounters a man born blind,

whom he instructs to go to the pool of Siloam and wash (9.7). This
time not Jesus but the person he befriends receives ill-treatment at the
hands of the authorities. After the man born blind follows Jesus'
instructions and gains his sight, the authorities attempt first to dis-
credit him and then to convince him to discredit or dishonor Jesus.
When they fail and he proves their equal in debate, they cast him out
of the synagogue.
The events of both of these narrative sections reflect the develop-
ment of the larger narrative context in which they occur. Once again
Jesus encounters primarily hostility in Jerusalem. As he moves steadily
closer to his hour, it becomes increasingly difficult to remain neutral
toward him.
1. Narrative IX: Jesus, the Water of Life (7.37-44)

Near the end of John 6, opposition to Jesus intensifies when he makes
himself utterly repulsive to the Jews and to some of his disciples by
declaring that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will
enter eternal life (6.53). The narrator indicates the increased level
of animosity toward Jesus by opening ch. 7 with the observation that
Jesus now restricted his ministry to Galilee because of threats on his
life in Judea.
Despite this acute enmity, Jesus chooses to return to Jerusalem to cele-
brate the feast of Tabernacles. As a reader aware of the rituals asso-
ciated with this festival would expect, the theme of water reappears
during this visit. On what the narrator identifies as the 'last' and 'great'
day of the celebration, Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and to
drink (7.37) and associates himself with 'rivers of living water' (7.38).
This marks the first time since his conversation with the woman of
Samaria that the water Jesus imparts is specifically described as 'living'.
On that occasion, the offer was accepted as many of the Samaritans
came to faith in him. There is little reason, however, to anticipate
such a favorable response here.
The observance of the feast of Tabernacles is the third narrative
involving water which takes place in Jerusalem. In the first Jerusalem
scene, a Jewish leader named Nicodemus proved unable to grasp the
meaning of Jesus' words and left him as much in the dark as he had
come (3.1-15). In the second, Jesus healed a lame man on the Sabbath
4. Living Water and Divided People 149
and thereby prompted a hostile exchange between himself and the

Jewish authorities (5.1-18). Since no one in Jerusalem has appeared
capable of understanding or accepting Jesus and since opposition to him
there has increased steadily as the narrative has unfolded, the reader
can anticipate only further confusion and, possibly, greater animosity
on this visit to the Holy City.

The opening verses of John 7 deal with Jesus' decision to travel to
Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles. His brothers (d5eA,(|)oi) chal-
lenge him to end his seclusion and make himself known to the pilgrims
attending the festival (7.2-4). Jesus initially rejects their advice, but
later travels to Jerusalem in private (ev Kpimxa)) (7.10). At about the
middle of the feast (7.14), Jesus enters the temple and teaches. As a
result, many people marvel at his knowledge (7.15), wonder why the
authorities do nothing to stop him (7.26), and begin to question whether
he might indeed be the messiah (7.26-27). The remainder of ch. 7, as
John 8-10, continues to narrate the events of this visit to Jerusalem.
Within this extended visit to Jerusalem, Jn 7.37-44 has several dis-
tinct features. In the chapter as a whole, the opposition to Jesus comes
not from the members of the crowd, whom the narrator identifies as
'the Jews' (7.15, 35) and who appear to remain the same throughout,
but from the Pharisees. They enter the narrative after the crowd begins
to speculate that Jesus may be the messiah (7.32), make arrangements
to have Jesus arrested (7.32), and reprimand the officers who failed to
carry out their orders (7.45-52). The Pharisees do not appear, how-
ever, when Jesus presents himself as the water of life (7.37-44). In
this narrative section, any rejection of Jesus results not from the
influence of the Pharisees but from a failure to understand how he can
be the messiah without being a Davidic descendant.
In addition, the narrator announces a change of time in 7.37, noting
that the events which follow took place on the last day of the feast.
The narrator does not specify a subsequent time change, but does alter
the scene in 7.45 by shifting from the discussion between Jesus and the
crowd to a conversation between the Pharisees and those they sent to
arrest Jesus.
Finally, their content distinguishes these verses. In the preceding
verses the issue is the authority of Jesus and when the discourse resumes
in 8.12 the theme changes to the presentation of Jesus as the light of
the world. In 7.37-44, however, the focus is on Jesus as the water of

life. In the opening verse, Jesus invites anyone who thirsts to come
to him. In the closing verses, the members of the crowd respond to
this invitation. This indicates that although the narration of the visit
to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles begins in 7.1 and extends
through ch. 10, Jn 7.37-44 is a self-contained narrative section within
that larger block of material.
John 7.37-44 As a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and

Development
Two units of relatively equal length and similar structure comprise
this narrative section: 1) Jesus invites the thirsty to drink (7.37-39)
and 2) Jesus receives a mixed response (7.40-44). Both units open
with a prepositional phrase. At the center of each is direct discourse in
which first Jesus (7.37b-38) and then members of the crowd (7.40b-
42) make comments which include interpretation of Scripture. Remarks
made by the narrator introduce and close each unit and each unit ends
with a lack of fulfillment. In the first the narrator notes that believers
could not yet receive the Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified,
and in the second the narrator observes that no one laid hands on Jesus
despite the fact that some people wanted to arrest him.
7.37-39 Jesus invites the thirsty to drink. The first unit contains two
sub-units: (a) the invitation (7.37-38) and (b) an interpretation (7.39).
In keeping with the theme of the feast of Tabernacles, the setting for
all of John 7, Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and to drink
before asserting that what would follow such actions would fulfill an
unspecified Scripture.
(a) 7.37-38 The invitation. The first unit of this narrative section
begins with a temporal clause, which announces the arrival of the last
and great day of the feast (7.37). Since the overall narrative time has
not changed since the opening of the chapter, the feast mentioned
certainly refers to Tabernacles (7.1). Both the feast of Tabernacles in
general and the specific day cited are important.
It should surprise no one to find the motif of water present in a
narrative which takes place during a feast. The actions described in
more than half of the narrative sections examined to this point have
taken place in the context of a special day in the life of the com-
munity. Jesus changes water into wine while attending a wedding feast
at Cana in Galilee (2.1-11). The discussion he has with Nicodemus,

during which he calls for birth of water and spirit (3.5), takes place
within the context of the Passover feast.1 The healing of the man at the
pool of Bethzatha (5.1-18) occurs while Jesus is in Jerusalem for an
unnamed feast (5.1). The narrative sections in which Jesus walks on
the sea (6.16-21) and declares himself the bread and drink of life
(6.22-59) occur within the context of another Passover feast.2 All of
the remaining narratives in which the motif of water appears also take
place in the context of a feast.3 This occurs in part because the author
makes use of feast days to help distinguish the narrative segments of
the Fourth Gospel.4 In the present passage, however, the fact that
these events take place during the feast of Tabernacles has even greater
significance.
The feast of Tabernacles probably began as an autumn harvest festi-
val and featured prayers for rain. The dedication of the temple of
Solomon also took place during this feast.5 During the festival, water
was drawn daily and carried in procession from the pool of Siloam to
the temple, where it was poured on the altar in part as a prayer for an
end to the water supply problems of Jerusalem and in part as a cele-
bration of the temple as a fountain of cleansing water for the faithful.6
Many Jews also considered the feast of Tabernacles a symbol of the
messianic age. According to Zech. 14.16-21, this feast one day would
become a universal festival that would draw all nations to Jerusalem.7
Given this background, when Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him
and mentions living water in the verse which follows, he associates
1. The narrative brings Jesus to the Passover feast in Jerusalem in 2.23 and this
time and place remain unchanged until 3.22.
2. The time of a Passover feast is announced in 6.4 and does not change until
7.1.
3. The instructions for the man born blind to wash in the Pool of Siloam (9.7, 11)
appear to be given during the same feast mentioned here. The washing of the feet of
the disciples (13.1-20) and the flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus during
the crucifixion (19.34) occur within the context of the feast of the Passover (13.1).
4. Kermode, 'John', p. 455; Segovia, 'Journey(s) of the Word', p. 41.
5. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 326; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols,
IV, p. 150.
6. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 327; Ellis, Genius of John, p. 146;
Kermode, 'John', p. 455; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, pp. 182-83; Lindars, Gospel
of John, p. 297; Marsh, John, p. 340.
7. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV, p. 150.
himself with some very powerful symbols.

Although the narrator identifies the time as the last and great day of
the feast, it remains unclear whether that refers to the seventh or
eighth day of the celebration. On the seventh day, the priests carrying
the water from the pool of Siloam to the temple processed around the
altar seven times.8 Since the eighth day was a Sabbath, no water was
drawn from the pool or carried to the temple on it. If Jesus uttered his
words on the seventh day, that would put them and the attention they
draw to him at the climax of the temple ceremony and would depict
him as equating himself with the life-giving water celebrated and
anticipated in the ritual. If, however, Jesus made his comments on the
eighth day, he could be considered to be presenting himself as a living
alternative to the merely symbolic water used on the previous days.
Either day has significant implications. If the events of this narrative
section occur on the seventh day, Jesus stands alongside and acts as
a fulfillment of his tradition. If they take place on the eighth day,
his actions may represent an attempt to replace those powerful symbols
of Judaism.
The narrator does not appear aware of the confusion which results
from the description of the day and it is not possible to declare with
certainty on what day the events are depicted as taking place. Given
the antagonism between Jesus and the Jewish authorities so charac-
teristic of the Fourth Gospel, it seems more likely that the narrator
would portray Jesus as attempting to replace (or at least to correct)
Jewish tradition. Additional support for deciding that this narrative
takes place on the eighth day can be found in the passages previously
examined. At the wedding feast in Cana, Jesus replaced water pro-
vided 'for the purification rites of the Jews' (2.6). When speaking with
Nicodemus, 'a leader of the Jews' (3.1), Jesus identified himself as the
way to eternal life (3.15). While addressing the woman of Samaria, he
referred to himself as the provider of 'living water' (4.10) and indi-
cated that Jerusalem would lose its status as the place to worship God
(4.20). He also healed a lame man on the Sabbath (5.1-9) and thereby
indicated his freedom to use the day of rest and worship as a day to
reveal himself.9 Finally, in the preceding chapter he identified himself
8. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 114; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV, p. 150;

Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.152.
9. Jesus will exercise this same freedom in his dealings with the man born blind
in John 9.
as the source of and end to hunger and thirst (6.35). It would, there-
fore, not be out of character for Jesus to offer himself at the end of a
feast as the true source of what worshippers came to the feast cele-
brating and seeking.
Interpreting the direct quotation attributed to Jesus on the 'last' and
'great' day of the feast offers even more challenges than trying to dis-
cern which day that was. The textual witnesses disagree on the punctu-
ation of the address attributed to Jesus.10 Translators and commentators
of these verses divide into two major groups, those who follow the
Western reading of the text, which places a comma after npoq \ie and
a stop after sic, E\IE, and those who follow the Eastern reading, which
places a stop after Tiivexco and a comma after eiq eiie. In the Western
reading, Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and, once believing in
him, to drink, before quoting an uncertain Scripture to identify himself
as the source of living water.11 In the Eastern reading, Jesus invites
the thirsty to come to him and drink, before using an uncertain scrip-
ture to identify one who believes in him as a source of that living
water.12 Absolute certainty about which of these readings to consider
the most reliable is unattainable because each one makes both good
sense and Johannine sense.13
The Western reading provides a characteristically Johannine chiastic
poetic parallelism between the thirsty one who comes to Jesus and the
believer who drinks from him.14 'If anyone thirsts, let that one come
10. For extensive discussions of the possible ways to punctuate and thus to trans-
late Jn 8.37b-38, see Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 326-29; Brown,
Gospel according to John, pp. 320-23; and Schnackenburg, Gospel according to
St John, 2.152-156.
11. Among those who favor this reading are Beare, 'Spirit of Life', p. 114;
F.M. Braun, 'L'eau et l'Esprit', Rev Thorn 49 (1949), pp. 5-30 (8-9); Brown,
Gospel according to John, pp. 320-23; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 303; Howard,
'John', p. 588; Kermode, 'John', p. 455; and L. Morris, Reflections on the Gospel
of John. II. The Bread of Life, John 6-10 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 279.
12. Among those favoring this reading are Barrett, Gospel according to St John,
pp. 326-29; J.B. Cortes, 'Yet Another Look at Jn 7,37-38', CBQ 29 (1967),
pp. 75-86; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 321; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 301; and
Marsh, John, p. 342.
John, p. 320; Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 298-99; Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 2.154.
to me,/one who believes in me, let that one drink'. The scriptural
quotation that follows, then, would stand alone: 'Just as Scripture says,
"from within him rivers of living water will flow'". The fact that the
following verse identifies the living water as the Spirit and that 19.30
and 20.22 depict Jesus as the giver of the Spirit further support that
interpretation, as does the flow of blood and water from Jesus' side
in 19.34.15 Although the Hebrew Bible contains no verse exactly like
the one Jesus quotes, if the river of living water flows from his side,
similar language appears in Ps. 78.15; Prov. 18.4; Isa. 12.3; 43.19-21;
44.3; 55.1-2; 58.11; Ezek. 47.1,12; and Zech. 18.4.16 Braun adds to
this the conclusion that Scripture never depicts the Spirit as issuing
from believers.17
Despite such convincing evidence in support of the Western reading,
even more reasons exist for choosing the Eastern reading. Following
the punctuation of the Eastern reading, one could translate these verses:
'If anyone thirsts, let that one come to me and drink. One who believes
in me, as Scripture has said, "from within that one rivers of living
water will flow'". The second sentence in that translation has as its
subject a participial phrase which is resumed later in the pronoun
ax)TO\), a typically Johannine construction.18 Such a translation seems
preferable to the poetic parallelism created by following the Western
reading because the parallelism appears too imprecise to have been
intended by the author and because it makes more grammatical sense
to link the invitation to drink with the clause 'if anyone thirsts', which
precedes it, than with the participle phrase 'one who believes in me',
which follows it.19 Contrary to the conclusion drawn by Braun,
scriptural references do exist which support considering the believer
the source of living water. Isaiah refers to the faithful as 'a watered
garden' and 'a spring of water, whose waters never fail' (58.2). In
15. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 320. Brown also considers the river
of living waterflowingfrom the throne of God and of the lamb in Rev. 22.1 addi-
tional support for this reading.
16. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference, p. 144; Howard, 'John', p. 588; Kermode,
'John', p. 455; Kysar, John, pp. 128-29; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 298.
17. Braun, 'L'eau', pp. 8-9.
John, pp. 320-21; Kysar, John, pp. 128-29; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 299.
p. 321.
addition to that possibility, Zechariah envisions a day when 'living

waters shall flow out from Jerusalem' (14.8) and it seems plausible
that the Fourth Gospel could equate those who believe in Jesus with a
new Jerusalem.20 Although it is not possible to declare either of these
texts the certain source of the 'Scripture' quoted in Jn 7.38, both of
them provide similar images to support the concept of living water
flowing from within believers. Further support for this reading appears
in the Gospel of Thomas in a saying in which Jesus declares that those
who drink from his mouth become as he is.21
Even more support for the Eastern reading exists within the Fourth
Gospel itself. Although Jesus clearly stands as the source of the living
water, as he is the source of life (1.3-4) and the power to become
children of God (1.12), that does not exclude the possibility of believers
passing on to others what they receive from him. Jesus offers the
woman of Samaria living water (4.10) and also tells her that those
who drink the water he offers will have within them 'a spring of water
bubbling up into eternal life' (4.14). This appears to find expression in
the woman, who leaves the well with knowledge of (and faith in?)
Jesus and, through sharing what she has received, leads others in her
community to him (4.39). In John 13 Jesus not only tells disciples to
do what he does (13.14) but also notes that those who receive anyone
whom he sends receive him (13.20). In the farewell discourse of John
14, he promises that the Spirit that he will pray for God to send to
them will dwell with them and be in them (14.16-17). In 19.34 blood
and water do come forth from Jesus, but the narrator also reports that
the one 'who saw it has borne witness' so that others may believe
(19.35). Jesus is the initial source, but this witness ('recipient'?) of the
blood and water passes the experience along to others. Similarly, when
Jesus breathes the Spirit on the disciples in 20.22, he commissions
them to share what they receive from him. Indeed, 20.31 declares the
entire purpose of the Fourth Gospel as bringing people to faith in Jesus
and life in his name. Believers are not the source of the gifts Jesus
brings, but when they receive those gifts they do so not merely for
20. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (repr.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 159; P. Grelot, 'Jean VII, 38: Eau du rocher
ou source du temple?', RB 70 (1963), pp. 43-51 (50); Kysar, John, p. 128.
Koester, Symbolism, pp. 173-81, finds similarities between this and the muses of
Greco-Roman traditions.
21. Gos. Thorn. 108.
personal satisfaction but also to meet the needs of others who can
come to faith after and through them.22
(b) 7.39 An interpretation. Although the end of the preceding sub-unit
leaves the reader anxious to know how those celebrating Tabernacles
responded to Jesus' proclamation, the narrator abruptly interrupts the
story to interpret Jesus' remarks. The narrator declares that Jesus was
speaking about the Spirit and then further notes when and under what
circumstances the promise Jesus has made will be fulfilled.
The interpretative remarks of the narrator begin succinctly: 'Now
this he said about the Spirit' (7.39). This' refers in general to all
that Jesus has said to the crowd and more specifically to the 'living
water' (7.38). Just as the Jews considered the water poured out during
Tabernacles symbolic of the out-pouring of God's Spirit in the
messianic age,23 so does the narrator consider the water of which
Jesus speaks a symbol for that same Spirit.
After identifying the living water, the narrator explains that although
those who believe in Jesus were to receive the Spirit, this could not
happen until after his glorification.24 Despite the fact that Jesus has
revealed his glory in Cana (2.11) and has twice contrasted the glory
that comes from others with the glory that comes from God (5.41-44;
7.18), within the Gospel as a whole his glorification is yet to come.
He notes its beginning when Judas leaves to betray him (13.31-32)
and the actual glorification refers to the completion of his passion and
ministry.25
These words about glorification leave behind the narrative time and
point to the end of the Gospel—probably to the flow of water and blood
during the crucifixion (19.34) and certainly to the imparting of the
Spirit by the risen Jesus to the disciples (20.22). Although readers
22. B.F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St John (2 vols.; repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1980), 1.277.
23. Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 184; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to
St John, 2.151.
24. Moore, 'Are There Impurities?', pp. 225-26, notes that ultimately the water
flows from Jesus' absence. After he departs, the Spirit becomes available (cf. 14.26;
15.26; 16.7-13; 20.22-23). That makes the evangelist, who attempts to awaken in
readers a thirst to believe, a source of the living water, which, of course, originates
in Jesus.
John, p. 324; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 302; Moore, 'Are There Impurities?',
pp. 217-18; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.156-157.
might assume or expect the events of the narrative to have some

impact on them, this interruption addresses them specifically. By dis-
rupting the flow of the story, the narrator implies that the response of
the reader to Jesus' invitation is as important, if not more important,
than the reaction of the characters in the story. The Tabernacles cele-
brants do not know that the fulfillment of Jesus' words is yet to come.
Nor does anyone in the story tell them so. But the narrator wants to
make certain that the readers have this information.
7.40-44 Jesus receives a mixed response. The second unit of this nar-
rative section can be divided into three sub-units: (a) the positive
response (7.40-41a), (b) the negative response (7.41b-42), and (c) the
resulting division (7.43-44). When some members of the crowd declare
Jesus either a prophet or the messiah, others remain skeptical, noting
that Jesus comes from Galilee and that Scripture indicates that the
messiah will come from Bethlehem. Unlike Jesus, who in the first unit
'quotes' the scriptural passage to which he refers, the members of the
crowd merely summarize what the Scripture says. Although some
want Jesus arrested, no one seizes him.
(a) 7.40-41a The positive response. After leaving the scene in Jerusalem
to interpret Jesus' comments, the narrator now returns to the story
and reports that some of the Tabernacles celebrants responded posi-
tively to Jesus. Some confessed him to be the prophet, while others
called him the messiah. The former title refers to the Moses-like pro-
phet whose appearance would greet the messianic age. A crowd miracu-
lously fed by Jesus already has come to this conclusion regarding his
identity (6.14-15). His initial followers confessed Jesus as the messiah
(1.41), and a woman of Samaria (4.29) and various residents of
Jerusalem subsequently considered doing the same (7.26-31).
The narrator does not explain what prompted some members of the
crowd to draw these conclusions. The narrator's bias has shown clearly
from the opening verses of the Gospel and at this point it will suffice
to indicate that some people either identified Jesus correctly or were
moving in that direction. Since the glorification of Jesus has not yet
come, it is too early to applaud these confessions, but no defense of
them is necessary.
(b) 7.41b-42 The negative response. Others in the crowd of worship-
pers take a less favorable stance toward Jesus and question the validity
of identifying him as the messiah. They base their objection on what
they know about him and on their knowledge of Scripture. These

respondents imply that Jesus comes from Galilee and maintain that
Scripture identifies the messiah as a Davidic descendant from Bethle-
hem. Their initial query about whether the messiah will come from
Galilee anticipates a negative response.26 The narrator does not indi-
cate how they knew Jesus came from Galilee, but the fact that they
base their understanding of his identity primarily on geography places
them in bad company.
Just as the world failed to recognize the Xoyoc; (1.10), the priests
and Levites from Jerusalem did not know John's identity (1.19), the
steward at the wedding feast in Cana did not know from where the
good wine came (2.9), Nicodemus perceived that Jesus came from
God but did not know how one could be born dvco0ev (3.1-10), and
the Jews in Jerusalem did not know how the son of Joseph could claim
to have come down from heaven (6.41-42), those who question the
confession of Jesus as the messiah here fail to recognize the truth that
stands before them. Like Nathanael, who doubted that anything good
could come from Nazareth (1.46), they consider Jesus' place of birth27
irrefutable evidence that he could not be the anointed one. Like others
who fail to recognize Jesus correctly, they think of his origin purely in
terms of geography and not in terms of who sent him and what he does.
John said that the anointed one would baptize with the Holy Spirit
(1.32) and even the woman of Samaria knew that the messiah would
'proclaim all things' (4.25), but these hesitant Tabernacles celebrants
consider only matters of geography and genealogy and not the mess-
age and ministry Jesus brings. Jesus has already indicated that who
sends one, and not from where one comes makes the ultimate differ-
ence (7.25-27). They concern themselves too much with earthly things
to understand the one who comes from heaven (cf. 6.51) or to make
the distinctions necessary to recognize him. The reader knows not to
trust these characters because they make a mistake that has been made
frequently in the narrative.
26. The introductory phrase [ir\ yap indicates that the expected answer to the
question is negative.
27. Contrary to Ellis, Genius of John, p. 147, it does not seem necessary for the
reader to know the account of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem to understand the point being
made. The contrast here, as elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, is between origin from
below and from above. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 330-31, draws a
similar conclusion.
(c) 7.43-44 The resulting division. The opening verse in the final sub-
unit of this narrative unit states the obvious: differing opinions
regarding Jesus' identity caused a division among the people. This is
the third time since the narrator brought Jesus to Jerusalem for the
feast of Tabernacles that he has been the source of division. At the start
of the feast, members of the crowd split into those who deemed him a
good man and those who considered him a deceiver (7.12). Later during
the festival residents of Jerusalem divided into those who concluded that
he could not be the messiah because they knew from where he came
and those who thought he must be the messiah because of the signs he
performed (7.25-31). The division Jesus causes within Judaism steadily
deepens as the narrative unfolds.
As on the second occasion mentioned above, Jesus' opponents want
to arrest him, but something thwarts their efforts. The narrator simply
mentions that no one could lay hands on him. By offering no expla-
nation for this inability to seize Jesus, the narrator implies that God
protected him. Twice earlier in the narrative of the feast, the narrator
noted that Jesus' hour had not yet come (7.6, 30). That explanation is
not repeated here, but it seems clear that, especially considering the
note about Jesus' coming glorification (7.39), no harm will befall him
until God permits it.
This narrative section ends with a lack of resolve. Jesus has offered
the worshippers gathered to celebrate Tabernacles an opportunity to
sate thirst that transcends the water poured out during the feast. In
response to his invitation, some call him a prophet, some confess him
as the messiah, and some take such opposition that they want to arrest
him. But satisfaction for these thirsts must await glorification, and any
arrest of Jesus must await the time decided by God. Although a vari-
ety of human characters occupy the stage, all authority in the story
belongs to God.

In the narrative sections already examined, water has helped to iden-
tify the uniqueness of Jesus and his ministry, represented something
which one must accept in order to believe in him, depicted him as an
heir of Jewish tradition and one whose relationship with God tran-
scends that tradition, and functioned as a symbol of a new reality
manifest in him that calls for a decision. Water plays a very similar
role in the narrative of Jesus' proclamation on the last day of the feast
of Tabernacles.
By inviting the thirsty to come to him at the close of the Tabernacles

services, Jesus both acknowledges and transcends Jewish tradition. The
gift of water in and of itself and other blessings which water repre-
sented stood central to these rituals. The worshipers whom Jesus invites
to come and drink attend the festival not only because they desire
refreshing water for parched lips but also because they thirst for the
eschatological gifts symbolized by the water poured out during the
ceremonies.28 By calling them to himself and associating belief in him
with the living water, however, Jesus not only exceeds their expecta-
tions but also transcends Jewish tradition. He declares that he himself
and not the temple, the tradition, or anyone to come fulfills the ancient
promises.
As the divided opinion expressed about Jesus illustrates, the reality
symbolized by the living water calls for decision. Either Jesus has
unique access to God as the prophet or the messiah, or he is a deceiver.
Hearers must choose either to believe him or to trust the scriptural
evidence which identifies the messiah not as a Galilean but as a Davidic
descendant from Bethlehem.
The new element in this narrative section is the clear linking of the
living water with the Spirit that will become available to believers
following Jesus' glorification. This narrative presents water not simply
as a means by which the Spirit is conveyed but as the Spirit itself, a
point so important that the narrator interrupts the discourse to explain
it. Here the reader encounters for the first time an image that will
become increasingly important as the narrative unfolds. During his
words of farewell to the disciples, Jesus will make this promise clearer
as he announces that after his departure the Advocate, the Spirit of
truth, will be sent to the disciples (14.16-17; 15.26). Jesus fulfills this
promise when he breathes the Spirit on the disciples as he commis-
sions them (20.21-23). Fulfillment of the promise is also implied when
the blood and water flow from his pierced side (19.34).
This clearly lifts the symbolic meaning of water beyond the narra-
tive context and into the life of the reader. The narrator took pains to
say that the gift of the Spirit would not become available until after
Jesus' glorification. Jesus makes this promise to those who believe and
not solely to those at the Tabernacles service or to those alive during
his ministry. The narrative has yet to define what it means to have this
28. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 323; Bultmann, Gospel of John,

p. 305; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV, p. 150; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 298.
Spirit, but whatever it means applies to the reader as well as to the

characters in the Gospel. Water here functions as a symbol that calls
the readers to enter a dialogue which can have a direct impact on their
moral and spiritual lives.29 Even though we have not reached the
glorification in the narrative time, readers can already discern that
they will have to decide by which characters they want to stand.
Tied to this is the promise, supported by Scripture, that those who
drink from Jesus (that is, believe in him) become sources of living
water. Jesus promised the woman of Samaria that the water he offered
would become 'a spring of water bubbling up in them' (4.14). Here he
takes that promise a step farther and promises that the recipient of
what he has will become a giver of it. In so doing Jesus functions in a
way similar to personified wisdom in Jewish thought, which is a river
and 'becomes a river anew flowing from the heart of the devotee'.30
The living water believers receive becomes 'life-giving water'31 as it
flows through them to others. As the opposition to Jesus indicates, this
will not take place without cost; but the fact that no one can lay hands
on him reveals that God has the ultimate control.
2. Narrative X: Jesus, the Light of Life (9.1-41)

As noted in the introduction to the previous narrative section, John 7 -
10 depicts Jesus on an extended and eventful stay in Jerusalem. His
reputation and initial activities in the temple prompt other worship-
pers present for the feast of Tabernacles to ponder his identity (7.12,
25-26, 31, 40), especially with reference to from where he came
(7.27-29, 41-42). This comes to a climax when he invites the thirsty to
come to him and offers them living water (7.37-39). Throughout all
of this, negative reactions to Jesus grow stronger.
A story about the scribes and Pharisees bringing a woman caught in
29. Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 36, identifies this as a function of a symbol.

30. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, VI, p. 194. Goodenough observes elsewhere
that here Jesus also resembles Mesopotamian and Babylonian deities. See E.R.
Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. XII. Summary and
Conclusions (New York: Pantheon, 1965), pp. 108-109. To connect this with
Philo's understanding of the Logos, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IX, pp. 219-
20. To link it with a similar description of Moses, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols
in the Greco-Roman Period. X. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue (New York:
Pantheon, 1964), p. 39.
the act of adultery to Jesus gives the reader a pause from this growing
controversy. When Jesus next addresses the crowd (8.12), he calls
himself the 'light of the world' (8.12), thereby beginning a series of
controversy scenes with the Jewish authorities (8.12-59). This antago-
nism peaks when he claims to have existed before Abraham and his
hearers attempt to stone him (8.58-59).
As Jesus leaves the temple, he and his disciples encounter a man
born blind (9.1-2). After informing the disciples that the works of
God would become manifest in this man (9.3), Jesus covers the man's
eyes with an ointment made of spittle and dust and tells him to go and
wash in the pool of Siloam (9.6-7). The man does as directed and
returns seeing.
Although water is not specifically mentioned in this narrative, the
washing in the pool of Siloam receives considerable attention. Instead
of merely reporting that the man born blind followed Jesus' instruc-
tions, the narrator relates that he 'went and washed' (9.7). When the
neighbors of the man born blind ask how he gained his sight, the man
repeats the words of the commands and declares that he 'went and
washed' (9.11). When the Pharisees repeat that question, he again
reports that he 'washed' (9.15). Such repetition makes the washing
central to the narrative and deserving of examination in this study.

As previously noted, the narrative of John 7-10 depicts Jesus on an
extended visit to Jerusalem. A slight change of location and a signifi-
cant change in characters indicate that a distinct section within that
longer narrative segment begins in John 9.
After returning from Galilee to Jerusalem (7.10), Jesus entered the
temple during the feast of Tabernacles (7.14). He remained there until
leaving for the Mount of Olives (8.1), but returned to the temple the
next morning (8.2) and stayed there until driven out by the Jewish
authorities, who were enraged because he claimed to have existed before
Abraham (8.59). Although the narrator does not indicate precisely to
where Jesus went, the comment that he was 'passing by' suffices to
denote a change of scene.
The change in characters provides even more convincing evidence
of the beginning of a new narrative unit. The Jewish authorities, with
whom Jesus has conducted an extensive dialogue (8.31-58), disappear
when he leaves the temple and do not appear with him again until the
end of the chapter (9.40).32 Jesus is now in the company of his disci-
ples, who have not appeared since the twelve chose to remain with
him even though many others found his words offensive and left
(6.66-71). The principal character to join the scene, however, is the
man born blind, who appears in the opening verse of the chapter and
remains in the scene—either as a character in the action or as the topic
of discussion for the other characters—until almost the end (9.38). His
presence clearly signifies the beginning of a distinct narrative unit.
Defining where this narrative draws to a close proves far more
difficult. After declaring to the Pharisees that their claim to sight
gives evidence to their guilt (9.41), Jesus begins a monologue in which
he describes himself as a good shepherd (10.1-18). This speech con-
tinues until the narrator notes yet another division of opinion among
the Jews concerning Jesus (10.19). Since there is no change of charac-
ters indicated, this monologue is probably directed toward the same
general audience that Jesus has addressed throughout this visit to
Jerusalem. The man born blind, however, is not mentioned again. He
seems to have served his narrative purpose. When the disciples first saw
him, they asked Jesus to render judgment on why he was born blind
(9.2). Jesus passes no judgment, however, until accusing the Pharisees
of sin because they insist that they are not blind. This has the effect of
letting the reader see the answer to the question of what causes blind-
ness as the narrative unfolds.33 The positing and answering of that
question also helps to define the beginning and end of a narrative unit.

Three units that reflect separate stages in the action comprise this
narrative section: 1) Jesus heals a man born blind (9.1-14), 2) The
Community responds to the healing (9.15-34), and 3) Jesus responds
to the man born blind and the community (9.35-41). Each of the first
two units is comprised of three sub-units in which primarily two
characters interact.34 An informational interlude at the end of the first
32. The Pharisees return in 8.13, but that is in a dialogue with the man born
blind, not with Jesus.
33. J.L. Resseguie, 'John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis', in R.R. Gros Loius
(ed.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1982), pp. 295-303 (296).
34. This follows the ancient practice of limiting dialogue to two characters at a
time. For discussion of this, consult Ellis, Genius of John, p. 8; Martyn, History
unit provides important information regarding the context of the

healing and prepares for the dispute at the center of the last two units.
The final unit contains two sub-units during which Jesus completes his
interaction with the man bom blind and renews the controversy with
the Jewish authorities that has brewed since his return to Jerusalem.
This narrative section has striking resemblances to the one featuring
the lame man35 and has also been compared with the healing of Naaman
in 2 Kings.36 It has also been noted that although his healing of the
blind man sets the action in motion, Jesus is absent from the narrative
longer than anywhere else in the Fourth Gospel.37
9.1-14 Jesus heals a man born blind. The first unit of this narrative
section can be divided into four sub-units: (a) 9.1-5 Jesus and his dis-
ciples encounter a man bom blind, (b) 9.6-7 Jesus heals the man bom
blind, (c) 9.8-13 The neighbors of the man bom blind confirm the
healing, and (d) 9.14 An informational interlude. The final sub-unit
interrupts the narrative flow to provide information necessary for
understanding the reactions expressed in the narrative unit that follows.
The relatively terse account of the healing stands between longer sub-
units, both of which begin with a question.38
The themes of blindness and sin are central to the beginning and
ending of this passage. The narrative unit opens with the presence of
the man bom blind prompting the disciples to ask whose sin resulted
in his malady. It closes with the announcement that the healing occurred
on a Sabbath day, which makes it a breech of Jewish law. The
narrative thus moves from an implication that blindness resulted from
sin to the implication that the healing of the man bom blind involved
sin. In the former the cause of the sin remains unknown. In the latter
Jesus obviously stands as the active agent. In the preceding narrative,
and Theology, pp. 26-27; Mlakuzhyil, Literary Structure, p. 115; O'Day, The
Word Disclosed, pp. 55-56; Painter, Quest for the Messiah, p. 313; K. Quast,
Reading the Gospel of John: An Introduction (New York: Paulist Press, 1991),
p. 73; Resseguie, 'John 9 \ pp. 295-301.
35. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 139-40; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 201.
36. T.L. Brodie, 'Jesus as the New Elijah: Cracking the Code', ExpTim 93
(1981), pp. 39-42 (40-41); Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 372; Guilding,
Fourth Gospel, p. 124; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.243.
37. O'Day, The Word Disclosed, p. 56; Rensberger, Johannine Faith, p. 42.
38. O'Day, The Word Disclosed, p. 57, considers the entire dialogue structured
around the question and answer patternfirstdisplayed in 9.2-5.
the Jews attempted to stone Jesus for his claim to pre-existence. The
controversy certainly will continue in the verses to follow.
(a) 9.7-5 Jesus and his disciples encounter a man born blind. When
Jesus and his disciples encounter a man born blind in the temple area,
the disciples immediately assume that this condition resulted from a
sin committed by either him or his parents.39 Jesus answers by
declaring what would result from the man's condition instead of by
identifying what caused it. As he announces that the works of God will
become manifest in the man born blind, he focuses everyone's atten-
tion on the present instead of on the past and draws a contrast between
the disciples' assumption that sin was at work in the man and his
declaration that God soon would be at work in him.40
Jesus continues his response by contrasting day and night and insisting
that he and his disciples have work to do while it is day. His words
anticipate controversy, especially when he closes them by proclaiming
himself the light of the world.41 When he last used that description of
himself (8.12), the ensuing argument ended with the Jewish authorities
attempting to stone him (8.59). It is not clear at this point how Jesus'
interaction with the man born blind will result in similar enmity, but
the reader has no reason to expect anything less.
(b) 9.6-7 Jesus heals the man born blind. In the first sub-unit the man
born blind sat in the background silently observing the actions of the
two central characters, Jesus and his disciples. In this sub-unit the dis-
ciples disappear from view and, although he remains silent, the man
born blind moves to center stage with Jesus. Jesus anoints his eyes with
a mixture of clay and spittle and commands him to go and wash in the
pool of Siloam.
Whether or not the reader knows that spittle was believed to have
39. Although such a conclusion is not necessary for understanding this passage,
Guilding, Fourth Gospel, p. 123, has suggested that the disciples' question may
reflect a discussion carried on in the synagogue.
40. For a discussion of a different way of punctuating v. 3 that supports this
reading, see J.C. Poirier, '"Day and Night" and the Punctuation of John 9.3', NTS
42 (1996), pp. 288-94.
41. Staley considers the pronouncement of Jesus in 9.3-5 the most important
component of this narrative and argues that we should refer to this as a pronounce-
ment story and not a miracle story. See J.L. Staley, Reading with a Passion:
Rhetoric, Autobiography, and the American West in the Gospel of John (New York:
Continuum, 1995), pp. 45-46.
magical or medicinal value,42 the narrator may depict Jesus using

what he had immediately available in order to stress the fact that the
works of God must be done while it is day. The man had been born
blind. The light of the world now stood present. There was no reason
to delay. Jesus responded to the situation with compassionate urgency.
After anointing the eyes of the man born blind, Jesus commands
him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. Although washing with
water from a particular place probably was normal procedure in such
healings, the fact that the narrator used the feast of Tabernacles as the
last specific time reference in the narrative makes it noteworthy that
Jesus instructs him to wash in that pool. The pool of Siloam was the
source of the water drawn for the feast.43 Just as Jesus invited wor-
shippers at Tabernacles to come to him and drink so that they might
find living water (8.37), so now he intends to use the water poured out
during the festival to bring light to a man born blind. These com-
mands are the first words Jesus has spoken directly to the man. As was
the case with the servants at the wedding feast at Cana (2.8), Jesus
calls him to obey without explanation. Whereas, however, the servants
carrying the water jars apparently had little to gain or lose from
following Jesus' instructions, the man born blind must trust him enough
to travel to the pool unaccompanied and learn what will happen.
Before reporting that the man born blind obeyed Jesus' commands,
the narrator breaks into the direct discourse to tell the reader that
Siloam means 'sent'. Regardless whether or not this rendering of the
meaning of Siloam translates the word correctly,44 since the one com-
manding is the one sent from God,45 this aside by the narrator attri-
butes any curative effects the waters may have directly to him. The
narrator appears to want to make certain that the reader does not miss
this point.
Instead of describing the healing, the narrator simply reports that the
man 'went and washed and returned seeing' (9.7). In such a terse report,
the repetition of the action of washing seems significant. It indicates
not only that the man born blind did exactly as instructed, but also that
42. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 358; Kysar, John, p. 149.

43. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 372; Guilding, Fourth Gospel, p. 124;
Marsh, John, p. 379; Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook, pp. 301-302.
44. For discussion of the narrator's translation, see Haenchen, John. I. A
Commentary, p. 38; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 354; Kysar, John, p. 150.
45. Jn 3.17, 34; 5.35; 6.38, 44, 57; 7.16, 28, 29; 8.16, 18, 26, 29, 42.
the water of the pool was involved in the healing. Nevertheless, the
primary focus of attention is on the relationship between healer and
the one healed, not on the act itself.
(c) 9.8-13 The neighbors of the man born blind confirm the healing.
After the man born blind returns from the pool, his neighbors ques-
tion whether the sighted man they see before them truly is him or is
merely someone who looks like him. They end their debate by asking
the man to identify himself, which gives him an opportunity to iden-
tify his healer and to describe the healing. Both the conversation
between the neighbors and their conversation with the man born blind
confirm the miracle.
When the man born blind affirms that it is he who has gained his
sight, he identifies his healer as 'the man called Jesus' (9.11). Unlike
the lame man at the pool in John 5, the man born blind at least knows
the name of his healer. This rather timid description of Jesus as a
'man' will grow in later scenes in this chapter,46 as the man born blind
calls him a prophet (9.17), a worshipper of God (9.31), one from God
(9.33), and, finally, the Son of Man (9.35-38). Like the woman of
Samaria whom Jesus met at the well, this character appears to pass
through several stages of faith before making a complete confession of
Jesus' identity. As this description broadens, readers can move slowly
toward the confession the narrator finds most adequate instead of
having to accept it all at once.
Note also the repetition in the answer the man born blind gives to
his neighbors. Explaining how the cure took place, he tautologically
reports that Jesus told him to go and wash and that he went and washed
(9.11). This redundancy not only confirms that the man precisely
followed the instructions given but also affirms the role of water in
the healing. Although the water neither came from nor was touched
by Jesus, it played an important part in the cure he offered. In John 5,
Jesus healed a man who was unable to receive the benefits of the waters
of Bethzatha. Here, at his command water helps to bring about a cure
of unparalleled dimensions (9.32).
Having established the identity of the man born blind and his healer,
the neighbors then ask the man where Jesus is now. When he says that
he does not know, they take him to the Pharisees. If they had taken
46. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 359; Kysar, John, p. 151; Lindars,
Gospel of John, p. 345; P.J. Riga, 'The Man Born Blind', TBT 22 (1984),
pp. 168-73 (170).
him to the priests, readers aware of Jewish tradition might conclude

that they wanted the religious officials to affirm the cure. It is not so
easy to explain, however, why they took him to the Pharisees, who
were speaking disparagingly of Jesus when last seen,
(d) 9.14 An informational interlude. After announcing that the neigh-
bors took the man born blind to the Pharisees, the narrator interrupts
the description of the events to inform the reader that the healing took
place on the Sabbath. By explaining that both the mixing of the clay
for the cure and the cure itself occurred on the Sabbath, the narrator
makes it explicit that Jesus violated Jewish Sabbath law twice.47
Jesus encountered opposition for performing a cure on the Sabbath
in John 5, so the readers know that his actions sometimes violate Jewish
law. By describing the cure first and then noting that it took place on a
Sabbath day, however, the narrator moves the reader to celebrate the
healing before mentioning this technically troublesome point. How
could anyone not rejoice over a man born blind gaining his sight?
Before the authorities have any dealings with the man, the narrator
has made the reader sympathetic toward him. The healing is the focus
of attention. The fact that it happened on the Sabbath is presented
merely as an aside.
No additional explanation (or justification) of Jesus' actions is des-
cribed. The narrator leaves it to the Pharisees to raise any objections
or pass any judgment on the miracle that has taken place.
9.15-34 The community responds to the healing. The second unit of this
narrative section can be divided into three sub-units: (a) 9.15-17 The
Pharisees question the man born blind, (b) 9.18-23 The Jews question
the parents of the man born blind, and (c) 9.24-34 The Authorities
question and expel the man born blind. In each sub-unit, dialogue
guides the narrative, which flows from one question and response to
the next. Direct discourse dominates the narrative, as the commentary
of the narrator merely sets the stage for the characters or provides
information to help the reader interpret the dialogue.
Tension builds steadily from one sub-unit to the next. Although
Jesus does not appear as a character, his actions with the man born
blind remain prominent. When the Jewish authorities question the man

John, p. 373; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 332; Kysar, John, p. 151; Marsh,
John, p. 382; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.242.
born blind and his parents, those actions result in the identification of
Jesus as a prophet (9.17), a possible messiah (9.23), and, finally, a man
from God (9.33). The more exalted the appellations for Jesus become,
the more the conflict between the authorities and the man born blind
intensifies. At first they simply ask him what happened (9.15), then
they question his integrity (9.18-19), and at the end they cast him out
of the synagogue (9.34).
The development of the two principal characters in this narrative
section helps the narrator to gain sympathy for the man born blind,
while making the authorities less attractive. The man born blind begins
weak and simply defined. When the authorities ask their initial ques-
tions, he has little to say and speaks only in response to their queries.
He has opinions and appears to understand what has happened, but in
no way controls the action. In the final sub-section, however, he defies
his interrogators, counters with questions of his own, and takes control
of the dialogue. He becomes a more complete character. The authori-
ties, on the other hand, lose depth as the narrative unfolds. The narrator
first calls them the Pharisees (9.15), then uses the more general term
the Jews (9.18), and in the final sub-unit refers to them only with
third person plural verb endings. As their identity becomes less sharply
focused, they become more narrow and flat. In the first sub-unit, they
ask questions and are divided regarding what has happened. In the
second unit, they are discredited as they intimidate the parents of the
man born blind. In the final sub-unit, they are entirely antagonistic
and single-minded.
The previous narrative unit ended with the possibility of conflict
between the Jewish authorities and Jesus brewing. This one ends with
that conflict intensified and directed not only at Jesus but also at a person
he has healed. The focus is on not the miracle Jesus has performed but
on his identity and on what the one healed will say about him.
(a) 9.15-17 The Pharisees question the man born blind. The Jewish
authorities, identified in this sub-unit as the Pharisees, begin the series
of questions and responses which dominates this narrative unit by
asking the man born blind how he regained his sight. He responds with
an abbreviated summary of his earlier report to his neighbors (9.11),
tersely stating that Jesus put clay on his eyes, he washed, and he now
can see (9.15). This is the last mention of the washing which preceded
the healing. Following this report the miracle itself becomes less pro-
minent than the response to Jesus of the one who benefitted from it.
The man born blind may have attempted to protect Jesus by not
mentioning him by name and omitting his earlier testimony that Jesus
made clay, anointed his eyes, and told him to go and wash. Each of
those actions could have been considered a violation of the Sabbath.48
The Pharisees nonetheless accuse Jesus of not keeping the Sabbath,
although they are divided on the question of whether a person not sent
from God could perform such a miracle. When they ask the man born
blind his opinion, he calls Jesus a prophet (9.17). This is a much
loftier description than his previous reference to Jesus simply as a
'man' (9.11). The interview with the Pharisees ends with this con-
fession, which, although incomplete, echoes the words of the woman
of Samaria (4.19) who led her community to faith,
(b) 9.18-23 The Jews question the parents of the man born blind. The
authorities, now identified as the Jews, briefly shift their attention from
Jesus' identity to that of the man born blind. They ask his parents
whether he is their son, whether he was born blind, and, if so, how he
gained his sight. The parents' affirmation of him as their son, who was
born blind, confirms the miracle yet again.
The parents' affirmation also discredits the authorities in the eyes
of the reader, especially when the narrator explains that the parents
refused to answer their questions about the miracle because the Jews
had agreed to cast anyone who called Jesus the messiah out of the
synagogue.49 The authorities not only have closed minds when it comes
to Jesus, but also intend to punish anyone who has an open mind.
When the parents of the man born blind insist that he explain his
healing to the authorities for himself, their comments bring his opinion
about Jesus to the forefront. This narrative is not about a miracle. It is
about the relationship between the man born blind and Jesus. This sub-
unit ends with the reader anxious to know what kind of a relationship
that is or will be.
48. Staley, 'Stumbling in the Dark', p. 67.

49. Martyn, History and Theology, pp. 37-62, considers this evidence that the
man born blind was banned from the synagogue, much as Christians were forced by
the Eighteen Benedictions either to expose the fact that they believed in Jesus or to
invoke a curse on themselves. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, p. 26, notes that some
scholars challenge this conclusion. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 361-
62; and Howard, 'John', p. 617, suggest that a thirty day expulsion from the syna-
gogue and not excommunication is implied.
(c) 9.24-34 The authorities question and expel the man born blind.
The authorities, to whom the narrator refers in this sub-unit simply as
'they', 50 now question the man born blind a second time. They begin
by asking him to give God the praise for the miracle that gave him his
sight, because they 'know' that Jesus is a sinner (9.24).51 The narrator
does not explain how the authorities came to that conclusion, thus
weakening it in the eyes of the reader.
The man born blind then contrasts what they know with what he
knows: they may consider Jesus a sinner, but he knows that he was
once blind and now sees (9.25). Confronted by that fact, which they
have unsuccessfully challenged, the authorities again question how it
happened (9.26). This time, instead of repeating his testimony, the
man born blind turns the tables and questions his interrogators, asking
whether they want to become disciples of Jesus (9.27).
The authorities identify themselves as disciples of Moses and state
that they do not know from where Jesus comes (9.28-29).52 The man
born blind again compares knowledge, this time contrasting what the
authorities do not know with what everyone knows: that God listens
not to sinners but to true worshippers and that Jesus, who has per-
formed a miracle unlike any other, must have come from God, since
he could do nothing if not from God (9.31-33). Despite the fact that
they are the authorities, the man born blind clearly appears more
knowledgeable about the ways of God.
The authorities, who have neither denied the miracle nor explained
how it could happen apart from God, now refer to the man born blind
as they have to Jesus, that is, they call him a sinner. In the opening
unit of this narrative section the disciples looked at the man born blind
and asked, 'Who sinned?' (9.2) and Jesus answered that no one had
50. In indirect discourse, the authorities are designated in these verses by the
third person plural verbal ending. When they speak of themselves in direct discourse,
they call themselves simply 'we'. The man born blind refers to them as 'you'.
51. Haenchen, John. II. A Commentary, p. 40, and Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 2.251, conclude that by asking the man born blind to give God
the glory the authorities treat him as already condemned, since that formula was
required of those confessing their guilt. Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook,
p. 313, and O'Day, The Word Disclosed, p. 66, note the irony of the Pharisees,
who will not give God glory for the healing, demanding that the man born blind give
God the glory.
52. Howard, 'John', p. 618, observes that this claim contradicts their earlier
claim in 7.27.
sinned. In this narrative unit the authorities have called both the man
who gained his sight and the one responsible for that miracle sinners.
The closing narrative unit will bring together these themes of blind-
ness, sight, and judgment and challenge the reader to decide whom to
believe.
935-41 Jesus responds to the man born blind and the community. The
third unit of this narrative section can be divided into two sub-units:
(a) 9.35-38 Jesus calls the man born blind to faith, and (b) 9.39-41 Jesus
calls the Pharisees into judgment. Dialogue again guides the narrative.
The narrator identifies the speakers and succinctly provides the context
of their remarks, but the action of the narrative and the discussion of
the issues of belief, blindness, sight, and judgment transpire in direct
discourse.
Both the narrator's comments and the unfolding of the direct dis-
course continue the development of the character of the man born
blind to the detriment of the authorities, whom this unit identifies as
'some of the Pharisees' (9.40). The unit begins with Jesus taking the
initiative to find the man born blind and having a conversation with
him. In contrast, the Pharisees appear merely to overhear Jesus speak-
ing and then listen, without opportunity to respond, to his answer to
their question.
The man born blind, who began this narrative section as a sinner
(9.2), ends as a believer (9.38). Whereas the 'works of God' (9.3)
done by 'the light of the world' (9.5) bring him to faith, those same
works leave the authorities self-accused of guilt and in the darkness of
blindness (9.41).
(a) 9.35-38 Jesus calls the man born blind to faith. True to his call not
to lose anyone whom God brings to him (6.38-39), Jesus seeks out and
finds the man born blind when he hears that the authorities have
rejected him.53 In his first words to him since instructing him to go
and wash (9.7), Jesus asks the man born blind whether he believes in
the Son of Man. This title for Jesus has not appeared previously in this
narrative section. It was last employed in John 6 when Jesus called
those who believed in him to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of
Son of Man (vv. 53-54), a command that compelled many would-be
53. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 375, and Kysar, John, p. 155, con-
trast the action of the Pharisees in driving the man out with that of Jesus in finding
him. See also Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.252.
disciples to abandon him.54 This question clearly not only calls the
man born blind to faith, but also tests his resolve to continue to trust
the healer whom he defended before the authorities even when that
resulted in his expulsion from the synagogue.
The man born blind responds with an open mind, asking Jesus to
identify the Son of Man so he can believe in him.55 He has not claimed
to know more than he does and he stands willing for Jesus to teach and
lead him. Both of those actions contrast with the responses the Pharisees
will make to Jesus in the following sub-unit. When Jesus identifies
himself as the Son of Man, the man born blind responds immediately
with a simple confession of faith and worship. The confession of faith
brings the narrative section to a climax as spiritual growth and whole-
ness now complement the physical healing at the pool.56 The man born
blind not only can see, but also can discern the truth. Although cast
out of the synagogue, he remains able to worship because of his belief
in the one who opened his eyes. Having been found by Jesus at the start
of this sub-unit, he now has found a new community and new faith,
(b) 9.39-41 Jesus calls the Pharisees into judgment. After calling the
man born blind to confess his faith, Jesus summarizes his activity in
this narrative section and his mission in general by declaring that he
came 'for judgment', so that the blind may see and the sighted may
become blind (9.39). Although this statement appears to conflict with
his earlier claim that he did not enter the world to judge the world
(3.17), in the narrative sequence it does not. Rather than passing judg-
ment himself, Jesus takes actions that compel people to judge themselves
by either believing in him or rejecting him (cf. 3.18).57 Since the narra-
tive has indicated that the man born blind has gained his sight, the
reader can expect the final verses of the narrative section to identify
which sighted people will become blind.
Some of the Pharisees overhear Jesus' remarks and ask him whether
54. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 364, and Kysar, John, pp. 155-
56, note that the title, Son of Man, is not used elsewhere in John in connection with
the verb nxoievco.
55. As did the woman of Samaria (4.11, 19), the man born blind refers to Jesus
as K^pie (9.36). Although this could simply be a polite form of address, in the
Fourth Gospel it indicates at least an openness to faith.
56. Paschal, 'Sacramental Symbolism', p. 158; Riga, 'Man Born Blind', p. 170.
57. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 365; Bruce, Gospel of John,
p. 220; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 341.
they are blind. Jesus responds by asserting that if they were blind they
would incur no guilt, but since they claim ability to see their guilt
remains. The interrogative particle |ifi employed by the Pharisees
indicates that they expected Jesus to tell them they were not blind. In
contrast to the man born blind, the Pharisees are not open to anything
Jesus has to say. The man born blind was willing first to follow Jesus'
instructions and then to have him identify the Son of Man for him.
The Pharisees are closed to anything Jesus would teach them. Thus,
those who passed judgment on the man born blind after he gained his
sight ironically declare themselves blind.
The judgment the Pharisees have passed on themselves becomes even
stronger with Jesus' use of the verb |ievco to describe the guilt they
incur. The narrator used this verb earlier to describe the lasting rela-
tionship between Jesus and believers (6.56) and it frequently expresses
the permanency of the relationship between them, as well as that
between Jesus and the one who sent him.58 Thus it denotes here that
the guilt of the Pharisees is attached to them as forcefully as believers
are joined to Jesus.
That brings the narrative section back to the question with which it
began. When the disciples first saw the man born blind, they asked
Jesus who sinned and caused his blindness (9.2). Since Jesus did not
answer that question directly, the reader has had the opportunity to
witness the answer in the actions of the characters as the narrative
progressed. 59 Whatever the reason for his blindness, the man born
blind can now see because he has responded positively to Jesus. The
Pharisees, on the other hand, have rejected anything Jesus has to offer
and thus are depicted as utterly blind. The narrator skillfully presents
the reader with two options: either believe in Jesus, have one's eyes
opened, and escape self-judgment, or reject Jesus, remain blind, and
declare oneself guilty. Sin, in this narrative, is rejecting Jesus.

In the previous narrative section, Jesus called believers to himself and
associated belief in him with the reception of living water. That living
water symbolized the Spirit, which will become available to believers
after Jesus' glorification. Jesus implicitly contrasts that living water
58. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 510. For a detailed discussion of the
Johannine use of this verb, see pp. 510-12.
59. Ressequie, 'John 9', p. 296.
with the water from the pool of Siloam used in the celebration of the
feast of Tabernacles.
Although the water mentioned in this narrative section also comes
from the pool of Siloam, here water symbolizes a tool used by Jesus
more than a gift offered to or received by the believer. The facts that
Jesus instructed the man born blind to wash himself in the pool and
that he obeyed that command are emphasized in the narrative by placing
them on the lips of Jesus (9.7), in the comments of the narrator (9.7),
twice in the report of the man born blind to his neighbors (9.11), and
once in the testimony the man born blind gave to the Pharisees (9.15).
Jesus empowers the waters of Siloam to transcend their normal func-
tion, just as he used the waters for purification to meet a need at the
wedding feast in John 2 and offered water to the woman of Samaria
that superseded that of Jacob's Well in John 4. Yet, despite the repeti-
tion of the actions and the miracle which appears to have occurred in
the water of Siloam, neither the water nor the miracle are the true
center of attention.
The focus in this narrative section is the relationship of the man
born blind with Jesus. When the neighbors discover that it is the man
they know who now sees, instead of marveling at the miracle they ask
him about Jesus (9.12). When the Jewish authorities hear about the
healing, they question who Jesus is (9.16) and ask the man born blind
his opinion of him (9.17). When they cannot discredit the healing, the
authorities accuse Jesus of sin and demand that the man born blind
choose between defending Jesus and remaining a part of their com-
munity. Water has significance because it places the man born blind in
a position to make a decision about Jesus.
For the man born blind, water functions as a preparation for faith
and a call to decision. When Jesus first tells him to go and wash, he
must decide whether or not to trust him. Considering the circum-
stances at that point, he has little to lose. Following the washing and
the related healing, however, there is much more at stake. Despite the
antagonism he encounters, the man born blind will not speak against
his healer and, unlike the lame man at the pool (5.1-18), he will not
help the authorities to build a case against him. The event at the pool
has changed his life radically.
When Jesus next finds the man born blind, the time for a decision
has come. By refusing to discredit Jesus and eventually by defending
him, the man born blind finds himself expelled from the synagogue.
Jesus responds by asking him whether he believes in the Son of Man,

whom he then identifies as himself. The healing in the waters of
Siloam and his response to them have prepared the man born blind to
decide whether or not to make that confession. Jesus does not offer
him water, but rather empowers the waters to which he directs him to
effect a healing that leads to a decision whether or not to separate
himself from his neighbors and family and make a new confession of
faith. The decision is between choosing not to see the gifts offered in
and through Jesus (that is, remaining blind) and choosing to be open
to what Jesus has to offer (that is, gaining one's sight); the choice is
between the old and the new. In the narrative sections already studied,
tension between Jesus and the authorities has increased steadily. Here
those who receive what Jesus has to offer clearly must separate them-
selves from the past and embrace a new beginning.
Christian tradition has long associated this narrative section with the
rite of baptism,60 but nothing in this narrative makes it certain that
baptism was symbolized.61 Since the narrative climaxes with the state-
ment of faith and not the washing, even if one does find baptismal
symbolism here, that act remains unfulfilled without a confession of
faith. In this narrative section, water symbolizes the preparation for
new life and perhaps a preliminary step toward that life, but not new
life itself.

During the portion of the extended stay in Jerusalem recounted in
John 7-10, water appears in two very different narrative sections.
Although water has a unique role in each, both add to its expanding
meaning and function.
When Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and drink on the 'last'
and 'great' day of the Tabernacles services (7.37), he clearly asserts
that his unique mission and ministry supersede his Jewish heritage.
Those who hear him must decide either to trust the traditions that
brought them to the festival in the first place or to step away from
those traditions and sate their thirst for spiritual fulfillment in Jesus.
60. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 381; Dodd, Historical Tradition,

p. 184; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 340; Riga, 'Man Bora Blind', p. 170.
61. Quast, Reading the Gospel, p. 74; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to
St John, 2.257-258.
The narrator further distinguishes what Jesus offers by linking it with

the gift of the Spirit that will become available after Jesus' glorification.
Water represents a new beginning that stands on Jewish tradition (since
it is offered in the context of Tabernacles), but goes beyond it (since
it causes living water to rise up in and flow from the heart of the
believer).
The story of the man born blind features an even starker break with
tradition. After the healing that occurred when he went to the pool
and washed as Jesus instructed, the man born blind must choose between
his family and neighbors and his healer. The water of Siloam connects
with the man born blind's past, but through Jesus it makes him see the
world as he had never before seen it. The washing opens his eyes and
prepares him to choose to enter new life.
Both of these passages lift the symbolic meaning and function of
water beyond the narrative contexts and into the life of the reader. In
both it becomes clear that a decision must be made. If readers want to
have living water and be a source of that water for others, they must
choose to believe in Jesus. But that choice has significant consequences.
They may even be compelled to leave behind friends and family. The
expanding meaning and function of water is one of many indications
that the Gospel narrative is moving toward a climax.
Chapter 5
WATER AND THE HOUR
When Mary and Martha send word to Jesus that their brother Lazarus
is ill, Jesus soon begins his final journey to Jerusalem. The raising of
Lazarus from death brings opposition to Jesus to new heights. The nar-
rator reports that the authorities now fear that everyone will believe in
him and an uprising of popular support for him will prompt Rome to
intervene and destroy the temple and the nation (11.48). The high priest
decides that Jesus must die for the people, which the narrator interprets
as an unwitting prophecy in fulfillment of God's will (11.50-52).
Within this final trip to Jerusalem, Jesus is depicted as knowing that
his hour has come when he gathers his disciples together before the
Passover (13.1). It then takes almost all of seven chapters for the
narration of his final words to his disciples, his final confrontations with
the Jewish and Roman authorities, and his crucifixion and death.
Clearly, the emphasis in this block of material is on the completion of
Jesus' ministry.
The symbol of water appears in two narrative sections within this
final visit to Jerusalem. When Jesus brings his disciples together before
the Passover, he fills a basin with water and washes their feet (13.5).
Peter initially rejects this humble act, but Jesus insists that he must
accept it to have a relationship with him. Jesus then commands the
disciples to imitate his actions and wash one another's feet.
That act of humble service foreshadows the crucifixion, during which
water appears for the final time. After Jesus utters, 'It is finished', and
the narrator reports that he hands over the spirit (19.30), a soldier
thrusts his sword into Jesus' side. Blood and water immediately flow
from the wound and the narrator interrupts the account to vouch for
the veracity of both the witness to this act and the act itself. The
narrator then announces that this testimony is rendered so that the
reader may believe.
5. Water and the Hour 179
Since the first narrative section is introduced as the beginning of the

hour and the second includes a call to faith, both are of obvious impor-
tance to the narrator. That is to be expected. As the end of the Gospel
draws near, each act can have added significance. In the preceding pas-
sages, it has become increasingly difficult to remain neutral toward
Jesus. The final two narrative sections in which water appears challenge
both the characters in the narrative and the reader to make a decision.
1. Narrative XI: Jesus Washes the Feet of the Disciples (13.1-20)

After the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11.1-44), opposition to Jesus by the
authorities becomes so intense that the narrator reports that he 'no
longer walked openly among the Jews' (11.54). This intense animosity
immediately makes the people openly wonder whether he will return
to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration (12.55-56).1 The speculation
ends in 12.12 when Jesus returns to Jerusalem for the fourth and final
time. A crowd of people who know him because of the raising of
Lazarus welcome him into the city (12.17-18), but he remains in danger
because many do not believe in him (12.37) and those who do keep
quiet out of fear of expulsion from the synagogue (12.41-42). The
opposition to Jesus has nearly come to a climax.
Near the start of this final visit, at a time designated only as 'before
the feast of the Passover' (13.1), Jesus shares a supper with disciples
(13.2). Two important events occur during this meal, which provides
the context his words of farewell to his disciples.2 First, Jesus takes
the role of a servant and washes his disciples' feet. Secondly, he reveals
who will betray him and Judas Iscariot exits into the night to fulfill
that prediction.
The penultimate appearance of water in the narrative also takes place
during this meal. The word 'water' appears only once (13.5), but the
verb for washing appears eight times3 and remains at the center of
most of the dialogue that takes place during the meal.
1. Each trip Jesus makes to Jerusalem comes at the time of special celebration.
He has traveled there to celebrate Passover (2.13), an undesignated feast (5.1), and
Tabernacles (7.2).
2. Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 457-58; Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 441-
42; Segovia, Farewell of the Word, pp. 2-5; Talbert, Reading John, p. 189.
3. The verb VITITCO appears once each in 13.5, 6, 10, 12 and twice each in
13.8 and 13.14.
In John 9, washing in the water of the pool of Siloam helped to bring

the man born blind to the point of making a decision regarding Jesus.
That preparation for a life-changing decision continues as Jesus pre-
pares to bid his disciples farewell. In John 13, water will identify those
who have a genuine relationship with Jesus and will represent both what
he intends to do and what he wants the disciples to do in imitation of
him.

As previously noted, Jesus returns to Jerusalem for the fourth and
final time in 12.12. The verses immediately preceding that change of
scene contain some rather ominous words. When Judas Iscariot objects
to Mary's anointing of Jesus with a costly ointment, Jesus implies that
she has prepared him for burial and advises that the poor will remain
with them always but he will not (12.1-8). It will not take long to
fulfill this thinly veiled prediction of his death. Jesus' body will lie in
the tomb before the end of this visit to Jerusalem.
Despite those foreboding words, Jesus initially receives a joyous and
enthusiastic welcome into the Holy City (12.12-19). Yet, when Andrew
and Philip ask him to speak with some Greeks who have come for the
feast, Jesus announces that the hour of his glorification has come
(12.23). A heavenly voice confirms that (12.28) and the members of
the crowd, confused by another thinly veiled prediction of his death
(12.32-33), turn from enthusiastic support to lack of faith and too
little courage to confess what faith they have (12.37-43). Jesus then
contrasts the light and the darkness, the arena of those who believe in
him and that of those who reject him (12.44-50).
With the beginning of John 13, the time, characters, and place of
the narrative change. The narrator identifies the time simply as 'before
the feast of the Passover' (13.1). The last temporal marker in the
narrative, 'the next day' (12.12), came at the entry into Jerusalem. It
referred back to 'six days before the Passover' (13.1), the time of the
anointing of Jesus by Mary. Although the narrator does not specify
precisely what day it is, a new time is certainly indicated.
Along with the time change comes a change of characters and loca-
tion. In John 13 Jesus moves away from the public view of the crowd
and enters a private setting to have supper with his disciples (13.2). He
will remain alone with his disciples until his betrayer, a band of
soldiers, and representatives of the Jewish authorities meet them in the
garden (18.1-4).
Clearly, a new narrative segment begins at 13.1. Equally clearly,

the scene at the table provides the context for the words of farewell.4
After the betrayer's departure, Jesus begins a lengthy farewell dis-
course (13.31-17.26) in which he gives his final private instructions to
the disciples. This discourse can stand on its own as a self-contained
narrative section within the longer narrative segment of Jesus' final
time with his disciples.5
The identification of the betrayer is also a significant part of the table
scene. Although the early narrative of the meal mentions the betrayal
three times (13.2, 11, 18), Jesus does not actually begin the process of
revealing who will betray him until 13.21.6 Once that process begins,
it remains at the center of the narrative until Judas accepts a piece of
bread from Jesus, the sign that indicates that he is the betrayer, and
exits into the night (13.30).
Although the opening verses of John 13 introduce Jesus' final visit
to Jerusalem, his words of farewell to the disciples, and the identifica-
tion of betrayer, the narrative focuses on Jesus' washing of the feet of
the disciples from the time Jesus lays aside his garments through his
logion about those who receive the disciples receiving him and those
who receive him receiving God. Jesus first completes the act, despite
the objections of Peter, and then asks the disciples whether they under-
stand what he has done. Only after completing that does he become
'disturbed in spirit' (13.21) and turn his full attention to the betrayer.
Thus, while both the washing of the disciples' feet and the identifica-
tion of the betrayer help to provide the context for Jesus' words of
farewell, Jn 13.1-20 can stand as a self-contained narrative section
within that longer narrative segment.
4. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 436; F.B. Craddock, John

(Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), p. 104; R.A. Culpepper, The Johannine Hypodeigma:
A Reading of John 13', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 133-52 (134-35); Segovia,
'Journey(s) of the Word', p. 44.
5. F.F. Segovia, 'John 13:1-20, The Footwashing in the Johannine
Tradition', ZNW73 (1982), pp. 31-51 (38).
6. Even when Judas leaves, all of the disciples do not know that he goes to
betray Jesus. Only the narrator, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and the reader know
that.
John 13.1-20 As a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and

Development
The account of the washing of the disciples' feet includes two scenes
of relatively equal length. Both scenes offer interpretations of the
meaning of the act.7 In the first (13.5-11) Jesus washes the disciples'
feet, including those of Peter who initially rejects this act. This wash-
ing represents something the disciples must accept in order to remain
with Jesus (13.8) and thus foreshadows what he will soon do for those
who believe in him. In the second scene (13.12-19), Jesus asks the dis-
ciples whether they understand what he has done (13.12) and calls them
to do for one another what he has done for them (13.15). Surrounding
these two scenes are four verses that introduce the farewell discourse,
the identification of the betrayal, the footwashing, and a closing logion
in which Jesus reminds the disciples that acceptance of them means
acceptance of him and that accepting him indicates accepting the one
who sent him.8
This narrative section includes four units: an introduction (13.1-4);
the footwashing, a sign to understand (13.5-11); the footwashing, an
example to follow (13.12-19); and a closing logion (13.20). The charac-
ters remain the same with one exception. Although all of the disciples
are present for the footwashing, Peter alone resists. In a brief dialogue
with him, Jesus explains his actions to everyone. Following this dia-
logue, all of the disciples remain silent as Jesus questions whether they
know what he has done and interprets his actions for them.
Although this narrative has been compared with that of the anointing
of Jesus by Mary,9 there is at least one major difference. Whereas the
actions of Mary help to prepare Jesus for his burial, Jesus' actions help
to prepare the disciples. The hour has come (13.1) and Jesus draws his
disciples away from the crowd for one last time to wash their feet and
prepare them to receive his final words.
7. Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 461-62; A.J. Hultgren, The Johannine

Footwashing (13.1-11) as a Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality', NTS 28 (1982),
pp. 539-46 (540); Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.7-8; Segovia,
'John 13:1-20', pp. 36-37.
8. For a summary of the interpretations of these verses, see G. Richter, Die
Fusswaschung im Johannesevangelium: Geschichte ihrer Deutung (Regensburg:
Friedrich Pustet, 1967); and Segovia, 'John 13:1-20'.
9. H. Weiss, 'Foot Washing in the Johannine Community', NovT21 (1979),
p. 313.
13.1-4 Introduction. The introduction of this narrative can be divided

into two sub-units: (a) Introduction to the farewell scene (13.1) and
(b) Introduction to the footwashing and the betrayal (13.2-4). Although
these verses contain more complex verbal constructions than typically
found in the Fourth Gospel,10 they set stage for the supper scene that
follows and Jesus' words of farewell that will soon come.11
(a) 13.1 Introduction to the farewell scene. In the lengthy verse with
which John 13 begins, the narrator establishes the time as before the
feast of the Passover, informs the reader that Jesus knew that the hour
for his departure from the world had come, and notes that Jesus loved
'his own' until the end. All of that information will prove helpful in
understanding and interpreting what follows.
On his last trip to Jerusalem for a religious festival, Jesus did more
than worship. When he invited those gathered for the celebration of
the feast of Tabernacles to come to him and drink (8.37), he prompted
a controversy that ended with some people wanting to arrest him
(8.44). Later during that same festival he healed a man born blind
(9.7) and set in motion a series of events that ended with the expulsion
of the man from the synagogue (9.24) and his denouncement of the
authorities as blind sinners (9.41). Nothing has happened to ease the
tension between Jesus and authorities since then, so it seems highly
unlikely that while in Jerusalem Jesus will merely observe the Passover.
Increased hostility between Jesus and the authorities seems even
more likely with the narrator's notification that the hour for Jesus'
departure has come. When mentioned previously, the hour was declared
yet to come (2.4; 7.30; 8.20) and associated with Jesus' glorification
(12.23, 27). By stating that the hour has come and by defining it as a
time to depart from the world and return to the Father, the narrator
clearly denotes the beginning of a new and dramatic time in the story.12
It also seems significant that Jesus knew that the hour had come.
Although foreknowledge is characteristic of the Johannine Jesus,13 his
awareness that the time of his departure has arrived gives added
10. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.7-8; Segovia, 'John 13:1-

20', pp. 36-37.
11. Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 448, concludes that the unusual use of several
participial clauses gives the text a solemn tone.
12. Culpepper, The Johannine Hypodeigma\ p. 135; O'Day, '"I Have
Overcome the World"', pp. 153-66 (157-59).
13. Jn 1.48; 2.25; 6.61, 64.
emphasis to anything he chooses to do. His foreknowledge anticipates

a farewell address and makes everything he does prior to it more
important.
Jesus' announcement that he has loved his own and loves them to the
end stands as the most curious declaration of this introductory verse.
Although he has told those who opposed him that if God were their
father they would love him (8.42) and has been said to love Lazarus,
Mary, and Martha (11.3, 5, 36), this is the first mention of his love
for the disciples. As the hour begins, the narrator reveals that just as
God loved the world (3.16), so does Jesus love his own. He does what
he does not only because came down to do the will of God,14 but also
because of the love he has for those who believe in him.
Jesus' love for his own endures 'to the end' (etc; TEXOC). Although
Jesus uses the verb xeXeco in the death scene when he declares, 'It is
finished' (19.30), the noun xeXoq appears only here in the Fourth
Gospel.15 In classical usage, this noun could refer to a religious cere-
mony or initiation into a mystery religion.16 Here the prepositional
phrase eiq xeXoq has a two-fold meaning. It denotes that Jesus loved
them utterly and to the end of his life;17 that is, that he loves them to
the point of performing for them a humble service like washing their
feet and that he loves them enough to die for them. In his farewell
remarks (15.13), Jesus will declare such voluntary death for a friend
the supreme expression of love.
Even before the mention of Jesus' identification of the betrayer or
the footwashing, the narrator has set the stage for the farewell scene.
A single verse has summarized what Jesus will do from now until the
end of the Gospel.18
(b) 13.2-4 Introduction to the footwashing and the betrayal This sub-
unit begins with the narrator noting that the actions soon to take place
14. Jn 4.34; 5.30; 6.38-40.

15. R.M. Ball, 'St John and the Institution of the Eucharist', JSNT 23 (1985),
pp. 59-68 (62).
16. LSJ, s.v. xeXoq. Ball, 'St John', p. 63, also notes this and suggests
Lk. 12.50 as an example of similar usage in the New Testament.
17. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 550; Kysar, John, p. 207; Lindars,
Gospel of John, p. 448. Contra Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.16,
who interprets the phrase to mean 'utterly' and Barrett, Gospel according to St John,
p. 438, who interprets it to mean 'to the end.'
18. J.N. Suggit, 'John 13:1-30: The Mystery of the Incarnation and of the
Eucharist', Neot 19 (1985), pp. 64-70 (66).
occurred during a supper. The opening verse of the chapter established

a general time frame, so the supper setting must apply specifically to
the events immediately to follow. Since the day of preparation for the
Passover is yet to come (19.14), this is an ordinary evening meal.
The narrator notes that this meal occurs after the planning of the
betrayal. The reader already knows that Judas will betray Jesus (12.4)
and that Jesus knew this (6.64, 71), but here the narrator reports that
the devil has already made up his mind for Judas to do the betraying.19
This sets the evil intent of the devil for the disciples in contrast with
Jesus' love for his own. Jesus will wash Judas' feet despite the fact that
the devil has chosen him to betray him. Such is his love for the disciples
to the end.
Rather than depicting Jesus as a hapless victim, however, the narra-
tor indicates that he knew both that 'the Father had given all things
into his hands' and that 'he had come from God and was going to God'
(9.3). The initial phrase reveals that Jesus and the Father, not the
devil, Judas, or the authorities, control the situation. As he has already
expressed (12.27), Jesus chooses to complete his mission and accept
his coming hour regardless of what happens.20 The second phrase
stresses that, although others may not understand, Jesus knows his true
identity. His consciousness of his intimate relationship with God empha-
sizes the humility of the act to come.21 Even though he knows he
comes from God and will return to God, he still stoops to wash feet.
This unit closes with Jesus rising from the table, laying aside his
garments, and girding himself with a towel. The methodical and
detailed description of these preparations builds suspense in the narra-
tive and emphasizes the significance of what Jesus is about to do.22 The
19. This follows the translation of the verse considered the most reliable by
Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 439; Brown, Gospel according to John,
p. 550; Culpepper, T h e Johannine Hypodeigma', p. 136; and Marsh, John, p. 483;
contra Kysar, John, p. 207; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 449; Westcott, John,
2.146; and most versions of the Bible. This alternate reading has wider manuscript
attestation and keeps 13.27 from being redundant. Since it is awkward for the devil
to place something in his own heart, it is also the more difficult reading.
20. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 551, points out that this repeats 3.35.
21. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 439; Lindars, Gospel of John,
p. 449; contra Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.17.
22. Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 466-67, comments that the details call
attention to the absurdity of the event, which will later be noted by Peter (13.6-8) and
then by Jesus himself (13.12-14).
narrator depicts him moving carefully and purposefully, which sug-

gests a sign.23 Jesus takes the actions of a servant, actions that in many
ways point to his crucifixion.24 This interpretation is supported by the
use of the verb 1161^1 for the laying aside of his garments. Jesus used
the same verb when describing the actions of the good shepherd,25 who
lays down his life for the sheep,26 and will use it again when he declares
the laying down of one's life for a friend the greatest expression of
love (15.13). He does what he does on purpose, not only preparing for
the immediate act of washing the disciples' feet but also foreshadowing
his glorification.27
13.5-11 The footwashing: a sign to understand. The second unit of this

narrative section separates into three sub-units: (a) Jesus washes the
disciples' feet (13.5), (b) Jesus explains the footwashing (13.6-10), and
(c) The narrator anticipates the betrayal (13.11). The single verses
which surround the longer sub-unit describe the washing of the feet
and the narrator's understanding of at least part of Jesus' explanation
of it. A series of three statements by Peter and responses by Jesus com-
prises the central sub-unit. In this initial interpretation of the foot-
washing, Jesus warns Peter that those whom he does not wash have no
part in him (13.8) and advises him and the disciples that not every one
23. S.M. Schneiders, 'The Foot Washing (John 13.1-20): An Experiment in

Hermeneutics', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 76-92 (81).
24. P.G. Ahr, '"He Loved Them to Completion": The Theology of John
13,14', in A. Finkel and L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing Before God: Studies on Prayer
in Scriptures and in Tradition (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 73-90 (76-79); Barrett,
Gospel according to St John, 1978, p. 439; Stibbe, John's Gospel p. 25.
25. Jn 10.11, 15, 17.
26. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 551; Culpepper, The Johannine
Hypodeigma', p. 137; J.D.G. Dunn, 'The Washing of the Disciples' Feet in John
13:1-20', ZNW 61 (1970), pp. 247-52 (248); Koester, Symbolism, p. 116; Newman
and Nida, Translator's Handbook, p. 420; Quast, Reading the Gospel, p. 95;
Talbert, Reading John, p. 191; Taylor, John, p. 157. Contra Lindars, Gospel of
John, p. 450; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.18.
27. Beasley-Murray, John, p. 233, uses the Midrash on Gen. 21.14 to argue
that Jesus' actions underscore his humiliation in offering this service, much as Hagar
was humiliated when Abraham sent her away. E. Levine, 'On the Symbolism of the
Pedilavium\ American Benedictine Review 33 (1982). pp. 21-29 (24), compares
Jesus girding himself with a towel with the frequent girding on of a wrestling-belt in
the Hebrew Bible and concludes that using a towel instead of a wrestling belt
emphasizes his humility but still depicts him as a hero preparing for a struggle.
of them is clean (13.10). The responses Jesus makes to Peter always

prompt a question, which suggests that the footwashing functions as a
sign of something yet to come (13.7).
(a) 13.5 Jesus washes the disciples* feet. Like the closing verse of the
preceding unit, this verse provides a methodical and detailed descrip-
tion of Jesus' actions that builds suspense in the narrative. Jesus pours
water into a basin28 and begins to wash the feet of his disciples and
dry them with the towel he has wrapped around himself. Although
hospitality called for the provision of water and a towel for guests to
wash their feet and occasionally disciples would perform this service
for a teacher,29 the disciples have no reason to expect Jesus to perform
such a menial act.30 The fact that the narrator depicts him starting this
without speaking to them adds to the suspense.
With tremendous irony, the one just described as having come from
God and going to God (13.3) renders this lowly service. That and the
fact that the washing begins without an explanation suggest that it
represents more than an act of humility. As surprising as the foot-
washing may be, the focus will be on what it represents more than on
the act itself.31
(b) 13.6-10 Jesus explains the footwashing. After the narrator describes
how Jesus began to wash the disciples' feet, a series of three statements
by Peter32 and responses by Jesus offers an explanation for this sur-
prising act. In the series Peter asks a question, makes a declaration,
and utters a petition, as his statements indicate first a lack of under-
standing, then defiance, and finally misunderstanding.33 Jesus responds
28. Kysar, John, p. 208, and Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook,
p. 430, note that the word for basin (vuraip) does not appear elsewhere in Koine
Greek and that it derives from a verb meaning 'to wash.'
John, p. 564.
30. For an extensive list of the appearance of footwashing scenes in bibli
cal, pseudepigraphal, and Greco-Roman literature, see Hultgren, 'Johannine
Footwashing', pp. 541-42.
31. Haenchen, John. II. A Commentary, p. 107, considers this narrative a
simplified and stylized portrayal of a sacred ritual within the Johannine community.
32. To this point in the Gospel, the narrator has mentioned Peter by name only
when he first met Jesus (1.42-44) and when he spoke for all the disciples and said
they would remain with Jesus even if others left because Jesus had the words of life
(6.68).
33. Segovia, 'John 13:1-20', p. 43.
by advising Peter that he will understand later, warning him not to

resist his actions, and offering a more detailed explanation of the effect
of what he has done. As in the dialogues with Nicodemus (3.1-21) and
the woman of Samaria (4.1-42), this exchange permits Jesus to explain
himself gradually and thoroughly. Readers have a sense of discovering
on their own as the meaning of Jesus' act becomes progressively
clearer in the unfolding dialogue.34
The series begins with Peter asking Jesus whether he intends to wash
his feet (13.6) and Jesus advising him that although he cannot under-
stand his actions now, he will 'after these things' (13.7). 'After these
things', could refer vaguely to the future or to the impending hour
(13.1). In the previous chapter, however, the narrator observed that
the disciples did not understand at first the significance of the way the
crowd greeted Jesus when he entered Jerusalem and that understanding
came only after his glorification. Here, as on previous occasions,35 the
disciples will grasp the meaning of the event only after the crucifixion
and resurrection place Jesus' ministry and words into context.36 Even
though Jesus will explain and interpret the footwashing in this narra-
tive section, these words call the reader to view it from the perspective
of his passion.
Peter, still shocked by the impropriety of having his Lord wash his
feet, rejects Jesus' advice and declares that Jesus will never wash his
feet. Jesus responds by telling him that if he does not wash him, Peter
has no part in him (13.8). Peter does not see beyond the present act.
Despite Jesus' explicit words, he fails to realize that this event sym-
bolizes and foreshadows something to come. Jesus declares both the
footwashing and what it represents imperative. For Peter to have any
'part' in Jesus, he must permit him to wash his feet. Symbolically,
Peter and the disciples must permit Jesus to complete his mission and
face his hour on their behalf. Jesus will later identify himself as the
34. Segovia, 'John 13:1-20', p. 43.

35. Jn 2.22; 7.39; 12.16. The same delayed understanding is promised in
14.25-26 and 16.13.
John, p. 552; Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 281; Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 467-
68; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 438; Howard, 'John', p. 682; Kysar, John, p.
209; F.J. Matera, '"On Behalf of Others," "Cleansing," and "Return": Johannine
Images for Jesus' Death', LS 13 (1988), pp. 161-78 (171); Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 3.19.
way, the truth, the life, and the sole access to Father (14.6) and pray
that he and the disciples will be one (17.20-21). The footwashing repre-
sents what makes eternal life with the messiah possible: his humiliating
death on behalf of his own.
Peter again sees only the present and interprets Jesus' words literally.
He considers the washing important in and of itself and asks Jesus to
wash not only his feet, but also his hands and head (13.9). Jesus replies
that those who have bathed need only their feet washed and adds that
the disciples in general are 'clean', but not all of them (13.10).
Although Peter errs, he at least wants what Jesus offers. Unlike
Nicodemus, who questioned how what Jesus said could possibly happen
(3.4), and like the woman of Samaria, who requested the water of which
Jesus spoke (4.15), Peter wants a full measure of what the washing
represents.
But Jesus assures him that those who have bathed37 need only to
have their feet washed.38 While this could refer to the custom of a
washing before coming to dinner in order to render oneself clean for
the meal and therefore needing only one's feet washed on arrival, the
context suggests much more. The disciples have already expressed
their faith in Jesus. Although this faith can become complete only after
his glorification, they have been bathed in his ministry, teachings, and
presence. For now they need only to let him wash their feet, that is, to
37. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 552, notes that previously in this
narrative section the verb VITCTCO was used to describe the washing, but that here the
verb Xovco is used, and adds that VITCTCO typically describes washing a part of the
body, whereas A,o\>co usually describes washing the entire body.
38. Textual witnesses for Jn 13.10 divide into two major groups: those with the
shorter reading, 'have no need to wash, but is entirely clean' and those including the
phrase 'except for his feet'. Both readings have ancient and widespread support and
deciding which to accept depends on the interpretation; see Culpepper, Anatomy,
p. 140; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.20. Most modern inter-
preters consider the shorter reading more ancient, primarily because they can find
more reason to add the phrase than to delete it; see Barrett, Gospel according to St
John, pp. 441-42; Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 469-70; Culpepper, Anatomy,
p. 140; Hultgren, 'Johannine Footwashing', pp. 540-41; Schnackenburg, Gospel
according to St John, 3.20-22; J.C. Thomas, 'A Note on the Text of John 13.10',
NovT 29 (1987), pp. 46-52 (52). Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 240, prefers the
longer reading, which appears to respond more appropriately to Peter's misunder-
standing. Peter does not understand that he has confessed his belief in Jesus (6.68-
69) and now needs to accept only the humiliation and death of Jesus' hour.
accept the final service he offers: his death and glorification on their
behalf.
Jesus adds that the disciples are clean, but not all of them. The
exception is Judas, who already has been identified as the betrayer
(13.2). Although it appears that Jesus washed the feet of Judas, the act
itself does not guarantee that all of the disciples will remain with him.
That requires something more, which he does not explain or identify
at this point.
(c) 13.11 The narrator anticipates the betrayal. After Jesus indicates
that not all of the disciples are clean, the narrator interrupts the direct
discourse that has continued for five verses and informs the reader
that Jesus declared that they were not all clean because he knew who
would betray him. Since the reader already knows the identity of the
betrayer (13.2),39 this statement reminds the reader of what Jesus
knows (cf. 6.64) and reinforces the fact Judas is not 'clean' even
though Jesus has washed his feet. The footwashing clearly symbolizes
something to come, but neither the water Jesus used to wash the dis-
ciples' feet nor the event that action symbolizes renders the disciples
clean.
This narrative unit opened with Jesus pouring water into a basin and
washing the disciples' feet. It closes with a reminder that those actions
have no efficacy in and of themselves. Jesus has washed all of the
disciples, but, as he himself knows, not all of them are clean.40
39. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2.22-23, observes that the

narrator gradually reveals the identity of the betrayer in John 13 as one of them not
clean (v. 10), one who has eaten Jesus' bread (v. 18), one of the disciples (v. 21),
the one to whom Jesus gives the morsel (v. 26a), and Judas, son of Simon Iscariot
(v. 26b). Since 13.2 discloses the full identity of the betrayer, the gradual identifi-
cation in the subsequent verses reinforces the fact that he is among those closest to
Jesus.
40. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 442, notes that Codex Bezae omits
the words, 'that is why he said, "You are not all clean"', and calls the addition
otiose. It seems important to emphasize, however, that Judas is not clean despite
what Jesus has done. This repetition helps to help protect believers against a false
sense of security (Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 473) by emphasizing the fact that
one of those closest to Jesus betrays him (Kysar, John, p. 210; Lindars, Gospel of
John, p. 452). Although Jesus is the one from God who has come into the world,
only those who receive him become children of God (1.11-12). This scene reminds
the reader that the revelation Jesus brings and what he offers require response and, as
the following words of farewell will indicate, perseverance.
13.12-19 The footwashing: an example to follow. Three sub-units

comprise the third unit of this narrative section: (a) Jesus asks the
disciples if they understand the footwashing (13.12), (b) Jesus inter-
prets the footwashing (13.13-17), and (c) Jesus predicts his betrayal
(13.18-19). Apart from the opening remarks the narrator provides to
set the scene, this unit is comprised of a monologue in which Jesus
details the immediate and the lasting meaning of the footwashing.
Unlike the explanation in the preceding narrative unit, these verses
present the footwashing as an act for the disciples to imitate as well
something Jesus does on their behalf. This interpretation expands rather
than refutes the previous one. The second narrative unit emphasized
the fact that Judas was not clean even though Jesus had washed him.
That implied that it was not enough to observe Jesus or even to accept
initially what he does. To receive the full impact of what he offers,
disciples must imitate his actions. Jesus has a unique identity and
mission, but he calls his disciples to act as he has acted so they can lead
others into a more complete relationship with him just as he leads them
into a more complete relationship with the one who sent him (13.20).
(a) 13.12 Jesus asks the disciples if they understand the footwashing.
The second interpretation of the footwashing begins with the narrator
slowly and deliberately returning Jesus to his place at the table with the
disciples. By so painstakingly mentioning that Jesus completed the foot-
washing, put on his garments again,41 and resumed his place at table,
the narrator both builds suspense in the scene and distances this second
interpretation from the first. That, along with question to follow, invites
the reader to ponder once again the meaning of what Jesus has done.
Jesus then asks the disciples whether they know what he has done to
them. 42 The narrative has firmly established the importance of
knowing.43 By implying that he expects them to know what he has done,
Jesus adds greater significance to his act and the coming explanation
of it.
41. Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook, p. 420; Quast, Reading the
Gospel, p. 95; and Taylor, John, p. 157, observe that the same verbs used to des-
cribe the good shepherd taking up his life in 10.11, 15, 17-18 also describe Jesus
putting on his robe in 13.4, 12. This diction subtly continues the presentation of the
footwashing as a symbol of the coming passion.
42. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 552, notes that we could interpret
this question as an imperative. His translation treats it as an interrogative.
43. Jn 1.10, 26, 33; 2.9; 3.10; 4.22; 7.27-29; 8.19; 9.24-31; 10.14.
If Jesus expects the disciples to interpret his actions, he contradicts

his earlier statement that they would not understand what he was
doing until 'after these things' (13.7). Since he refers to his coming
glorification in that verse, this call for understanding must refer not to
the ultimate meaning of the footwashing,44 but to the present situation.
Jesus asks them whether they can place his act in the context of his life
and ministry. As he will explain in detail, he has acted as servant for
them. He thereby calls them both to accept his humble service and to
be willing to perform equally humble service to one another and others,
(b) 13,13-17 Jesus interprets the footwashing. After asking the disciples
if they know what he has done, Jesus explains that he has provided an
example for them to follow. His explanation includes his second inter-
pretation of the footwashing (13.13-15), a related logion (13.16), and
a beatitude (13.17).
Unlike the earlier presentation of the footwashing as a sign to under-
stand, the meaning of this interpretation lacks ambiguity. The disciples
have correctly identified Jesus as their Lord and teacher. Yet, he has
washed their feet. Some rabbis would not allow even slave owners to
demand that service of Jewish slaves.45 If he had thus humbled himself
for them, they should not feel too proud to offer the same service to
one another.46
To make the point absolutely clear, Jesus repeats that he has pro-
vided an example for the disciples to follow and that he wants them to
do as he has done. The narrator stresses the significance of this advice
with sheer redundancy. Since the word translated 'example' elsewhere
encourages the faithful to accept an exemplary death, this echoes the
earlier interpretation of the footwashing as a symbol of Jesus' death
and may suggest that he expects them to die for one another.47
The logion again emphasizes humility. Since a servant is not greater
than the master and the one sent is not greater than the one who sends,
44. Contra Haenchen, John. II. A Commentary, p. 109.

45. Quast, Reading the Gospel, p. 95. Barrett, Gospel according to St John,
p. 440, however, maintains that disciples were expected to perform such acts of
service for their rabbi.
John, p. 553; and Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook, p. 435, identify this
as a recognized rabbinical way of making a point by moving from the greater to the
lesser.
47. Culpepper, The Johannine Hypodeigma\ pp. 141-44.
the disciples should not shun humble service.48 The saying also implies
that Jesus will send them into the world just as the Father has sent him.
In addition to calling disciples not to exalt themselves above one
other, this explanation of the footwashing could also be interpreted as
a call for them not to let the shame Jesus will incur during his hour
humiliate them. Accepting his love for them, which is great enough
for him to wash their feet and die on the cross for them, prepares the
disciples to offer similar love of their own.
This explanation closes with a beatitude. If the disciples can under-
stand what Jesus tells them, they will be blessed as they follow his
advice. It will not humiliate them to be forced to perform humble
service and they will find pleasure in freely offering such an act.
(c) 13.18-19 Jesus predicts his betrayal. Jesus ended the first interpre-
tation of the footwashing by informing Peter that not all of the disci-
ples were clean. The narrator then interrupted the dialogue to note that
Jesus made that remark because he knew who would betray him. In
similar fashion, after Jesus interprets the footwashing as an example to
follow, he abruptly shifts his focus49 by informing the disciples that he
does not speak to them all, using Scripture to declare that one of those
present would betray him, and declaring that he tells them this now so
they will become even more certain of his identity when the betrayal
takes place.
Just as the footwashing did not render all of the disciples clean, so
also Jesus reports that the call to humble service and the blessing avail-
able to those who heed it do not apply to them all. The betrayer, who
comes from among them, will not follow his example of humble
service. Indeed, the betrayer, by definition, will reject Jesus' actions
on his behalf and thus will not claim the blessings of them. Jesus then
explains away the embarrassment of having one of his own betray him
by claiming that he knew all along that this would happen and by
citing Ps. 41.9 as evidence that Scripture anticipates the betrayal by a
close colleague.50
48. Contra G.F. Snyder, 'John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine
Tradition', BR 16 (1971), pp. 5-15 (5-6).
49. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 444; Kysar, John, p. 213; and
Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.8, note that Jesus' comments in
13.18 interrupt the discourse.
John, p. 554; Kysar, John, p. 212; and Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 454, comment
Jesus then explains to the disciples that this prediction should con-
vince them that 'I am' (eyco ei|ii). Like the previous absolute uses of
eyco ei|ii, 51 this is a claim of divinity. The fact that Jesus knows in
advance that one of his own will betray him and that such an act of
treachery fulfills Scripture indicates his identity and nature. This
makes the footwashing all the more amazing. The one who can say, 'I
am', has stooped to wash his disciples' feet. His willingness to do that
makes his invitation for them to imitate him even more powerful.
This unit began with Jesus returning to the table and asking the dis-
ciples whether they knew what he had done. It closes with him
asserting that those who have received his humble service and heard
his prediction of betrayal will discover his true identity.
13.20 A closing logion. This narrative section ends with a logion in

which Jesus declares to the disciples that those who receive the ones
sent by him receive him and those who receive him receive the one
who sent him. Although this saying appears to have little or no con-
nection with the preceding verses,52 an earlier verse also discusses the
relationship between those sent and the one who sends (13.16). This
logion authorizes the work of imitating him to which Jesus has called
the disciples and assures them that their efforts will be efficacious.
Jesus' departure out of the world (13.1) will not come until end of the
Gospel narrative and the crucifixion will represent the consummate
act of his love for the disciples (13.1). His love for them will also be
indicated, however, by his presence at work in those who are made a
part of him (13.8) and are called to imitate him (13.14).
The theme of the unity of the disciples with Jesus and of Jesus with
God will recur throughout the farewell scenes.53 His implied commis-
sioning of them here is an extension of his commissioning by God. He
offers the ultimate act of obedience, as he has the ultimate relationship
with the Father. But, just as the disciples have a part in him by virtue
of his washing them (13.8), so also will they have the ability to bring
others into that relationship.
that 'lifting the heal' (Jn 13.18) was a mark of contempt, especially when done by
friend.
51. Jn6.20; 8.24,28,58.
52. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 571; Culpepper, The Johannine
Hypodeigma\ p. 144; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.7-8.
53. Jn 14.20-23; 15.10; 17.20-23.
The disciples may not yet understand what Jesus has done, but they
can follow his example of humble service. Even though this narrative
section begins with the announcement of his departure, the closing
logion makes it clear that Jesus' ministry will not depart with him.

In a narrative section that begins with the announcement that Jesus
knew that his hour to depart out of the world had come (13.1) and that
marks the onset of the final and climatic series of events in the Gospel,
it is significant for water to be mentioned at all. Although the word
i)8cop appears only once (13.5), the verb vi7rccG appears eight times.54
The central function of this narrative section is Jesus' preparation of
his disciples for events to come. The repeated references to the washing
and the two explanations of the footwashing provided as the final series
of events begins, however, make it clear that the narrator considers
water and the footwashing important.
At the very least water serves as a tool Jesus uses to reveal his love
for his disciples (13.5). Just as he employed the water set aside for
purification rites in Cana to manifest his glory and lead the disciples to
faith (2.1-11) and the water from the pool of Siloam to give sight to a
man born blind man and call him to decide whether or not to believe
in him (9.1-11), Jesus uses the water he pours into the basin to show
the disciples that he loves them enough to humble himself for them.
Water functions as an agent he uses to get their attention and to draw
closer to them.55
More than that, his insistence that Peter will have no part in him if
he does not accept the footwashing (13.8) indicates that water repre-
sents something requisite for a disciple seeking a relationship with
Jesus to accept.56 Just as Nicodemus had to accept birth dvcoOev in
order to see the realm of God (3.3) and the crowd in Capernaum and
worshippers at Tabernacles had to accept Jesus as one who could sate
54. Jn 13.5, 6, 8 (x2), 10, 12, 14 (x2). The verbta>\>coalso appears in 13.10.
55. Hultgren, 'Johannine Footwashing', pp. 542-43, interprets the foot-
washing as a symbolic act of eschatological hospitality in which Jesus receives the
disciples into the place to which he is going. The presence of the betrayer, who also
appears to receive the washing, makes this interpretation questionable.
56. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 402; J.A.T. Robinson, T h e Significance of the
Foot-Washing', in W.C. van Unnik (ed.), Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden:
Brill, 1962), pp. 144-47 (145); Segovia, 'John 13:1-20', pp. 43-45.
thirst in order to receive the gifts he offered (6.35; 7.37), the water of
the footwashing represents an act and a reality all disciples must accept
in order to be complete beneficiaries of his love. Even though they
cannot understand the meaning of the footwashing until after the hour,
they can and must accept it now.
Water also represents the cleansing of the disciples (13.10).57 The
fact that the betrayer also receives the footwashing, but is not clean,
indicates that for the service Jesus renders to have its intended and
complete impact commitment to Jesus must accompany acceptance of
what water and the washing symbolize.
Since Jesus calls the disciples to imitate the footwashing (13.14),
water functions as an invitation into his ministry.58 By washing their
feet, Jesus establishes a significant level of intimacy and solidarity with
the disciples. Just as the woman of Samaria invited others to come to
the one who offered her living water (4.29) and the worshippers at
Tabernacles were offered living water that would flow out of their
hearts (7.38), the water of the footwashing calls the disciples not only
to have a part in Jesus (13.8), but also to offer to one another (13.14)
and to disciples to come (13.20) the same type of service Jesus renders
them.
The symbol of water also clarifies the service Jesus renders. As Jesus
used water at the wedding feast in Cana to manifest his glory, so here
he uses water in an act that symbolizes his glorification. I noted earlier
that Jesus' actions of laying aside and taking up his garments (13.4,
12) allude to the crucifixion. The humble act of washing his disciples'
feet symbolizes and foreshadows the shame of dying on the cross on
their behalf. This death on their behalf (and thus the water which sym-
bolizes it) and their acceptance of it function as the means of cleansing
the disciples;59 that is, by accepting a humble servant, who washes their
feet, and his shameful act of dying on the cross, the disciples indicate
57. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 402; Kysar, John, p. 209; B. Lindars, The

Passion in the Fourth Gospel', in J. Jervell and W.A. Meeks (eds.), God's Christ
and His People (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 71-86 (73); Marsh, John,
p. 485.
58. Culpepper, The Johannine Hypodeigma', pp. 147-48; X. Leon-Dufour,
'Situation de Jean 13', in U. Luz and H. Weder (eds.), Die Mine des Neuen
Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 131-41 (133).
59. Dunn, The Washing', pp. 249-52; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, p. 439;
Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 450-51; Marsh, John, p. 485.
that they believe his words and receive him as one sent from God.
Because of the clearly symbolic function of the footwashing, many
readers find references to Christian sacraments in this narrative. Nearly
every sacrament has been linked with this passage,60 but baptism and
the eucharist are mentioned most frequently.
Some readers declare without reservation that the footwashing does
not represent baptism.61 A few base this on the fact that the betrayer
also appears to have his feet washed (13.9-10), thus eliminating any
possibility of considering the act sacramental.62 Still others consider
sacramental references possible, but not probable, and hard to prove
even if present.63 Other readers conclude that the footwashing refers
to baptism either indirectly or clearly.64 The most common argument
in favor of baptismal symbolism is the use of the verb ÔVCG (13.10),
which typically refers to baptism in other New Testament writings,65
but even this has been refuted.66
If the narrator intended readers to find baptismal imagery in this pas-
sage, little help was provided to lead them in that direction. Unlike the
scene with Nicodemus (3.1-15), no mention of new birth appears here.
As others have noted, although the act of washing and the implied
cleansing could refer to baptism, the washing of the betrayer's feet
weakens that possibility. Nor is there a call to or celebration of faith.
The narrative stresses acceptance of what Jesus does and imitation of it.
While that certainly could prefigure baptism and later readers can find
sufficient grounds to defend interpreting the narrative in that way, one
need not find baptismal imagery present to understand the passage.
Opinion regarding the presence of eucharistic imagery is similarly
divided. Although it has been argued that the presence of such imagery
60. Segovia, 'John 13:1-20', pp. 38-39.

61. Barrett, Essays on John, pp. 96-99; Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 472-
73; Dunn, 'The Washing', p. 252.
62. Barrett, Essays on John, pp. 96-99; Hultgren, 'Johannine Footwashing',
p. 543.
64. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 436-37; Countryman, Mystical
Way, p. 88; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel, p. 262; Robinson, 'Significance of the
Foot-Washing', pp. 145-47.
John, p. 566; A.H. Maynard, 'The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel', NTS 30
(1984), pp. 531-48(534).
is out of the question67 and that the author wanted to replace the sacra-
ment of bread and wine, which has its basis in a Jewish feast, with
something specifically Christian,68 others have found the setting and
actions eucharistic.69 The mention of the Passover in the opening verse
and the subsequent mention of a meal (13.2) have been considered
clear allusions to the eucharist.70 Once again, however, the narrative
does not demand a eucharistic interpretation. Although the footwashing
points to Jesus' passion and the disciples must accept it in order to
have a part in him, the loaf and cup do not appear and the emphasis is
on accepting and imitating Jesus' actions, not on re-enacting them.
In summary, in this narrative section water has meaning and func-
tion similar to that already seen. It serves as a tool Jesus uses to show
the extent of his love for the disciples and, as it alludes to the coming
passion, as a symbol of the unique gift he offers them. As in the last
three narrative sections examined, water represents a call to decision;
that is, to have a part in Jesus, Peter and any other disciples must
accept this action on their behalf. More than in any previous narrative
section, the water of the footwashing symbolizes the cleansing of the
recipients. As such, it prepares disciples for more complete faith in
and acceptance of Jesus. Finally, water invites the disciples and the
reader into participation in Jesus' ministry. His washing of the feet of
the disciples is a one-time occurrence, but disciples can imitate this act
and thereby bring others to him and to the one who sent him (13.20).
2. Narrative XII: Blood and Water Flow from Jesus' Side (19.28-37)
Following a lengthy farewell scene (13.1-17.26), the narrator relates
the final days of Jesus' life relatively quickly. Jesus is arrested (18.1-
12) and brought before Gentile and Jewish authorities (18.13—19.16)71
before the narrative of his crucifixion begins. It is clear from the start
67. Dunn, T h e Washing', p. 252.

68. Foster, 'John Come Lately', p. 125.
69. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 436-37; Bouyer, Fourth Gospel,
p. 178; E. Lohse, 'Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium', NTS 1 (1961),
pp. 110-25(117).
70. Maynard, 'Role of Peter', p. 534; Suggit, 'Mystery', p. 66.
71. Although most readers note the same divisions in the narrative, those cited
most closely resemble the outlines presented by Craddock, John, p. 11, and Segovia,
'Journey(s) of the Word', pp. 44-46, 50-51.
that Jesus will be executed. The narrator notes that Jesus knew what
would happen to him, yet offered himself willingly (18.4-8), and
reminds readers that Caiaphas has already given counsel that it was
expedient for one person to die for the nation (18.14). During the trial
scenes, Pilate treats Jesus with more respect than the Jewish authorities
do, but ultimately hands him over for crucifixion (19.16).
The final appearance of the motif of water occurs in the crucifixion
scene. Following the explanation of the title Pilate had placed on the
cross above Jesus (19.19-23), the distribution of Jesus' clothing among
the soldiers (19.23-25), and Jesus' entrusting his mother and the
Beloved Disciple into each other's care (19.25-27), the narration of
his death begins. Soon after Jesus announces his thirst and is offered a
sponge full of sour wine, he gives up his spirit. Then, while his body
remains on the cross, a soldier pierces his side with a spear and blood
and water flow out at once (19.34). The narrator underscores the
significance of this discharge by immediately interrupting the narra-
tive to announce that the one who witnessed this has spoken the truth
and related that truth to others so they may believe (19.35).
In the previous narrative section, water helped to identify those who
have a genuine relationship with Jesus. Here the narrator depicts water
as a reality that calls for faith. More specifically, the blood and water
that flow from Jesus' side are presented as evidence affirmed by tradi-
tion that invites faith in those who hear it.

The Johannine crucifixion narrative begins at 19.17 and the depiction
of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial continues through 19.42. Within
that narrative segment, however, only John 19.28-37 focuses on the
actual death of Jesus.
The temporal phrase \iexa WOTO (19.28), which introduces Jesus'
final acts before his death, marks a change in time. A similar temporal
phrase, ixexd 8e xama (19.38), indicates another change of time as the
focus of the narrative shifts from Jesus' death to the burial of his body.
The characters present also help to distinguish 19.28-37 from the
surrounding material. The characters present or mentioned in these
verses—the Jewish authorities, Pilate, soldiers, and, of course, Jesus—
appear throughout the crucifixion narrative. The death scene stands
between two narrative sections in which other characters make brief
appearances. The immediately preceding verses, during which Jesus
entrusts his mother and the Beloved Disciple into each other's care,
feature those two characters in the forefront and various women in
the background. In the verses following this narrative section, Joseph
of Arimathea and Nicodemus appear seeking permission to remove
Jesus' body from the cross and then placing it in the tomb.
Opening and closing verses that interpret nearly every detail of the
scene as the fulfillment of Scripture further delineate the narrative of
Jesus' death. The clause, iva xeXeicoBfj f] ypatyr], introduces, 'I thirst',
Jesus' penultimate words the opening verse (19.28). Similarly, in the
final two verses the narrator claims that the soldiers did not break
Jesus' legs iva TJ ypa<|>f)rcXTipcoGfj(19.36) and notes that Scripture also
anticipates the piercing of his side (19.37). The narrator regularly iden-
tifies actions taken by Jesus or directed toward him as the fulfillment
of Scripture,72 but these verses provide a framework of scriptural
fulfillment within which Jesus' death occurs.

Development
The narrative of Jesus' death includes two units of unequal length: the
death of Jesus (19.28-30) and Jesus' death confirmed and interpreted
(19.31-37). In both units, the narrator interprets the events depicted as
the fulfillment of Scripture. Note as well the further similarity that the
third person voice of the indirect discourse prevalent in the entire
narrative section is interrupted in the first unit only by two direct dis-
course remarks by Jesus and in the second unit only by two quotations
from Scripture. That, combined with the emphasis on fulfillment of
Scripture, tacitly equates Jesus' voice with that of God.
Two sub-units comprise the first unit: (a) Jesus thirsts (19.28-29)
and (b) Jesus finishes the work of the Father (19.30). Each sub-unit
contains a direct quotation. Jesus' declaration, 'I thirst' (19.28), sets
the scene in motion and his announcement, 'It is finished' (19.30), pre-
cedes the relinquishing of his spirit. Even when helplessly suspended
on the cross, he directs the action of the narrative.
Three sub-units comprise the second unit: (a) Jesus' death confirmed
(19.31-33), (b) Blood and water flow from Jesus' side (19.34-35), and
(c) Jesus' death as fulfillment of Scripture (19.36-37). When this unit
begins, the Jewish leaders appear to take charge as they request that
72. Jn 2.22; 7.38; 10.35; 13.18; 17.12; 19.24.

Pilate make sure that the deaths of those being crucified occur and
their bodies be removed before the beginning of the Sabbath. Jesus,
however, remains in control. His death precedes the actions of the
soldiers, who come to break his legs. When a soldier pierces him with
a spear, presumably to make sure he has died, blood and water flow
from his side. The narrator notes that both of these events fulfill
Scripture. Each detail of the death of Jesus is directed not by earthly
authorities, either Jewish or Roman, but by God.
Readers of the Fourth Gospel often have noted parallels between the
narrative of Jesus' passion and the observance of Passover. Jesus, whom
John the Baptist earlier identified as the lamb of God (Jn 1.29, 36),
was handed over at noon (19.14), the time at which the lambs for the
Passover were slain in the temple.73 Several details of this narrative
section also echo elements of the Passover observance. In the story of
the flight from Egypt, hyssop is used to smear blood from the lamb on
the doorposts of the homes of the Hebrew slaves (Exod. 12.22). Here
a sponge of sour wine is placed on hyssop and offered to Jesus when
he announces his thirst (19.29). Although some have scoffed at the
suggestion,74 many have concluded that this links the two narratives.75
Just as the Hebrew slaves were instructed not to break a bone of the
Passover lamb (Exod. 12.46; Num. 9.12), the legs of Jesus are not
broken (19.33). Finally, the flow of blood and water from Jesus' side
(19.34) meets the requirement of Jewish law that the blood of the
73. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 883; Bultmann, Gospel of John,

p. 677; Ellis, Genius of John, p. 275; Kysar, John, p. 284; Lindars, Gospel of John,
p. 571; Marsh, John, pp. 610, 618; Quast, Reading the Gospel, pp. 126-27;
Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.265; Talbert, Reading John, p. 241.
74. Kysar, John, p. 290, considers comparing the two passages 'pressing
John's narrative too hard for symbolism.' Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 674, in a
footnote, vigorously rejects the notion that the hyssop has anything to do with depict-
ing Jesus as a Passover lamb. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.284,
calls the notion 'far-fetched.'
75. Barrett, Gospel according to John, p. 553; J.M. Ford, * "Mingled Blood"
from the Side of Christ (John XIX.34)', NTS 15 (1969), pp. 337-38; Lindars,
Gospel of John, pp. 581-82; Marsh, John, p. 618; Talbert, Reading John, p. 244.
Barrett, Gospel according to John, p. 553; Brown, Gospel according to John,
p. 909; Kysar, John, p. 290; Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 581-82; and Marsh, John,
p. 618, note that an eleventh century cursive manuscript (476) has not vocfonoq
(hyssop) but vccoq (javelin) as the reading. They do not, however, consider this the
most ancient or most reliable reading.
sacrificial animal flow so it can be poured on the altar.76

While these parallels to the Passover are striking, they do not neces-
sarily prove that the Fourth Gospel depicts the crucified Jesus solely as
a (or even as 'the') Passover lamb. Jesus already has proven himself
capable of providing better and more lasting water than that of Jacob's
Well (4.12-15), more accessible than the waters of the pool of Bethzatha
(5.6-9), superior to the manna provided through Moses (6.32-35), and
the fulfillment and more of the longed-for water associated with the
feast of Tabernacles (7.37-44). The introduction of him as the lamb of
God in the opening chapter of the Gospel certainly warrants later
allusions to the Passover, but by this time in the narrative readers
should expect Jesus to transcend that image and bring new meaning to
it rather than merely to meet traditional expectations.
1928-30 The death of Jesus. As previously noted, this unit has two
sub-units: (a) Jesus thirsts (19.28-29) and (b) Jesus finishes the work of
the Father (19.30). Jesus speaks in each sub-unit, uttering his penulti-
mate and final words before his death.
The narrative moves quickly. Jesus declares his thirst, is offered
sour wine on a sponge, announces that he has completed his task, and
gives up his spirit. Although this is a painful death on a cross, Jesus'
words, *I thirst' (19.39), which fulfill Scripture, and his willing accept-
ance of the sour wine, which is reminiscent of his earlier resolve to
accept the cup which the Father has for him (18.11), help to make his
passion also a glorification.
(a) 19.28-29 Jesus thirsts. This narrative section begins with the tem-
poral phrase 'after this'. 'This' refers specifically to Jesus' entrusting
of his mother and the Beloved Disciple into one another's care; but,
since the participial clause which follows states that Jesus knew all was
finished, it probably also refers to his ministry in general.77 Jesus has
76. Ellis, Genius of John, p. 275; Ford, '"Mingled Blood"', pp. 337-38;
Sloyan, John, pp. 213-14.
77. Brown, Gospel according to John, pp. 908-909; Kysar, John, p. 289;
Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 580; Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook,
p. 591; and Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.282, note that the verb
TeA,eioco is used here for the fulfillment of Scripture instead of the verb rcAripocG,
which is used elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. Since the verb xeXeco is used to indi-
cate that the work of Jesus is now 'finished', Brown, Kysar, and Newman and Nida
suggest that the use of these related verbs in this verse indicates that the completion
of Jesus ministry allows the fulfillment of Scripture.
completed all that God has sent him to do and now prepares for the
end. By noting that Jesus knew he had completed his ministry, the
narrator implies he remains in control here at the conclusion, just as
he was in control earlier when he knew that his hour had come as he
assembled his disciples for a last meal with them (13.1).
As his first act at the close of his ministry, Jesus declares, 'I thirst'
(19.34), which the narrator interprets as a fulfillment of Scripture.
This could refer solely to physical thirst. The narrator earlier depicted
Jesus as thirsting prior to his conversation with the woman of Samaria
at Jacob's Well (4.7). There Jesus asked the woman for a drink before
offering her living water. A reader might expect a repetition of that
pattern here.
Yet the irony of the one capable of offering living water (4.14;
7.37-38) experiencing thirst,78 combined with the interpretation of
this utterance as the fulfillment of Scripture, points to the possibility
of symbolic meaning as well. As his ministry comes to a close, Jesus
thirsts to complete the work of the Father. Such a symbolic interpre-
tation would not seem likely if the Scripture fulfilled by these words is
Ps. 69.21. 79 If, however, the words of Jesus fulfill Ps. 42.1-2,80 his
thirst symbolizes his longing to finish the task given to him and to
return to the one who sent him. This is the cup, which Jesus has already
said he must drink (18.11). Only by accepting his death can he com-
plete the will of the one who sent him. He thirsts to finish the mission
that ultimately will satisfy the thirst of others.
Following Jesus' utterance, the narrator notes that a bowl of sour
wine was present and that they81 soaked a sponge in the wine, placed
78. Moore, Literary Criticism, p. 163, concludes that the irony here collapses
into paradox. His argument, however, depends on a literal understanding of Jesus'
thirst. Just as Jesus told the disciples that he has food to eat of which they know not
(4.32), does not his thirst here refer primarily to something beyond the literal? Moore
himself argues this in 'Are There Impurities?', pp. 218-19.
79. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 553; R.L. Brawley, 'An Absent
Complement and Intertextuality in John 19.28-29', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 427-43;
Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 580-81; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John,
3.283; Whitacre, Johannine Polemic, p. 62. Schnackenburg strengthens this possi-
bility by noting that quotations in Jn 2.17 and 15.25 also appear to come from
Psalm 69.
80. E.D. Freed, 'Psalm 42/43 in John's Gospel', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 62-73
(64).
81. It is not clear who is the subject of the sentence in Jn 19.29. One might
the sponge on hyssop, and held it to his mouth. Two items have attracted
the interest of readers: the hyssop and the wine.
Readers often have noted that the bushy hyssop plant lacks the
rigidity necessary to support a sponge filled with wine and therefore
its use here must be metaphorical rather than literal.82 In the account
of the institution of the Passover, Moses instructs the elders to dip a
bunch of hyssop into the blood of the slain lamb and use it to sprinkle
the blood on the doorposts of their homes (Exod. 12.22). This, along
with the forerunner's identification of Jesus as the lamb of God (1.29,
36) and the crucifixion taking place at same time as the sacrifice of the
lambs for the Passover (19.14), could depict Jesus as the lamb who
sheds his blood for the deliverance of the people. This could also be
an allusion to hyssop's use as a purgative when preparing worshippers
to approach God (cf. Ps. 51.7).83 At the very least, the hyssop links
the crucifixion with the Passover and preparation for God.
Some have identified that the sour wine (6£o<;) as a bitter drink that
would not have quenched thirst.84 It seems more likely, however, that
oôq refers to a cheap wine consumed by people of limited means.85
The significance lies in the contrast between the good wine, which
Jesus served to the wedding guests in Cana (2.9-10), and the lower
quality wine, which he must be content to accept.
Ironically, as the end of his life draws near, the one rejected by 'his
own' (1.11) receives an act of mercy from the soldiers charged with
the responsibility of executing him.86 The same characters who earlier
assume with Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 909-10, and Bultmann, Gospel
of John, p. 674, that the soldiers took these actions since they were the ones in charge
at the cross. Talbert, Reading John, p. 244, however, concludes that Jesus' loved
ones must be the subject of the sentence because the soldiers would not have wanted
their bowl of wine used for this purpose.
82. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 553; Brawley, * Absent
Complement', p. 433; Brown, Gospel according to John, pp. 909-10; Countryman,
Mystical Way, p. 120; Kysar, John, p. 290; Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 581-82;
Quast, Reading the Gospel, p. 126.
84. Brawley, 'Absent Complement', p. 443; Lightfoot, St John's Gospel,
p. 244; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.284.
John, p. 909; Newman and Nida, Translator's Handbook, p. 591.
86. Brawley, 'Absent Complement', p. 443, concludes that the mention of a
Scripture that is not cited (19.28), the use of hyssop for something it cannot do, the
placed a crown of thorns and a purple robe on Jesus in a mock

coronation, now attend to his final need at his glorification,
(b) 19.30 Jesus finishes the work of the Father. After the sour wine is
offered to Jesus, the narrator quickly sketches the final events in his
life. In rapid succession Jesus accepts the sour wine, declares, 'It is
finished', bows his head, and hands over the Spirit.
As already noted, Jesus' statement of thirst is reminiscent of his
encounter with the woman of Samaria at Jacob's Well (4.1-42).
Although Jesus asked her for drink (4.7), he received nothing from her.
When his disciples returned to the well and invited him to eat (4.31),
he responded that his food was to do the will of the one who sent him;
that is, to accomplish the work of the Father (4.34). Here, however,
Jesus does receive something to drink. The one whom the narrator
depicts on his first Passover not trusting himself to the Jews and needing
no one (2.23-25), on this Passover Eve accepts the gift of a drink of
sour wine without question. Surely that signifies that the end has come.
Jesus brings the arrival of the end to a climax by declaring, 'It is
finished'. In a typically Johannine double meaning, the sour wine has
quenched Jesus' physical thirst and his impending death sates his thirst
to complete his ministry. He makes not a defeated cry of dereliction,
but a triumphant pronouncement of victory.87 As the bread from
heaven, he has given his very flesh for the Father (6.51); like the good
shepherd he has laid down his life for his sheep (10.11); and like a
grain of wheat he has died so he may bear fruit (12.23-24). Nothing
remains for him to do in the work for which God sent him into the
world.
Jesus then bows his head88 and relinquishes the Spirit (rcapeScoicev
TO 7ive\}|Lia). The fact that Twevâ is modified only by the article TO
and not by a possessive pronoun makes room for another of the double
thirsting of one who claims to offer living water which sates all thirst, and the offer-
ing of vinegar to one who thirsts, all combine in the depiction of the crucifixion of
the messiah to reveal that the 'divine power that embraces the death of Jesus remains
a mystery beyond understanding'.
87. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 554; Kysar, John, p. 290; Marsh,
John, p. 618. Contra Brown, Gospel according to John, pp. 930-31.
88. A few readers have concluded that the bowing of the head indicates that
Jesus went to sleep rather than dying after his pronouncement. For a brief summary
of this argument, see Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 910, and Bultmann,
Gospel of John, p. 675.
meanings so typical of the Fourth Gospel. The likelihood of a double

meaning increases with the verb 7capa5i5co|ii used to denote Jesus'
action. The narrator clearly depicts Jesus handing over his spirit, that
is, dying. In addition to that, the narrator may also indicate that Jesus
also delivers or passes on the Spirit.89
The use of 7capa5i8co|Lii implies that Jesus has control and takes this
action voluntarily. The narrator uses this same verb when Judas hands
over Jesus to the authorities (18.2), when the high priest hands him
over to Pilate (18.35), and when Pilate hands him over for crucifixion
(19.16). The likelihood of the Spirit being passed on to the faithful at
this moment increases when we recall the narrator's earlier comment
linking the gift of the Spirit with Jesus' glorification (7.39) and the
farewell promise that Jesus will send the Spirit when he goes away
(15.25-26; 16.7). Although the penultimate chapter of John includes a
scene in which the risen Jesus breathes the Spirit onto the disciples
(20.22), that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of an
imparting of the Spirit here.90 In the introduction to the footwashing
scene the narrator commented that Jesus knew his hour to depart from
the world had come and that he loved his own to the end. While the
footwashing certainly participates in both the hour and the end, they
culminate not in the supper scene but here on the cross. Similarly,
although the breathing of the Spirit onto the disciples may represent
the fullest expression of the bestowal of that gift, the final act of the
dying Jesus sets that act in motion. As Jesus promised the crowd on
the last day of Tabernacles, believers can now receive the Spirit because
he has been glorified. As Jesus promised the disciples in his words
of farewell, the Spirit can now come because he is returning to the
Father.91 Because this is obviously linked to the flow of blood and
89. Ashton, Understanding, pp. 424-25; Barrett, Gospel according to St John,

p. 554; Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 910; I. De la Potterie, 'La mort du
Christ d'apres Saint Jean', in M. Dhavamony (ed.), Sens de la mort dans le
christianisme et les autres religions (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1982),
pp. 19-36 (25); Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 582.
90. Contra Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 554; Lindars, Gospel of
John, pp. 582-83; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.284-285.
91. Foster, 'John Come Lately', p. 127, suggests that the Spirit is delivered to
John, the author of the Gospel and founder of the community. His conclusion, how-
ever, depends heavily on numerology, which does not seem to be stressed by the
narrator. Numbers certainly have significance in certain passages of the Fourth Gospel,
but they do not invite the detailed symbolic interpretation presented by Foster.
water from Jesus' side, I will return to this issue in the discussion of
the second unit of this narrative section.
This unit began with the narrator noting that Jesus knew the end had
come. It closes with Jesus declaring his ministry finished and thereby
announcing the beginning of the ministry of the Spirit promised in his
words of farewell. In an ironic twist, at the juncture of these two
times Jesus has his physical thirst sated before dying as the completion
of his ministry, which makes it possible for believers to begin new life
by receiving the living waters of the Spirit.
19.31-37 Jesus1 death confirmed and interpreted. Three sub-units

comprise the second unit of this narrative section: (a) Jesus' death con-
firmed (19.31-33), (b) Blood and water flow from Jesus' side (19.34-
35), and (c) Jesus' death as fulfillment of Scripture (19.36-37). The
first unit reported the death of Jesus in three relatively terse verses. In
this unit the narrator uses more than twice as many words to describe
the treatment of his lifeless body. Jesus may have finished his ministry,
but the attention given to his body suggests that its impact continues.
The Jewish authorities set the events in motion by asking Pilate to
have the legs of those being crucified broken so their bodies will not
remain exposed on the Sabbath. The soldiers do this to those crucified
with Jesus, but stop when they come to him because he has already
expired. Nevertheless, one of the soldiers thrusts his spear into Jesus'
side, and blood and water immediately flow from it. Ironically this
makes the lifeless Jesus an active character in the scene.
The flow of blood and water has obvious importance to the narrator,
who not only interrupts the narrative to interpret it but also asserts the
veracity of the report in strong and tautological language. The narrator
then declares that both the fact that Jesus' legs remained unbroken and
the piercing of his side fulfill Scripture, which tacitly informs the
reader that God and not the authorities truly controls these events.
The irony of the scene includes not only the 'action' taken by the
dead body of Jesus but also the fact that the breaking of Jesus' legs,
which the Jews requested in order to honor the Sabbath, would have
violated the Scripture if the soldiers had obeyed it. Once again the
work of God takes precedence over strict observance of the Sabbath.92
92. When Jesus heals a man at the pool by the Sheep Gate, the Jews consider
his actions contrary to Sabbath law (Jn 5.16-18), and when he brings sight to a man
(a) 19.31-33 Jesus' death confirmed. This narrative unit begins with a
lengthy sentence in which three dependent clauses separate the subject
from the verb. The simple declaration is that the Jewish authorities
requested that Pilate have the legs of those crucified broken and that
their bodies be removed from the cross. The dependent clauses iden-
tify this request as a deliberate attempt to honor law and tradition.
According to Scripture (Deut. 21.22-23; cf. Josh. 8.29; 10.27), the
bodies of the dead should be buried before sunset.93
From the Johannine perspective, the Jewish leaders make an
extremely ironic request. The very people who earlier claimed to have
no king but Caesar (19.15), in direct violation of the law, now seem
concerned with the law. In even greater irony, their request to have
the legs broken, from the narrator's point of view, also violates the
law. Although the narrator has not mentioned the Passover sacrifices,
the crucifixion occurs at the time of the slaughter of lambs for the
Passover.94 Since the law stipulates that no bone of the paschal lamb
be broken (Exod. 12.46; Num. 9.12) and since Jesus has already been
identified as the lamb of God (Jn 1.29, 36), readers can conclude that
the action requested by the authorities would violate the very law they
seem so interested in honoring. At the end of this narrative unit the
narrator will bring this ironic contrast to the forefront by noting that
failure to break Jesus' bones fulfills Scripture (19.36). The narrator
depicts Jesus as the lamb of God offered on behalf of the people, which
further discredits the Jewish leadership in the eyes of the reader.
Without noting Pilate's response to this request, the narrator reports
that the soldiers proceeded to break the legs of their victims.95 They
born blind in order to manifest the work of God (9.1-3), the authorities again object
to this as a violation of the Sabbath (9.16).
John, p. 934; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 676; Lindars, Gospel of John, pp. 584-
85; Talbert, Reading John, p. 245; J. Wilkinson, T h e Incident of the Blood and
Water in John 19.34', 5 / 7 2 8 (1975), pp. 159-72 (150).
94. The narrator notes that the crucifixion begins at the sixth hour (19.14),
which is the time of the slaughtering of the lambs for the Passover observance. Cf.
Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 545; Brown, Gospel according to John,
p. 883; Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 664; Kysar, John, p. 284; Lindars, Gospel of
John, p. 571; Marsh, John, p. 610; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John,
3.265; Talbert, Reading John, p. 241.
95. S.J. Harrison, 'Cicero and "Crurifragium"', Classical Quarterly 11 (1983),
pp. 453-55 (454), considers the breaking of the legs an additional punishment, but
break the legs of the two men crucified with him, but not those of Jesus
because he already has died. Even in death, he remains in control.
The attention given to the treatment of Jesus' body makes it clear
that he truly died. The narrator may have stressed this because it
normally took days for those crucified to die,96 but the more impor-
tant point is that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, has laid down his life for
the sheep (10.11, 15, 17-18) and sacrificed himself for his friends
(15.13), whom he loved to the end (13.1).
The lengthy opening sentence of this sub-unit, which supports a
simple statement with three dependent clauses, typifies its content. The
narrator conveys the simple message that Jesus has died. In the process
of relating that message, however, the narrator implies that Jesus
remains in control of what happens to him and that the Jewish leaders
continue unwittingly to violate Scripture.
(b) 19.34-35 Blood and water flow from Jesus' side The discussion of
the treatment of Jesus' body, which began in the previous sub-unit,
continues as the narrator notes that one of the soldiers pierced Jesus'
side with his spear and blood and water immediately flowed from
the wound. The effusion of blood and water is obviously of extreme
importance to narrator, who interrupts the account of the event to
verify that the one who witnessed this event has offered testimony of
it, that the testimony is true, and that the one who offers the testimony
knows it is true. The narrator then explains that the purpose of the
report (and of the extensive 'verification' of it?) is to convince the
readers to become believers.97
The preceding sub-unit ended with the observation that Jesus had
died. As noted, it usually took those executed by crucifixion longer to
die than the relatively brief period of time elapsed in the narrative. This
may explain why the soldier pierced Jesus' side. He wanted further
verification of his death.98 For the narrator, that simple act takes on
Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 555-56; Brown, Gospel according to

John, p. 934; and Sloyan, John, p. 212, conclude that although the practice itself was
cruel, the result was merciful in that it hastened the time of death. The request of the
Jewish leaders is not depicted as emerging from a desire to inflict greater punishment.
96. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 556; Lindars, Gospel of John,
pp. 585-86.
97. In Jn 20.31, the narrator declares that the entire Gospel is written so that
readers may become believers and thus have life in Jesus the Christ.
98. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 946; Lindars, Gospel of John,
enormous meaning when blood and water immediately flow from the
wound. As elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, the adverb eiiOi)^ empha-
sizes the action." What has happened far transcends the soldier's
intentions.
Many have debated whether or not blood and water can actually flow
from a dead body.100 The historicity of the event portrayed, however,
has less significance than what it means to the narrator, who has no
doubt that it transpired and wants the reader to share that certainty.
This is the first time blood and water have been linked in the Fourth
Gospel, but both have appeared in passages that may anticipate this
scene. In the midst of a controversy scene with the Jewish authorities,
Jesus calls his blood 'true drink' (6.55). His dispute with them resulted
from his claim that those who believe in him will never thirst (6.35).
In an earlier scene, he promises the woman of Samaria that he can
provide water that will quench thirst for ever, water that will become
a spring of water bubbling up into eternal life (4.14). He also assures
worshippers assembled on the last and great day of Tabernacles that
rivers of living water will be available to (and flow from) believers
following his glorification (7.38). The narrator interprets that water
as the Spirit (7.39). All three of these passages appear to find at least
partial fulfillment here.101 Since the narrator had Jesus associate the
temple in Jerusalem with his body prior to his initial Passover (2.19-
21) and since Scripture associates a flow of living water from
Jerusalem and the temple with a triumphant day of God (Ezek. 47.1-9;
Zech. 14.8), these words can also be interpreted as a fulfillment of the
p. 586. There is little reason to consider this an act of indignity on Jesus' lifeless
body; contrary to P.S. Minear, John: The Martyr's Gospel (New York: Pilgrim
Press, 1984), p. 76. Nor does this spear thrust and not the crucifixion need to be
interpreted as the cause of Jesus' death; contrary to S. Pennells, T h e Spear Thrust
(Mt. 27.49b, v. 1. / Jn 19.34)', JSNT 19 (1983), pp. 99-115 (109-10).
99. When Jesus tells the lame man at the pool to rise and walk, he is healed
immediately (5.9). When Jesus joins the disciples in the boat after walking to them
on the sea, the narrator observes that they reach their destination immediately (6.21).
After Judas receives the piece of bread at the close of the footwashing scene, he
leaves the room immediately (13.30) and Jesus then promises that the glorification of
the Son of Man will happen immediately (13.32).
100. For a survey of this discussion see Brown, Gospel according to John,
pp. 946-47; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.289-290.
101. Dodd, Interpretation, p. 428. Contra Kysar, John, p. 291, and Lindars,
Gospel of John, p. 587.
promises of Scripture and of an early act of Jesus' ministry.102

Rather than simply proving that Jesus actually died or that he had a
truly human body, the flow of blood and water, at the very least, sym-
bolizes a new reality that is now at work in the world. Since Jesus had
already died, the effusion of blood and water does not indicate his
expiration as much as it points to the potential for new life now flowing
from him.103
The blood and water, which may represent the same reality,104
symbolize the gift of the Spirit. At the close of the Tabernacles celebra-
tion, Jesus promised that following his glorification living water,
which the narrator identified as the Spirit, would become available to
those who believe in him (7.38-39). The reader now knows without
doubt that glorification means crucifixion and Jesus thus fulfills that
promise. Water mingled with life (that is, blood) flows even from his
lifeless body. Those who come to him, who believe in him, can receive
the benefit of this gift. Jesus will impart the Spirit more directly to the
disciples in the next chapter as well (20.22), but that does not eliminate
the possibility of that gift being symbolized here as available for all who
believe.
The flow from Jesus' side appears to be the culmination of the living
water theme.105 No longer is water merely promised. Blood and water
now flow from Jesus for the benefit of all who believe. The effusion
of these signs of life from a dead body indicates that in the death of
Jesus real life becomes possible.106
This also relates to the Passover theme so prevalent in the crucifixion
scene. In the narrative of the flight from Egypt, the blood of the
Passover lamb, when smeared on the doorpost, paves the way for a
102. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference, pp. 235-36.

103. M.W.G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth
Gospel (ed. G.N. Stanton; SNTS 73; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), pp. 118-19.
104. E. Schussler Fiorenza, 'The Ethics of Interpretation: De-Centering Biblical
Scholarship', JBL 107 (1988), p. 104, suggests that the two nouns could be con-
nected by an epexegetical Kai, which would support a translation such as, 'and
immediately blood, that is water, came out.'
105. B.H. Grigsby, 'The Cross as an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel',
JSNT 15 (1982), pp. 51-80 (61); Taylor, John, p. 236.
106. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 556-57; P.S. Minear, 'Diversity
and Unity: A Johannine Case-Study', in U. Luz and H. Weder (eds.), Die Mitte des
Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp 162-75 (167).
new life. Here the spilled blood of the lamb of God opens the door to
new life. The mention of the Passover in dating the time of the cruci-
fixion (19.14), the use of the hyssop to hold the sponge filled with wine
(19.29), and the fact that the bones of Jesus, like those of a paschal
lamb, remain unbroken, support this interpretation.
The narrator stresses the importance of the flow of blood and water
by taking pains to verify the account. Whether the witness quoted is
the narrator, the Beloved Disciple,107 the founder of the Johannine
community, or someone who remains unknown,108 the narrator intends
to leave no doubt that the flow of blood and water truly happened.
Nowhere else in Fourth Gospel does the narrator make such a direct
appeal to the veracity of an event described.109
It also seems significant that the narrator claims to report this event
so that the reader may believe. As previously noted, a similar reason
is given for the writing of the entire Gospel (20.31). Since Jesus sends
out those who believe in him just as God sent him (20.21), this com-
pletes the linking of this account with Tabernacles. Those who believe
in Jesus receive what he has to offer and become a source of it; that is,
the living water flows from them. Similarly, that is what it means to
have living water bubbling up within oneself, as Jesus promised the
woman of Samaria (4.14), and to be born of water and the Spirit, as
Jesus told Nicodemus one must be to enter the realm of God (3.5).
The prologue promises that those who believe in the Word of God
become children of God and that they are born not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of human will, but of God (1.13). Although
God has yet to raise Jesus from the dead and the scene in which he
imparts the Spirit directly to the disciples has yet to happen, the narra-
tor considers the deed done. The death of Jesus has been depicted and
clear testimony to the effusion of blood and water, symbols of the life

John, p. 936; Craig, 'Sacramental Interest', p. 41.
108. Minear, John: The Martyr's Gospel, p. 72, argues that the witness cited is
one of the soldiers. He further suggests that this links the soldier with Joseph of
Arimathea and Nicodemus, who also witnessed Jesus' death. At the death of Jesus,
all three shift from 'tacit or open association with Jesus' enemies' to known identifi-
cation with him. There is little in the text, however, to suggest that the narrator
intended to depict such a transformation in those characters. This argument is also
summarized in Minear, 'Diversity and Unity', p. 163.
and Spirit he promised, has been given. All that remains is for the
reader to believe.
(c) 19.36-37 Jesus'death as fulfillment of Scripture. In the two sen-
tences that bring this narrative section to a close, the narrator places
everything that has happened to Jesus' body on the cross within a
scriptural context. Both the fact that Jesus' bones remain unbroken,
which may have been contrary to the usual treatment of crucifixion
victims but was appropriate for a paschal lamb, and the piercing of his
side, which made possible the effusion of blood and water, fulfill
unspecified verses of Scripture quoted by the narrator.
The unbroken bones fulfill Exod. 12.46 and Num. 9.12, which stipu-
late that bones of the Passover lamb should not be broken. By citing
this passage of Scripture, the narrator makes the action not a matter of
cruelty or kindness but of compliance with the will of God.
The piercing of Jesus' side fulfills Zech. 12.10.110 In addition to
fulfilling Scripture, this quotation echoes earlier sayings of Jesus. The
'looking on' of the one pierced connects this scene with Jesus' discus-
sion with Nicodemus, in which he links the lifting up of the serpent in
the wilderness with the lifting up of the Son of Man (3.14),111 as well
as with his statement to the Jewish authorities that they will recognize
his true being and significance after the Son of Man is lifted up (8.28),
and his declaration near the close of his public ministry that he will
draw everyone to himself when he is lifted up from the earth (12.32).
The citing of these two passages of Scripture makes it absolutely
clear that the treatment of Jesus' body was not simply the normal and
inconsequential actions taken in a cruel execution. By placing the
crucifixion in the content of Scripture, the narrator invites the reader
to view each detail on a figurative level.
The citing of Scripture also lends greater authority to the narrator's
voice. The fact that what has transpired fulfills not one but two passages
of Scripture indicates that God has planned it. This seems especially
significant because it sets the desires of authorities to break the legs of
110. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 558-59; Bultmann, Gospel of

John, p. 677; Howard, 'John', pp. 786-87; Kysar, John, p. 293; Lindars, Gospel of
John, p. 590; and Talbert, Reading John, p. 246, note that this reading follows the
Hebrew and not the LXX.
111. Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.293. Contra Barrett,
Gospel according to St John, p. 559, who says not the looking but the piercing
fulfills Scripture.
the victims and get them out of sight quickly (19.31) in contrast with
the will of God expressed in Scripture. Jesus' crucifixion truly is his
glorification. Although everything may seem to be contrary, his death
is a moment of triumph and a new beginning.

Although the word water appears only once in this narrative section,
its presence comes at a very significant moment. The crucifixion scene
brings the movement of the Fourth Gospel to a climax and the appear-
ance of water comes at the height of that climax. As the body of Jesus
hangs on the cross, the Jewish authorities demand that the bodies of
the victims be removed before the beginning of Passover and the
Sabbath. With Jesus having handed over his spirit (19.30), the authori-
ties seem in control. Yet, when a soldier attempts to verify Jesus' death
by thrusting a sword into his side, out comes an effusion of blood and
water, which places him even more completely at the center of the
reader's attention and shifts the focus from the authorities' to what
flows from Jesus' body. Even when he hangs lifeless on the cross, he
still imparts the promised gift of living water. The narrator makes
the flow of blood and water even more significant by interrupting
the record of the event to verify both the report and the one who gave
the testimony.
At the very least, the water flowing from Jesus' side signifies a call
for a new beginning. As already noted, references to the Passover
appear throughout the crucifixion narrative. The crucifixion begins on
the day of preparation for the Passover (19.14). The sour wine offered
to Jesus is placed on hyssop (19.29). The authorities want the bodies
removed because of the coming Passover (19.31) and the contrast
between breaking legs of other two victims and the unbroken legs of
Jesus also serves as reminder of the Passover, especially when the
narrator explains that with a scriptural quotation that almost certainly
refers to the first Passover (19.36). As the initial Passover led to flight
into the wilderness and eventually to a new beginning for the Hebrew
slaves, so also those who accept the narrator's account of the flow of
blood and water and believe (19.35) can anticipate new life (cf. 20.31).
A similar call to a new beginning occurred when Jesus told
Nicodemus that he needed birth of water and the Spirit to enter the
realm of God (3.5). Jesus then instructed that teacher of the Jews that
the Son of Man would be lifted up so that those who saw and believed
could have eternal life. The flow of blood and water from Jesus' side
fulfills that promise and calls for that faith.
Because the flow of water prepares the way for people to believe,
the reader can also consider it a symbol of cleansing. Here again the
references to Passover are important. Just as the blood of the paschal
lamb smeared on doorpost 'cleansed' the house and kept away the angel
of death, so also the sacrifice of the lamb of God cleanses as he pre-
pares the way for faith. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples,
he called that cleansing necessary (13.8-10). As already noted, the
footwashing foreshadows the crucifixion. The flow of water at the
crucifixion, as the verification of it and its witness indicates, is also
necessary; that is, it also cleanses disciples and equips them to have a
part in Jesus (cf. 13.8).112
Most of all, the water that flows from Jesus' side symbolizes the
Spirit. In first passage in which water appears, John identifies Jesus as
the one on whom the Spirit came in baptism and the one who baptizes
with the Holy Spirit (1.33). In the narrative events between that opening
scene and the account of the crucifixion, water often refers to or is
linked with the Spirit and both are presented as gifts promised to
believers by Jesus. The water that flows from his side indicates both
his death and that gift of the Spirit.113 When looked on with faith, it
becomes part of the testimony believers can offer to others in the hope
that they, too, will believe.
Similarly, just as the nocturnal conversation between Jesus and
Nicodemus links water with the Spirit and both with entrance into the
realm of God, so here the flow of water, when accepted in faith, indi-
cates that same reality. The facts that Jesus handed over the Spirit
earlier in the crucifixion (19.30) and that he will impart the Spirit to
the disciples in a later scene (20.22) do not weaken this conclusion.
Rather, the handing over of the Spirit when Jesus declares, 'It is
finished', is illustrated in the flow of blood and water, just as it will be
reiterated when he rejoins his disciples behind closed doors; that is,
from the cross Jesus releases the Spirit to believers in his death and
glorification, just as he will breathe it on them in his resurrection.
112. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 556-57; Sehiissler Fiorenza,

'Ethics of Interpretation', p. 104; Koester, Symbolism, pp. 182-83.
113. E. Malatesta, 'Blood and Water from the Pierced Side of Christ (Jn 19,34)',
in P.-R. Tragan (ed.), Segni e sacramenti nel vangelo di Giovanni (Rome: Editrice
Anselmiana, 1977), pp. 165-81 (175).
All of this brings to mind Jesus' promise during Tabernacles that

rivers of living water would flow from those who believe in him
(7.38-39). As noted earlier, the ambiguous wording of that promise
allows the reader to interpret Jesus as the original source of the living
water, which in turn flows from the hearts of believers. That promised
gift of living water finds its fulfillment here.114 At his glorification on
the cross, Jesus originates aflowof living water. A faithful witness who
views that flow can bring others to believe and the flow of life-giving
water passes from believer to believer. In the effusion from his side,
Jesus releases into the world the Spirit promised in his words of
farewell.115
The account of the flow of blood and water from Jesus' side has been
called the pivotal text for understanding the sacramental symbolism of
the Fourth Gospel,116 and it has been argued that since any such flow
from a dead body can only be considered miraculous, it must refer to
the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist.117 No small number of
readers have considered the blood representative of the eucharist and
the water symbolic of baptism.118 It has also been suggested that the
sacramental meaning of this flow explains why the narrator took such
pains to verify it.119
Other readers have maintained that the flow of blood and water
represents the actual humanity and death of Jesus more than it sym-
bolizes a sacrament.120 Regardless of whether the flow of blood and
114. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 556-57; Dodd, Interpretation,

p. 438; Minear, 'Diversity and Unity', p. 167; Schnackenburg, Gospel according to
St John, 3.294. Contra Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 587.
115. Jn 14.16-17, 25-26; 15.26; 16.7.
116. Malatesta, 'Blood and Water', p. 177.
117. Haenchen; John. II. A Commentary, p. 195.
118. See, e.g., Ball, 'St John', p. 62; Bouyer, Fourth Gospel, p. 217; Jaubert,
Approches, p. 81; H. Klos, Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium: Verkommen
und Bedeutung von Taufe, Eucharistie und Busse im vierten Evangelium (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970), p. 80; Marsh, John, p. 621.
119. Craig, 'Sacramental Interest', p. 41. Ellis, Genius of John, pp. 275-76,
finds the flow of water more difficult to explain than that of the blood. He concludes
that while the blood symbolizes death, water symbolizes baptism.
120. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, pp. 556-57; Paschal, p. 173.
Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.294, argues that the placing of the
blood before the water makes a sacramental interpretation less likely.
water verifies the actual humanity of Jesus,121 if the narrator wants the
reader to interpret it as symbolic of a sacrament, little help is pro-
vided. The narrator does not interrupt the account to offer a sacra-
mental explanation of the flow, as Jesus' words at Tabernacles were
interrupted to inform the reader that he referred to the Spirit to be
received by believers (7.39) or as the footwashing scene was inter-
rupted to explain what Jesus said about not all of the disciples being
clean (13.11). Rather, the narrative time proceeds without interrup-
tion until the narrator intrudes not to interpret the event but to verify
the authenticity of the effusion and the one who witnessed it. The
narrator then 'explains' that the interruption is intended not to declare
the meaning of the flow, but to encourage the reader to believe. The
narrator expresses interest not in subtle or even profound theological
points but in calling readers to faith. Issues of the sacraments, if
important at all, must wait until that step has been taken.
The final appearance of water, while not providing clear answers
to questions raised earlier, brings its role to a climax. Although no
believers receive a cup filled with the living water Jesus promised and
no believers receive a literal drink that quenches all physical thirst, a
witness of the crucifixion does see blood and water flow from Jesus'
side. That sight is so important to that witness that solemn testimony
of the event is poured out with the hope that others will be led to
believe as well. To believe is to have life with God (1.12) and never to
thirst (6.35). Water symbolizes the cleansing, the new life, and the gift
of the Spirit that manifests such life and makes it possible.

During the account of Jesus' final trip to Jerusalem, water appears in
two narrative sections. Although water plays a different role in each
one, both add to its meaning and function in the Gospel. Indeed, since
the first narrative section opens with the announcement that Jesus knew
his hour to depart from the world had come and the second narrative
section relates the final events of the crucifixion, it is significant for
water to be mentioned at all.
In the footwashing scene, water serves as a tool Jesus uses to reveal
his love to his disciples. This function of water foreshadows the
121. Elsewhere in the narrative he has grown tired, thirsted, and wept like an
actual human.
crucifixion, the ultimate act of love on behalf of those who believe. But
more than a mere tool, water also represents a requisite for a relation-
ship with Jesus. When Peter objects to having Jesus wash his feet, Jesus
insists that without such a washing Peter will have no part in him. That
function echoes in the crucifixion scene when the narrator verifies both
the witness of the flow of blood and water and the truth of the report.
The report and its verification are intended to help readers believe, and
believing is the only way a reader can have a relationship with Jesus.
As a part of this, water symbolizes cleansing. Acceptance of the service
Jesus offers (that is, the footwashing of the disciples and the death on
the cross for all) cleanses or prepares the reader for life with him.
The account of the crucifixion brings the promises of living water
and of the Spirit made throughout the Gospel to a climax. After Jesus
utters, 'It is finished', and it seems he has nothing else to offer, blood
and water flow from his side. Because witnessing this flow leads to
faith and prompts a believer to give testimony that can lead others to
faith, it fulfills the promises of birth of water and the Spirit that leads
to entrance into the realm of God (3.5), of living water that wells up
to eternal life (4.14), and of living water that becomes a river flowing
from the heart of a believer (7.38). The effusion from Jesus' side
illustrates the handing over of his spirit (19.30) and anticipates the
breathing of the Spirit on the disciples after the resurrection (20.22).
In both passages, water has meaning not only in the lives of the
characters in the narrative but also in the life of the reader. Readers
may not face the necessity of having Jesus wash their feet, but they
must accept the sacrifice on the cross it foreshadows. Similarly, Jesus'
instructions for the disciples to wash one another's feet extend to the
reader when he concludes that those who receive anyone whom he has
sent receive him (13.20). Finally, although readers cannot see the
actual blood and water flowing from Jesus' side, the narrator calls
them to accept the testimony of the witness and believe. Without that,
readers remain curious bystanders like the soldiers or the authorities
and not believers like the narrator and the witness, who recognize the
fulfillment of Scripture and the glorification of the one sent from God.
The two final appearances of water in the Fourth Gospel call the
reader to service and to faith. When that call is accepted, the new
beginning and the Spirit associated with water throughout the Gospel
become manifest in the reader as well, for it is those who believe that
Jesus loves to the end and to whom he hands over the Spirit.
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
In the introduction I defined a symbol as a literary device that points

beyond itself to something that defies clear and definitive perceptual
expression and that in some way embodies that which it represents. I
also noted that a symbol expands in meaning as it recurs in a narrative.
In this concluding chapter I will trace the meaning and function of water
through the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, especially noting where
and how it functions symbolically and expands in meaning. Then I will
explore how the symbol of water relates to the issue of baptism in
particular and the issue of the sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel in
general. I will close with a reflective look at the possible use of this
study for reading and understanding John.
1. The Meaning and Function of Water in the Gospel of John

The word water first appears in the Fourth Gospel in the narration of
the witness of John (1.19-34). It appears three times in that account,
always in the instrumental dative form, preceded by the preposition ev,
and in association with John's baptismal ministry (1.26, 31, 33). John
emphasizes that he baptizes with water (1.26), which he later contrasts
with a baptism with the Spirit (1.33), and declares that his baptism has
the God-given purpose of identifying the one who will baptize with the
Spirit (1.29-34). Although the narrator makes it clear that John con-
ducts a baptismal ministry, he baptizes no one in the text. This tacitly
reinforces his statement that he baptizes primarily to point to the one
who comes, whom he calls the lamb of God (1.29) and Son of God
(1.34).
At this point water does little more than signify the arrival of some-
thing new, the advent of the one on whom the Spirit descends and
remains, the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. How the water
baptism enabled John to identify Jesus remains a mystery. John does not
claim to have baptized this Son of God and does not state where either
of them were when he saw the Spirit descend and remain on him.
Using my definition of a symbol, water does not have a truly symbolic
meaning or function in this narrative section because, although it may
point to the one to come, it does not embody that revelation. Baptism
with water serves as a sign of the imminent arrival of the one to come,
but the narrative does not depict water itself as a means of his revela-
tion. Water has importance in the process of his revelation, but does
not reveal him in and of itself.
In the first narrative section in which it appears, water helps to
identify Jesus as the lamb and Son of God. In the second, the narrative
of the wedding in Cana (2.1-11), it plays a part in revealing his glory,
which leads his disciples to believe in him (2.11). Servants at the
wedding feast pour water into and draw it from water jars associated
with the Jewish rites of purification (2.6-8), which links it with the
theme of purification. Some or all of this water becomes transformed
into wine, which amazes the steward with its quality and leads Jesus'
disciples to believe in him.1 This is important because the narrator has
already stated that those who believe in him become children of God
(1.12). Water again points to something new, here a revelation of
glory that leads to faith.
In this narrative water not only is linked with the issue of purifica-
tion, but also manifests the change to which it points. While in the
water jars, water has only a ceremonial function unmentioned in the
text, but when used by Jesus in his ministry it becomes transformed
into wine of astounding quality. What happens to the water foreshadows
what happens to the disciples. Because of this revelation of his glory,
they become believers. Water both represents the new beginning Jesus
brings and manifests that beginning in and of itself. Whereas in the
first narrative water pointed to Jesus and helped to identify him, the
water employed by him here becomes transformed and an agent of
transformation. It is not the water itself that is significant, but the use
Jesus makes of it. It symbolizes the new beginning Jesus brings.2
1. Jesus asks Nathanael if he believes in him simply because Jesus claimed to

have seen him under a fig tree before Philip called him, but this is the first time that
the narrator states that the disciples believe in him.
2. In his anthropological study, Bolen, Turity and Pollution', p. 217, concludes
that water symbolizes how Jesus reoriented or abandoned the purity concerns of
6. Conclusion 221
The narrator makes no mention of the Spirit in the account of the

wedding in Cana, but the connection between water and Spirit returns
in the third narrative section in which water appears, the dialogue
between Jesus and Nicodemus (3.1-21). The word water appears only
once in this narrative (3.5), but the phrase that includes it makes it
central to the narrative. In the context of their discussion of the realm
of God, Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can enter the realm of God
without being born of water and spirit.3
Here again water marks the arrival of something new and, as at
Cana, also participates in the advent of that reality. How water brings
about this new birth remains a mystery, as Nicodemus' final question
in the narrative illustrates (3.9), but it nonetheless remains requisite
for it. Just as the water used in his baptism was necessary for John to
identify the Son of God, so birth of water and spirit is necessary for
belief in heavenly things (3.12) and acceptance of the truth Jesus speaks
and represents. Water represents a leap of faith. Nicodemus kept
wanting to know how that of which Jesus spoke could be (3.4, 9) until
Jesus finally scolded him sharply (3.10) and implied that he needed to
believe, not to know how (3.12). The disciples at Cana may not have
known how Jesus turned the water into wine, but they saw his glory in
that act and believed in him. To leave the darkness from which he came,
Nicodemus must take a similar step. As a symbol, water identifies the
new birth which Jesus offers Nicodemus and also wraps that new birth
in a mystery beyond his complete understanding.4
At Cana water led the disciples to faith without implying judgment
on the others present. In the dialogue with Nicodemus, water sym-
bolizes the separation of those who believe in Jesus from those who
do not. Nicodemus comes to Jesus with a number of qualities. He is a
Pharisee, a leader, and a 'teacher of Israel' (3.10). From the narrator's
viewpoint, he is depicted even more positively as one who believes
Jesus has come from God (3.2). None of that, however, suffices to
Judaism, a new beginning specifically related to the political climate of the first
century.
3. I noted in the exegetical study of this passage that if the conjunction iced in
this phrase functions epexegetically, this could be translated 'born of water, that is
spirit'. Cf. Barth, Witness to the Word, p. 134; Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic
Reading', p. 450; Vellanickal, Divine Sonship, p. 186.
4. Barrett, Essays on John, p. 89; Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 183; H. Levin,
Contexts of Criticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 200.
help him understand what Jesus says. Birth of water and spirit comes
only to those willing to accept what they cannot understand, those
willing to come to faith. Jesus identifies these as loved by God and
recipients of life eternal (3.16) and explains that he has come into the
world to make them known (3.17-21). Water symbolizes the leap
of faith necessary to pass from what one can know or claim to that
which God alone can make possible for those willing to receive it in
hiddenness and mystery.5
Water next appears in 3.23, where it describes the place chosen by
John to continue his baptismal ministry, a place identified as different
from where Jesus also conducted a baptismal ministry (3.22). By
making the abundance of water the primary description of the location
of John's ministry, the narrator implies that he selected that site for
that reason. Since both John and Jesus baptize, this description invites
a contrast of their ministries. Water represents both what John has to
offer and what he lacks. John offers a baptism with water, which he
earlier subjugated to a baptism with the Spirit (1.26, 32-33). To con-
duct his ministry he must have water, apparently water in abundance,
which he cannot provide in and of himself. In contrast, the narrator
describes the location of Jesus' ministry simply as the Judean country-
side. Water therefore symbolizes both what he has to offer and what
his ministry transcends. Jesus can provide for himself what John must
seek from the environment. Since the narrator later adds that even
without an abundance of water Jesus attracts more people than John
(3.26), what Jesus offers transcends water baptism. Apart from him,
water loses its significance. When people come to Jesus, they receive
what John offers (baptism) and more.
The contrast of the popularity of the two baptismal ministries takes
place in the context of a discussion about purification (3.25-30). By
introducing the dialogue between John and his disciples in this way,
the narrator, who has not ascribed purifying effects to John's baptism,
implies that Jesus transcends that aspect of John's ministry as well, just
as at the wedding in Cana he transcended the need for purification by
turning into wine the water in the water jars reserved for that pur-
pose. Whatever new Jesus has to offer does more than supplement or
complement the old; it replaces it. Whether or not readers are accus-
tomed to associating water with rituals of purification or initiation,
5, Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 183; Fawcett, Symbolic Language, p. 36.

6. Conclusion 223
water clearly symbolizes a call for a decision.6 The reader can decide
to accept the old way, purification with water alone, or the new way
of Jesus which supersedes it.
Each of the scenes mentioned thus far involves a contrast between
an attempt to understand and the greater reality present, which lies
beyond complete understanding. Those sent from Jerusalem to John
want to understand why he baptizes (1.24-25). The answer lies not
with John but with the one whom his baptism with water has the pur-
pose of revealing. Yet the reader does not know how John knew this,
but must accept (believe) him when he implies that his instructions
came from God (cf. 1.33). The steward at the wedding feast did not
understand why the host served wine of such quality last (2.10). He
did not know from where the wine came, that it had been transformed
from water by the one whose glory it revealed (2.9). Nicodemus could
not understand the birth of water and spirit which Jesus declared
necessary for entrance into the realm of God (3.1-10). Jesus challenged
him to believe what he could not know. John's disciples could not
understand why people now went to Jesus (3.26). Like those sent from
Jerusalem in the opening chapter, they misunderstood the primary
purpose of his baptism. Whatever else it represents, water symbolizes
a mystery which one must accept in faith more than know by the
power of reason.7
The dialogue at Jacob's Well between Jesus and a woman of Samaria
brings all of this to new heights (4.1-42). Here again the dialogue
brings to light a contrast between water available naturally and the
water offered by Jesus, identified for the first time as living water. In
this narrative section water has a fully symbolic function because it
not only points to what Jesus has to offer but becomes that gift of his
presence in and of itself.8
Both Jesus and the woman of Samaria desire water when the narra-
tive begins, but the woman expresses surprise that Jesus would request
a drink from her because, as the narrator interrupts to explain, 'Jews
do not share things in common with Samaritans' (4.9). Jesus responds
6. Cf. E.K. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel, p. 36; Schneiders, 'Symbolism',

pp. 225-26.
7. Cf. Levin, 'Symbolism and Fiction', p. 13; Tindall, Literary Symbol, p. 18;
Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality, p. 92.
8. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 201; Schneiders, 'Symbolism', p. 224; Tindall,
Literary Symbol, pp. 13, 39; Wilder, Language of the Gospel, p. 84.
by offering to replace the water she came seeking with the living water
he can provide (4.10). In the contrasting descriptions of the sites of
the baptismal ministries of John and Jesus, the narrator implied that
Jesus could provide water of his own (3.22-23). This narrative depicts
Jesus' ability to provide water by himself bluntly. Even without a
bucket, Jesus offers water that can end her thirst (4.13-14), become a
spring of water within her (4.14), and, eventually, lead her to the
worship in spirit and truth that unites all true worshippers (4.23-24).
Then Jesus declares that he himself is that of which he speaks (4.26).
On one level, water represents that which both seek, but in association
with Jesus it symbolizes not only the refreshment and new beginning
his ministry offers but also Jesus himself. He will later offer himself
as drink to worshippers at Tabernacles and also promise to make them
sources of the water he offers (7.37-38). Here the gift he offers doesn't
simply represent him, it is a manifestation or presentation of him.
The woman cannot draw for herself the water Jesus offers. She must
receive it from him, which means she must risk an encounter with
him (which she and the narrator have labeled beyond the customary)
and exhibit faith. As water represented the means of revealing the one
to come to John (1.29-34), so also the offer of living water leads the
woman to Jesus' words of self-disclosure (4.26). As the miracle with
water at Cana manifested Jesus' glory and led the disciples to faith, so
the offer of living water enables the woman to return to village inviting
all to come and see9 one who had told her all she had ever done (4.29),
which may indicate a confession of faith. As water in the dialogue
with Nicodemus represented the opportunity for entrance into the
realm of God (3.5), so here it calls the woman to life eternal gushing
up within her (4.14). As water was needed by John but transcended by
Jesus when they chose the sites for their baptismal ministries (3.22-
23), so after encountering Jesus the woman can leave the well without
her water jar (4.28) because she has found living water the well cannot
supply.
In this narrative section water symbolizes the breaking down of old
barriers, the building of new bridges, the setting aside of refreshment
that fades to accept thirstless life eternal, and the loosening of the incon-
venience of traveling to find that needed for life with the freedom of
9. This is the same invitation Jesus extends to his first disciples (1.39) and the
invitation Philip extends toNathanael (1.46). The Greek verbs are, however, different
in this passage.
6. Conclusion 225
having eternal life bubbling up within oneself. Water represents

the belief necessary to become children of God (1.12), the access
Nicodemus could not comprehend into the realm of God (3.4, 9), and
the opportunity not to depend on external sources, as John was for
water for his baptismal ministry (3.23). The narrator does not explain
how water does this. Rather, as a symbol water retains mystery and
invites further inquiry.10 Its meaning and function have expanded
significantly, but it refuses to make all things clear because that to
which it points and which it presents defies such elucidation.
Water also has an association with the Spirit in this narrative. In his
dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus links birth of water and spirit with
entrance into the realm of God (3.5). Here acceptance of the living
water serves as a preliminary step to worshipping God in spirit and
truth. This passage does not make the relationship between water and
access to God distinct, but the connection of the two expands as the
narrative unfolds.
The next appearance of water is not nearly as rich in developing its
meaning, but does aid in understanding its function. Shortly after his
encounter with the woman of Samaria, the narrator reports that Jesus
returned to Cana. Whereas when Jesus traveled there for the wedding
feast the narrator described the location simply as 'Cana in Galilee'
(2.1), Cana is here described as 'where he had changed the water into
wine' (4.46). Cana has a new identity. When associated with Jesus,
water has that effect. As already noted in the dialogue with Nicodemus,
belief and acceptance of birth of water and spirit lead to entrance in
the realm of God and new identity as a child of God. For the woman
of Samaria and those in her village, accepting the water Jesus offers
erases old distinctions and leads to new worship in spirit and truth.
Even more clearly than it has previously, as a symbol water leaves no
room for neutrality. It calls for a decision.11
When water next appears there is once again a contrast between water
10. Cf. W. Hinderer, Theory, Conception, and Interpretation of the Symbol', in

J. Strelka (ed.), Perspectives in Literary Symbolism (trans. M. Keone; Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1968) pp. 83-127 (92); Levin, Contexts
of Criticism, p. 200; H. Rahner, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery (trans.
B. Battershaw; New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p 48; Tindall, Literary Symbol,
p. 11.
11. Cf. E.K. Brown, Rhythm in the Novel, p. 36; Schneiders, 'Symbolism',
pp. 225-26.
as a natural element and that offered by Jesus (5.1-18). At the pool

of Bethzatha, a place where people with a variety of physical ailments
lay awaiting a miraculous cure from the waters when they stir, Jesus
encounters a lame man who has been ill for thirty-eight years. To
receive benefit from the healing properties of pool, the lame man
would have to get into the water when it is stirred, something he has
not been able to do. Jesus, however, heals him without the benefit of
the water, just as he could baptize without the abundant water needed
by John (3.23). Jesus has in himself what water occasionally provides
and more.
Despite the cure, the man and Jesus fail to establish a relationship
and Jesus leaves him with stern warning, 'Do not sin any more, so that
nothing worse happens to you' (5.14). Although healed by Jesus, the
man appears to receive nothing from him. In contrast to the woman of
Samaria, who departed from Jesus eager to invite others to come to
him (4.28-29), the once lame man leaves Jesus to inform the authori-
ties, who seek to persecute him, of his identity. An encounter with
Jesus, in and of itself, will not suffice for a change of life. For this one
must receive the primary gift he offers, his self-revelation. The once
lame man did not drink from Jesus and thus, although healed, has no
well-spring within him. Even though Jesus does not employ the waters
of the pool in the healing, water symbolizes both what he has to offer
and what his ministry transcends.
John 6 includes two scenes in which the word water does not appear,
but that imply its presence: the narrative of Jesus walking on the sea
(6.16-21) and the dialogue he has with the crowd and the Jews in which
he identifies himself as the bread (and drink) of life. The former
further illustrates Jesus' control over the elements of nature and the
latter declares that Jesus can quench thirst in ways even Moses could
not, but neither adds new dimensions to the understanding of the
meaning and function of water. Jesus' promise that those who believe
in him will never thirst (6.35) echoes similar words to the woman of
Samaria (4.14), which extends that offer to the Jews as well as to
Samaritans. Similarly, when Jesus introduces his claim that those who
come to him will never be hungry or thirsty with the statement, 'I am
the bread of life' (6.35), that implies that he is the drink (water?) of
life as well. Even though water is not mentioned, bread and drink are
depicted not merely as gifts Jesus brings to humanity but as symbols
of Jesus himself. This reinforces the earlier understanding of water's
6. Conclusion 227
symbolic function. Toward the end of that narrative section, Jesus'

hearers find it harder and harder to accept him as, from the narrator's
viewpoint, he reveals more and more of himself to them. Once again
the text calls for a decision.
Water next appears when Jesus stands before a crowd of worshippers
gathered for the feast of Tabernacles, invites the thirsty to come to
him, and promises that rivers of living water will flow from the
hearts of those who believe in him (7.37-44). The narrator identifies
this flow as the Spirit, which will become available following Jesus'
glorification (7.39). While the scene with Nicodemus linked water with
spirit, this passage explicitly declares water a symbol of the Spirit,
which Jesus later promises will come after his departure (Jn 14.16-17;
15.26). To drink from Jesus, that is, to believe in him, means to receive
the Spirit. Believers not only receive this gift, but also become sources
of it. Water symbolizes what Jesus gives them and what they can
impart to each other. This brings to mind the woman of Samaria, who
rushed to tell her fellow villagers about Jesus. She went to Jacob's
Well carrying a water jar and seeking water to drink, but returned
with living water, a story to tell about a man who had told her all she
had done (4.28-29). Water symbolizes Jesus, the message he proclaims,
and the possibility of new life he represents.
The characters in the narrative do not know how to interpret Jesus'
words. In like manner, the flow of water of which he speaks can be
interpreted as issuing from him alone, from believers in him, or from
both. This characteristic ambiguity of the symbol entices readers to
press on to learn more.12 It eventually will call for a decision that
demands a step of faith. The thirsty who come to Jesus to drink have
their thirst sated not by knowledge as much as by faith. No substitute
exists for choosing to believe in him regardless what anyone or any-
thing else says (cf. Jn 6.40-43).
The choice to which water points provides much of the drama in one
of the most striking literary scenes in the Fourth Gospel, the narrative
of the healing of the man born blind (9.1-41). Although the word water
does not appear in the text, its presence is implied when Jesus instructs
the man born blind to wash in the pool of Siloam, a detail placed on the
lips of Jesus (9.7), mentioned by the narrator (9.7), and twice reported
by the man born blind (9.11, 15). Although the water to which Jesus
12. Cf. Levin, Contexts of Criticism, p. 200; Schneiders, 'Symbolism', p. 225.

directs the man is not as mysterious as the water he claims to provide

when he invites the thirsty to come to him and drink (7.37), receiving
that water has the same result. As the narrative unfolds, the man born
blind must choose between his neighbors, family, and heritage and
Jesus. Choosing to trust Jesus enough to go and wash in the water of
Siloam marks a step of faith. The man born blind returns from Siloam
able to see Jesus in a way others could not, a way that eventually leads
him to believe in him. Water represents a manifestation of Jesus'
presence that brings new life. More than any other character in the
narrative, the man born blind has to choose between Jesus and new life
with him or his old life and ways. Once again water leads to a point of
decision.
The penultimate appearance of water occurs in the narrative of the
footwashing (13.1-20). The noun 'water' appears only once (13.5),
but the verb 'to wash' appears eight times.13 The meaning and func-
tion of water expand here as it becomes a tool Jesus uses to reveal his
love for his disciples. In the scene with the man born blind, going to
wash required a certain amount of trust and faith. In this narrative,
letting Jesus wash their feet requires obedience and faith on the part of
the disciples. Water symbolizes Jesus' mission and ministry. When
Peter initially refuses to let Jesus serve him in this way, Jesus declares
the washing a requisite to having a part in him (13.8). This places the
footwashing on the level of the birth of water and spirit requested of
Nicodemus. The disciples will not understand it now (13.7), but they
must accept it now. The water of the footwashing symbolizes the
entirety of Jesus and his ministry, especially his coming passion and
glorification.
Purification is once more linked with water when Jesus tells the
disciples they are not all clean (13.10). Since Jesus appears to wash the
feet of all of the disciples, the water itself did not render them clean.
What the water represents must be accepted and internalized. As with
the lame man at the pool, simply being in Jesus' presence and accepting
a gift from him will not suffice truly to receive him. One must drink
of him, commit to him with faith. Water symbolizes not a magical
formula, but a step of faith.
Receiving the water Jesus offers also implies accepting an invitation
to join his ministry. As the water offered to the woman of Samaria led
13. Jn 13.5, 6, 8 (x2), 10, 12, 14 (x2).

6. Conclusion 229
her to invite the residents of her village to come and see Jesus for
themselves and the water offered to the Tabernacles worshippers led
to 'rivers of living water' (7.38), the water offered to the disciples
leads to a command for them to wash the feet of others. The decision
to which water calls indicates not only who and what a person is but
also whom and what a person will become.
The final appearance of water occurs in the crucifixion narrative
when blood and water flow from Jesus' pierced side (19.34). This
flow comes even though he has already yielded his spirit (19.30) and
expired. Even in death, he still imparts blood and water, as it were
'living' water. The narrator attests the significance of this event by
verifying both the report and the one who made it (19.35).
Above all, water symbolizes the Spirit. When Jesus promised the
Tabernacles worshippers that living water would flow from those who
believe in him, the ambiguous wording allowed him to be interpreted
as its source (7.37-38). The narrator identified that living water as the
Spirit, which would become available after Jesus' glorification (7.39).
The crucifixion is his glorification and the water, that is, the Spirit,
that flows from him caused at least one witness to believe in him and
in turn to offer witness to lead others to similar faith (19.35). The
Spirit promised in the words of farewell14 is now in the world to be
received and passed along to others by those who believe. This final
appearance climaxes the meaning and function of water but does not
answer all the questions the reader has about it. As a symbol, it both
reveals and eludes complete understanding, thereby inviting further
pondering and contemplation.
In summary, water serves in various capacities. It is an element of
nature over which Jesus reveals his mastery, as in the baptism of John,
the water turned into wine at Cana, the water of the sea, and the healing
waters of Bethzatha. It may represent purification, as the followers of
John thought. It issues an invitation to a new beginning, as the baptism
of water and spirit, acceptance of the living water, washing as directed,
and the footwashing performed by Jesus illustrate. As a part of all of
this, water calls for a decision. Specifically, it calls for faith, as it did
at Cana, in the nocturnal meeting with Nicodemus, at the close of the
feast of Tabernacles, and in the upper room.
Primarily, water symbolizes the Spirit. John identifies Jesus as the
14. Jn 14.16-17, 25-26; 15.26; 16.7.

one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and when Jesus attracts
larger crowds than John while both conduct baptismal ministries, that
implies that Jesus offers the Spirit. Nicodemus is challenged to accept
the birth of water, that is the Spirit, which grants entrance into the
realm of God. The woman of Samaria is promised that if she accepts
the living water Jesus offers she will worship in spirit and truth. At
Tabernacles, the narrator declares the living waters to be the Spirit.
At the crucifixion, when Jesus hands over his spirit, water flows, the
symbol of the Spirit he promised would come. The Spirit will be
breathed on disciples anew with the post-resurrection commission to
forgive and retain sins (20.22-23), but that is the same Spirit they
have known as they have drunk of (believed in) Jesus.
As such, water symbolizes Jesus himself. He is the one who can end
all thirst. He is the one who is poured out for world. Jesus himself is
the primary symbol in the Fourth Gospel,15 and water is a frequently
recurring and constantly expanding symbol that points to him and
renders him present.
As a symbol, water calls for a decision. Sometimes it represents a
choice as stark as between dark and light or blindness and sight. If
Peter does not accept the washing Jesus offers, he can have no part in
him. Believing in Jesus is requisite. Failing to believe is the primary
sin in the Fourth Gospel.
On other occasions, however, the decision for which water calls is
not that stark. The steward at the wedding feast does not understand
what happened to the water transformed into wine, but the door to
faith appears still open to him. The lame man at pool has the option,
however slim, of nothing worse befalling him (that is, coming to
faith?). Nicodemus leaves his meeting with Jesus as much in the dark
as when he came; yet he later appears to defend him (7.50-51) and
then comes to his tomb with an enormous load of spices (19.39). Does
he now believe? No one knows, but it is a possibility. Believers like
the woman of Samaria are sowing and the fields are ripe for harvest.
At some point, everyone, like the man born blind, must decide. But
those who do not accept the water Jesus offers and transcends are not
as immediately chastised as other opponents.16
15. Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 189; Schneiders, 'History and Symbolism', p. 373;

Malatesta, 'Blood and Water', p. 165. Cf. Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic
Reading', p. 454; Painter, John: Witness and Theologian, p. 24.
16. Those who object to Jesus' healing of the lame man on the Sabbath are des-
6. Conclusion 231
Because water represents a somewhat open-ended call to decision, it

functions differently than Johannine symbols with overt opposites. For
example, the narrator frequently contrasts the symbol of light with
darkness in ways that clearly divide the world into good and evil, those
who accept God and those who reject God.17 While acceptance of
water and the reality it represents may ultimately have the same effect,
the Gospel narrative leaves the door open for a positive response.
Water is made available to those who suffer from recurring thirst (Jn
4.15). Jesus offers to let all who will believe in him drink his living
water (Jn 7.37-38). Water symbolizes a reality to choose or reject.
Because water is an archetypal symbol,18 readers of the Fourth
Gospel (or members of the Johannine community) from a variety of
backgrounds could have been familiar with its symbolic function. The
narrator invites all of them to add their previous understandings of
water to its meanings and functions in the Gospel. Unlike symbols that
function as a dividing line, water serves as a bridge linking the new
identity believers receive when they come to faith in Jesus with the
traditions from which they came.19 Although the choice of whether or
not to cross that bridge remains open, the narrator clearly has a pre-
ference. The Fourth Gospel is written so that readers may believe
(20.30-31). The symbol of water gently but persistently encourages
every reader to take (or to reaffirm) that step of faith.
2. Water, Baptism, and the Sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel

As previously stated, readers of the Fourth Gospel have not reached
consensus on the question of its sacramentalism. Some have claimed that
the author of John went farther than any other evangelist in depicting
cribed as never hearing the voice of God or seeing God's form (5.37-38). The
Pharisees who attempt to arrest him are told they cannot come where he will be (7.34).
Opponents in Jerusalem are told that the devil is their father (8.44). The opponents in
the narrative of the healing of the man born blind are told that their sin remains (9.41).
17. Jn 1.4-5; 3.19-21; 8.12; 9.4-5.
18. Wheelwright, Burning Fountain, p. 125. Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 137-
38. For a definition and general discussion of an archetypal symbol, see Frye,
Anatomy of Criticism, p. 113.
19. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV, pp. 37-38, maintains that symbols fre-
quently serve as a 'common denominator' between people with different backgrounds.
He refers to them as the 'lingua franca of the religious symbolism of the time' in
which a symbol is used.
and undergirding the sacraments of the church. 20 Others have con-

cluded that the evangelist did not even know the tradition of the sacra-
ments. 21 Someone has occupied nearly every position between those
extremes and a few have declared the question of sacramentalism both
senseless to ask and impossible to answer.22
It seems safe to assume that if the Fourth Gospel expressed interest
in the sacraments, especially baptism, that would become clear in the
passages involving water. My reading of the narrative, however, finds
little such interest intentionally expressed.23
Baptism is mentioned in the opening chapter in the narrative of the
identification of Jesus as the lamb and Son of God by John (1.19-34).
Baptism has one function in that context: to reveal to John the identity
of the one to come, so 'that he might be revealed to Israel' (1.31).
Although the reader may wonder how baptism could have made Jesus
known to John otherwise, the narrator does not state that John baptized
Jesus. Indeed, nowhere in this passage does the verb 'to baptize' have a
direct object. While that does not deny the baptism of Jesus by John, it
certainly underplays any use of this narrative to establish or support
baptism as a rite or an institution in the believing community. Whereas
Matthew's Jesus openly receives baptism from John in order to 'fulfill
all righteousness' (Mt. 3.15), the Fourth Gospel portrays John solely
as a witness of the descending Spirit.
Just as the narrative includes no direct or subtle call for believers to
accept baptism because Jesus received it, it also fails to depict baptism
as essential because Jesus offered it. The narrator does state that Jesus
baptized (3.22; cf. 3.26), the only such declaration in the New
Testament.24 Yet, the narrator appears to include this detail only for
sake of the contrast between the description of locus of Jesus' ministry
as the Judean countryside with that of John as a place with an abundant
20. Craig, 'Sacramental Interest', pp. 34-35. Cf. Guilding, Fourth Gospel,
p. 58.
21. See, e.g., Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel, p. 108.
22. Lindars, 'Word and Sacrament', p. 45. Cf. Barrett, Essays on John, p. 81.
23. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 257-62, finds more interest in baptism than the
Lord's Supper in the Fourth Gospel. He concludes that most readers familiar with
lustrations could find baptismal imagery in the narrative, but that only those familiar
with Christian practices would find eucharistic imagery present.
24. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, p. 220; Kysar, John, p. 57;
Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 3.411.
6. Conclusion 233
supply of water (3.22-23). That contrast tacitly supplants any signifi-

cance of baptism with water and functions primarily to introduce the
issue of the increasing popularity of Jesus' ministry at the expense of
John's (3.25-30). In answering questions about his waning popularity,
John explains it not by referring to Jesus' baptism with the Holy
Spirit, which the reader might anticipate after 1.33, but instead by
focusing on Jesus' origin and ability to give the Spirit without measure
because he speaks the words of God (3.34). While this does not deny a
baptismal ministry by Jesus, it misses an opportunity to place special
emphasis on it. Any significance attached to Jesus' baptismal ministry
is further reduced with the narrator's later remark that Jesus' disciples
and not he himself baptized (4.1-2). There is no command to baptize
and no reason given for baptism, which reduces any special interest in
baptism the initial scenes of the Gospel may have generated.
Because of the call to rebirth and the discussion of baptism which
follows it, many readers have found references to baptism in Jesus'
dialogue with Nicodemus (3.1-21). Nothing within this narrative sec-
tion, however, makes it imperative to consider Jesus' words a call to
baptism or an explanation of the effect of baptism.25 One of many
contrasts made in this narrative is that of Nicodemus' desire to know
(3.2, 4, 9) with Jesus' insistence that he must believe (3.12) in order to
enter the realm of God. Faith is the only imperative mentioned in this
passage. While baptism as an expression of faith is not excluded, neither
is it explicitly mentioned or supported.
References to baptism have also been found in the interaction at
Jacob's Well between Jesus, the woman of Samaria, and others from
her village (4.1-42). The reference to baptism in the opening verses of
this narrative section, its close association with the dialogue between
Jesus and Nicodemus in which many find the issue of baptism implied,
and Jesus' statement that whoever drinks the water he offers will not
thirst again26 have been used to support this position.
Apart from the introductory statement that Jesus himself did not
baptize, however, there is no mention of baptism in this narrative
25. Odeberg, Fourth Gospel, p. 65, considers it significant that baptism is not
mentioned here, since Johannine discourses are characteristically dominated by their
essential elements.
26. The fact that the verb appears in the aorist tense is said to imply a single drink
and thus refer to baptism by Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 183; and Taylor, John,
p. 46.
section. Support for this weak argument from silence resides in the
contrast between things physical and things spiritual, a prominent aspect
of the narrative. The living water Jesus offers stands in contrast with
the merely physical water of the well, t h e food the disciples bring to
Jesus from the village stands in contrast with the food he had to eat of
which they did not know (4.31-34). The woman comes to the well
with her water jar, but leaves it behind when she returns to tell others
about the man she has met there. While this does not rule out the
possibility of baptismal imagery in the narrative, it casts a shadow of
suspicion on anything primarily physical in nature.
Although allusions to baptism have been found in it for nearly two
millennia,27 the scene involving Jesus and the lame man at the pool of
Bethzatha (5.1-18) appears void of support for the practice of baptism.
Despite the fact that their dialogue takes place at the pool, Jesus never
instructs the lame man to enter that or any water. Indeed, if this narra-
tive did refer to baptism, it would argue against more than advocate
for the rite, because as soon as the lame man becomes able to walk he
betrays Jesus' identity to the authorities.
In contrast to the instructions given to the lame man, Jesus does tell
the man born blind in John 9 to go and wash (9.7-11). This has led to
a long association of this narrative with baptism.28 The fact that the
man born blind must choose between his family and his tradition in
order to accept all of the new beginning to which the washing leads
him invites such an interpretation.
This story comes to a climax when the man born blind confesses his
faith in Jesus as the Son of Man (9.38). Since that confession follows
his washing in the pool, any interest in baptism expressed here would
support the tradition of baptizing infants more than that of believers'
baptism. The washing in the water clearly opens the eyes of the man
born blind and prepares him for new life. But if this action referred
to or prefigured baptism, why does the narrator first have Jesus spread
mud made with saliva over the man's eyes and why does he have him
go to the pool by himself? The man born blind appears to wash himself
and thus is both the subject and the object of the washing. Although
27. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 211.

28. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. 381; Dodd, Historical Tradition,
p. 184; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 340; Quast, Reading the Gospel, p. 74; Riga,
'Man Born Blind', p. 170.
6. Conclusion 235
baptism can be considered to be implied here, the narrator does nothing

to exploit any connection between the actions of the man born blind
and the rite of baptism. Baptismal imagery cannot be ruled out of the
narrative, but the focus is on faith, the faith it took to obey Jesus when
going to the pool and the faith required to confess him as Son of Man.
Washing with water occurs again in the opening section of the scene
of Jesus' farewell to his disciples. Here as well the narrator does little
to exploit the possible references to baptism in the passage. Unlike the
scene with Nicodemus, this narrative focuses not on rebirth but on the
imperative of accepting the actions of Jesus and on a call to service
that imitates his own. If baptismal imagery is present, it depicts
baptism as a call to service more than as a sacramental rite of passage.
The fact that Jesus washes the betrayer's feet along with those of the
other disciples further weakens any use of this passage to establish the
practice of baptism or to argue for its significance. If even a 'baptism'
by Jesus himself could not keep Judas from betrayal, what efficacy
could we expect later baptisms to have? Finally, although it is not
impossible to find allusions to baptism in this narrative, they are not
necessary for understanding it. The ceremonial cleansing of the disci-
ples by Jesus represents his sacrificial ministry, which they must
accept, and their call to similar ministries. That remains true whether
or not the washing anticipates or foreshadows the rite of baptism.
Before turning to two narrative sections often considered central to
the issue of sacramentalism in the Fourth Gospel, it is appropriate to
explore briefly any connection between the narratives in which water
appears and the sacrament of the eucharist.
Although the changing of the water into wine at Cana (2.1-11) might
anticipate the ministry of Jesus as the basis of the eucharist, nothing in
the narrative explicitly supports such a conclusion. This stands true
primarily because only the disciples behold Jesus' glory and come to
faith in him as a result of the wine he prepares and they are not depicted
as receiving it. In contrast, the steward tastes the wine but neither rec-
ognizes its significance nor is led to faith by it. If this narrative has
anything to do with the eucharist, it illustrates that it has no value
unless one has faith. While readers open to an eucharistic interpretation
would agree with that, it is not essential for understanding the narrative.
Because of the mention of the Passover in the opening verse and the
subsequent mention of a meal (13.2), many readers consider the narra-
tive of the footwashing (13.1-20) to have clear allusions to the
eucharist.29 As previously stated, Jesus' insistence on acceptance of

this act supports a sacramental interpretation. Once again, however,
the focus on imitation of what Jesus does calls primarily for sacrificial
acts of service. If a sacrament is a bearer of grace, this service would
be depicted as more sacramental than any liturgical act.
Of the passages examined in this study, only the words of Jesus to
the crowds beside the Sea of Galilee (6.22-59) seem clearly to have
sacramental overtones.30 Jesus' call for them to eat his flesh and drink
his blood (6.53) has only an utterly revolting meaning unless it refers
to the bread and wine of the eucharist. His promise that those who eat
his flesh and drink his blood will abide in him, live because of him,
and live for ever (6.56-58) further supports a sacramental interpre-
tation. The fact that this narrative clearly calls for a sacramental inter-
pretation suggests that such symbolism could appear elsewhere in the
Gospel as well.
Jesus' invitation during the festival of Tabernacles for the thirsty to
come to him and drink (7.37-38) invites the reader to consider this
another reference to the eucharist. If, however, the living water Jesus
promises symbolizes the Spirit (7.39), which he imparts and which
then flows from believers, it is difficult to consider it also a symbol of
eucharistic wine. A reference to baptism is more possible, but even if
that is present the focus remains on the Spirit and not on any specific
act. Jesus also offered living water to the woman of Samaria and in that
context the 'spiritual' nature of the water he offered stood in contrast
with the physical water of the well. Living water in the Tabernacles
scene could refer to the 'spiritual' significance of the eucharistic
cup, but once again the passage can be understood without such an
interpretation.
The flow of blood and water, which issues from the side of the
crucified Jesus, has been called the pivotal text for understanding the
sacramental symbolism of the Fourth Gospel.31 Since sacraments
function as bearers of grace and since the Fourth Gospel depicts the
crucifixion as Jesus' glorification and thereby the supreme representa-
tion of the grace available through him, it is understandable that
29. Maynard, 'Role of Peter', p. 534; Suggit, 'Mystery', p. 66.

John, p. 274; Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 235-36; Lindars, Gospel of John,
pp. 259-60.
31. Ball, 'St John', p. 62; Malatesta, 'Blood and Water', p. 177.
6. Conclusion 237
Christian readers often consider the blood and water symbolic of the
eucharist and baptism. Once again, however, the narrator does not
exploit this possibility. Instead of interrupting the crucifixion scene to
offer a sacramental (or any other) interpretation of this flow, the
narrator breaks into the narrative to verify the authenticity of both the
effusion and the one who witnessed it. This is preceded by the expla-
nation that the interruption is intended to encourage the reader to
believe (19.35). The narrator appears utterly disinterested in matters
of theology (sacramental or otherwise) and focuses entirely on calling
readers to faith. Any interest in sacraments stands secondary to that.
In conclusion, without denying the possibility of finding references
to the sacraments or sacramental symbolism in the Fourth Gospel,
providing such references clearly is not a primary aim of text. That
does not indicate that the position of the narrative is anti-sacramental.
Rather it makes interest in the sacraments, like interest in everything
else, secondary to faith.
Stated negatively, the narrator wants nothing to interfere with faith in
Jesus. Nicodemus must relinquish his desire to know before believing,
the woman of Samaria must receive a gift from someone she expects
to be prejudiced against her, and the man born blind must turn away
from his family and his tradition. If sacraments appeared to hinder
faith, the narrator would want nothing to do with them. Stated more
positively, the significance of any rite or ritual, any knowledge gained,
or any act performed abides in its ability to impart the Spirit made
available to those who believe in the one who comes from God. If sacra-
ments appeared to participate in that, the narrator would embrace them.
Anyone turning to the Fourth Gospel to discover the meaning or
significance of the sacraments, therefore, must insist that they have no
value unless received by believers. No matter how mysterious, their
impact cannot be understood to be magical or a replacement for faith.
Any interpretation of the sacraments based on the Fourth Gospel must
also conclude that they are rooted in the entire ministry of Jesus more
than in any specific acts.32 John includes no words of institution and
no commission to baptize. Instead, everything that Jesus does first and
foremost calls people to faith. The decision to believe in him is depicted
as the most important choice anyone can make. Thus accepting baptism
with water, from John's viewpoint, should indicate acceptance of and
32. Cf. Brown, Gospel according to John, p. CXIV.

entrance into Jesus' entire ministry and not simply imitation of a rite
he accepted or obedience to a specific command he gave. Similarly,
receiving the elements of the eucharist should indicate a life-changing
decision to believe in Jesus and accept him as the supreme gift of God
and not simply participation in a ritual he established or in which he is
remembered. Any significance attached to the sacraments must reflect
the effect they have, that is, it must reflect how they express recog-
nition of and faith in Jesus. As a symbol of Jesus himself, water may
serve as a sacramental symbol, but its meaning and function certainly
transcend that and do not necessarily imply that in every appearance.
3. Final Observations
Many have noted that the Fourth Gospel expresses a dualistic ideology33
and sectarian viewpoint.34 Partly as a result of that and partly because
the work reflects a time when the community addressed by the Gospel
found itself in intense conflict with the Jewish community from which
it sprang,35 the narrative includes a strong polemic against 'the Jews'.36
Unfortunately, many readers have failed to distinguish 'the Jews' as a
fictional character in the narrative from the Jewish people in general
and this depiction of them has often been used for sinful purposes.37
Yet, this narrative was not written primarily to discredit the
opponents of those who believed in Jesus. As I have noted repeatedly,
33. J.H. Charlesworth, 'A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3.13-4.26
and the 'Dualism' Contained in the Gospel of John', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.),
John and Qumran (London: G. Chapman, 1972), pp. 76-106 (98); Kysar, John, the
Maverick Gospel, pp. 47-64; Meeks, 'Man from Heaven', pp. 160-61; Painter,
Quest for the Messiah, pp. 36-47; Rensberger, Johannine Faith, p. 25.
34. Meeks, 'Man from Heaven', pp. 162-65; Rensberger, Johannine Faith,
pp. 19, 135-54; F.F. Segovia, 'The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine
Sectarianism', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 258-72; idem, Love Relationships in the
Johannine Tradition (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 204-12.
35. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; 2 vols.;
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951, 1955), 2.5; Rensberger, Johannine
Faith, p. 25.
36. Jn 5.10-18; 7.1, 10-13; 8.48-59; 9.18-34; 10.31-39; 18.28-32; and 19.13-16
are among the passages in which 'the Jews', as a character in the narrative, are
depicted as the opponents of Jesus.
37. Many commentators make note of this. See, for example, S. Brown, 'John
and the Resident Reader: The Fourth Gospel after Nicea and the Holocaust', Journal
of Literary Studies 5 (1989), pp. 252-61.
6. Conclusion 239
it was written to call to readers to faith (20.30-31). The narrator takes

that purpose seriously and uses all possible means of persuasion. Jesus
is presented as God in action: the only agent God used in creation (1.1-
3), the one sent from above by God (3.31-35; 6.33-35), and the one
empowered by God to help those who believe in him even after his
departure from the world (14.1-7; 15.26-27; 16.7-11). His words and
actions are depicted as the fulfillment of Scripture.38 People are shown
to have new potential for abundant living as a result of newfound faith
in and through him.39 Testimony to the identity and power of Jesus
are presented by a variety of witnesses,40 including elements and events
of nature.41 Far from being neutral, the narrator considers it impera-
tive that the reader believe in Jesus and thereby have life in him.42
As the diversity of the witnesses to Jesus' identity and power indicate,
despite its dualistic and sectarian nature, the Gospel issues a general
call to faith that addresses a rather eclectic group of readers.43 Judaism
may provide the general background of the text, but the readers it
addresses transcend that.44 As Brown and Hengel have noted, different
portions of the narrative appeal to a wide variety of believers.45 Jewish
followers of John, Jewish authorities, Samaritans, Gentiles, those in
positions of power, and the powerless all respond positively to Jesus.
That suggests that the Fourth Gospel makes a 'universal' appeal to
38. Passages depicting ways that Jesus fulfilled Scripture include 12.12-16, 37-
41; 13.18-19; 19.24-25, 28, 31-37.
39. A royal official has his son healed as a result of his faith (4.46-52), a man
born blind gains his sight and new faith (9.1-41), and the disciples receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit (20.19-23).
40. Witnesses include John the Baptist (1.19-36), Nathanael (1.43-49), unnamed
Passover observers (2.23), a woman of Samaria and others in her village (4.28-29,
39-42), a royal official and his household (4.46-52), Pilate (19.1-12), and Joseph of
Arimathea (19.38).
41. Water becomes wine at his command (2.1-11) and he walks on the sea
(6.16-21).
42. Jn 3.14-16; 5.24; 6.45-48; 8.24; 9.35-39; 11.25-26; 19.35; 20.30-31.
43. In his excellent study of Johannine symbolism, Koester argues that a wide
range of readers would have found the symbols of the Fourth Gospel accessible. See
especially Symbolism, pp. xi, 18-24.
44. None of conclusions drawn at the beginning of this chapter are based on
knowledge or understandings of Judaism not present in the text itself.
45. R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist
Press, 1979); M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (trans. J. Bowden; London:
SCM Press, 1989), pp. 114-24.
readers despite its sectarian attitude.46

The diverse characters portrayed in an entirely or partially positive
light in the Gospel narrative support and illustrate this suggestion.47
John and Nicodemus represent the Jewish community. John, who is
somewhat of a renegade (1.19), is depicted as more appealing to the
reader because he constantly and entirely supports Jesus. Nicodemus,
who is a respected leader (3.1), ends his initial meeting with Jesus still
in the dark, but later appears to defend him (7.50-51) and at the end
comes to his tomb with an enormous load of burial spices (19.39). An
unnamed group of 'Greeks' fail to gain an audience with Jesus, but are
presented as curiously open to him (12.20-26). Pilate, a Roman official,
although he eventually gives the order to crucify Jesus, appears to do
so under duress because he is impressed with him (19.1-16). The out-
cast and marginalized are represented by the man born blind and the
woman of Samaria. Despite his lack of power and influence (9.1-2),
the man born blind is elevated by faith above the people of standing
around him (9.35-41). Even a cursory reading of the literature of the
time (and, unfortunately, of most of the commentaries since then),
makes it clear that being a Samaritan was not all the woman Jesus met
at Jacob's Well had going against her. Yet, she is one of the most
positive, if not the most positive, characters in the narrative. She
discusses matters of faith and theology with Jesus (4.16-26), provides
him better food than the disciples (4.31-34), and invites others to come
to him (4.28-30). Most of the women in the narrative are portrayed
positively.48 Mary and Martha express faith in Jesus (11.17-37), Mary
anoints him (12.1-3), and his mother plays a part in his initial miracle
46. At least one reader of the Fourth Gospel has argued that its symbols, although
related to Hebrew Scriptures, have a universal appeal. Jesus, for example, is depicted
as the light, bread, and savior of the world. Johannine symbolism finds expression
in phenomena familiar to all. See F.W. Dillistone, Traditional Symbols and the
Contemporary World (London: Epworth Press, 1973), pp. 26-28.
47. The characters in the Fourth Gospel serve both to reveal aspects of Jesus'
character and to indicate different responses to him. It is not insignificant, however,
that such a diverse group of characters is depicted as responding favorably. Cf. R.F.
Collins, 'The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel—I and IF, Downside
Review 94 (1976), pp. 26-46, 118-32; Culpepper, Anatomy, p. 145; J.A. Du Rand,
T h e Characterization of Jesus as Depicted in the Narrative of the Fourth Gospel',
Neot 19 (1985), pp. 18-36 (25).
48. Brown, Community, pp. 183-98; Nortje, 'Role of Women', pp. 21-28; Rena,
'Women', pp. 131-47; Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel', pp. 35-45.
6. Conclusion 241
(2.1-5) and stands with other women at the cross (19.25).

The presence of that many different characters all responding
favorably to Jesus suggests that the Fourth Gospel challenges as wide
an audience as possible to believe. The content of that belief, however,
is not explained apart from accepting that Jesus came from God and
ministered under direction of God.49 As Nicodemus illustrates, it is
not enough merely to marvel at Jesus because of the signs he performs.
One must believe in him, as Mary and Martha are called to do prior to
the raising of Lazarus (11.25-26). Any dependence solely on acts of
power is discounted when the risen Jesus tells a believing Thomas that
those the most blessed by his ministry are those who believe without
seeing, that is, everyone reading the narrative.
As such, the Fourth Gospel calls for greater unity and acceptance of
diversity in believing communities all too often characterized by divi-
sion and homogeneous groupings. While communities of faith will
always have people pointing their fingers and taking on the role of God
by declaring who does and does not have faith and thus separating
themselves from those they call unbelievers, a Gospel that includes
such a diverse assortment of positive characters challenges those indi-
vidual faith communities to imitate that great diversity.
When Jesus first speaks of the realm of God he declares entrance
into it open to all born of water and spirit (3.3-5). Although he speaks
to a Jewish male of some standing, the narrative segment in which
those words occur clearly indicates that one's privilege and position
have no importance when compared with one's willingness to believe.
Nicodemus stands in stark contrast with the woman of Samaria, who
lacks all of his advantages yet responds more satisfactorily and leads
others to faith as well. Given those examples and the contrast between
them, do those who call themselves believers have any business shunning
those the majority of society label unacceptable?
Nor did Jesus ask the woman of Samaria no longer to be a woman
of Samaria. Instead he envisioned a day of worship in spirit and truth,
a day when human distinctions would no longer matter. Accepting the
living water he offered would suffice to permit entrance into the life
he promised. Similarly, he could turn the water at Cana into wine
because there was no need for further purification. Belief in him made
that unnecessary. If, like Peter at the footwashing, we can accept
49. The noun nxaxxq does not appear in the Fourth Gospel, only the verb TCICC£\>CG.
Jesus' gift of himself as a gift from God, that will suffice to make us
part of him and part of all who believe in him. Such acceptance of
diversity within the faith community marks a major step toward the
acceptance of the diversity found beyond it.
Peterson has identified three ways in which religious narratives
contribute to political and social change: 'through the formation of
collective identity; by motivating different forms of action; and by
providing a Utopian horizon'.50 The use of the symbol of water in the
Fourth Gospel advances all three of those aims. Those who accept the
challenge of believing in Jesus become children of God (1.12-13). As
they follow Jesus' example, they will ignore social boundaries, like
those between Samaritans and Jews, and leave behind family and faith
community, as did the man born blind. They will quench their thirst
for ever (4.13-14) and will become a source of the gift they themselves
have received (4.14; 7.37-38). The Fourth Gospel invites a diverse
group of people to become involved in this change and tacitly challenges
readers to ponder the new world shaped by the presence and influence
of those who do.
When this study began, I considered the viewpoint of the Fourth
Gospel narrow and exclusive. In some places the Johannine Jesus
divides the world into two groups seemingly separated for ever (cf.
8.42). But if the Gospel has the primary purpose of calling a wide
audience to believe (and not merely to convince the faithful they have
made the right choice), does not the writing of the story itself indicate
that the door to the community remains open? Can we not hear the
Gospel call those without community to find and form one? Surely
there are still people like Nicodemus, who have faith but long for
more. Surely there are still people like the woman of Samaria and the
man born blind, who frequent outposts of rejection and are considered
sin itself by others. Surely there are faithful disciples, who need to
accept and be called to service of others. If these and others who thirst
can join together in common faith and service, will not living water
still spring up (4.14; 7.38) and, as they are filled with the Spirit, will
not the light still shine in the darkness? For the sake of the world the
Fourth Gospel says was called into being through the Word, let us
hope so. And, so that our hope will not be mere wishful thinking, let
us endeavor to participate in making that hope a reality.
50. A.L. Peterson, 'Religious Narratives and Political Protest', JAAR 64 (1996),
pp. 27-44.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahr, P.G., '"He Loved Them to Completion": The Theology of John 13,14', in A. Finkel
and L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in
Tradition with Essays (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 73-90.
Allison, D.C., Jr, The Living Water', St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 30 (1986),
pp. 143-57.
Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
Alter, R., and K. Frank (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1987).
Angus, S., The Mystery-Religions and Christianity: A Study in the Religious Background of
Early Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925).
Ashton, J., The Identity and Function of the 'loudaioi in the Fourth Gospel', NovT 27
(1985), pp. 40-75.
—Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
Audet, J.P., 'La soif, l'eau et la parole', RB 66 (1959), pp. 379-86.
Aus, R., Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist: Early Jewish-Christian
Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2:1-11 and Mark 6:17-29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1988).
Bacchiocchi, S., 'John 5:17: Negation or Clarification of the Sabbath?', AUSS 19 (1981),
pp. 3-19.
Ball, R.M., 'St John and the Institution of the Eucharist', JSNT 23 (1985), pp. 59-68.
Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989).
Barabas, S., 'Interpreting the Johannine Literature', in M.A. Inch (ed.), The Literature and
Meaning of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), pp. 149-72.
Barbour, J.D., Tragedy as a Critique of Virtue: The Novel and Ethical Reflection (Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1984).
Barr, J., 'Reading the Bible as Literature', BJRL 56 (1973), pp. 10-33.
Barrett, C.K., Church, Ministry, and Sacraments in the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985).
—Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982).
—The Gospel according to StJohn (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978).
—The Gospel of John and Judaism (trans. D.M. Smith; London: SPCK, 1975).
—'St John: Social Historian', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 10 (1986),
pp. 26-39.
Barth, K., Witness to the Word: A Commentary on John 1 (ed. W. Furst; trans. G.W.
Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
Bassler, J., 'The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research', CBQ
43 (1981), pp. 243-57.
—'Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 635-46.
Beardslee, W.A., Literary Criticism of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969).
Beare, F.W., 'Spirit of Life and Truth: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Fourth
Gospel', Toronto Journal of Theology 3 (1987), pp. 110-25.
Beasley-Murray, G.R., Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962).
—John (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987).
—'John 3:3,5: Baptism, Spirit and the Kingdom', ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 167-70.
Berlin, A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Literature (Sheffield: Almond Press,
1983).
Betz, O., '"To Worship God in Spirit and in Truth": Reflections on John 4,20-26', in
A. Finkel and L. Frizzell (eds.), Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures
and in Tradition with Essays (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 53-72.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Writings (trans, and rev. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1961).
Bligh, J., 'Four Studies in St John, I: The Man Born Blind', HeyJ 1 (1966), pp. 129-44.
—'Jesus in Samaria', HeyJ 3 (1962), pp. 329-46.
Boers, H., Neither on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem: A Study of John 4 (ed. A. Collins;
SBLMS, 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
Boismard, M.E., 4Le lavement des pieds (Jn, XIII, 1-17)', RB 71 (1964), pp. 5-24.
—'De son ventre couleront defleuvesd'eau (Jo., VII, 38)', RB 65 (1958), pp. 523-46.
Bolen, E.R., 'Purity and Pollution in the Fourth Gospel' (PhD dissertation, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1993).
Bonneau, N.R., 'The Woman at the Well: John 4 and Genesis 24', TBT 67 (1973),
pp. 1252-59.
Booth, W., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1983).
Borg, M.J., Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (New York: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1984).
Botha, J.E., Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John 4:1-42
(NovTSup, 65; Leiden: Brill, 1991).
—'John 4.16: A Difficult Text Speech Act Theoretically Revisited', in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.),
The Gospel of John as Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 183-92.
—'Reader "Entrapment" as Literary Device in John 4:1-42', Neot 24 (1990), pp. 37-47.
Bouyer, L., The Fourth Gospel (trans. P. Byrne; Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964).
Braun, F.M., 'Le bapteme d'apres le quatrieme Evangile', RevThom 48 (1948), pp. 347-
93.
—'L'eau et l'Esprit', RevThom 49 (1949), pp. 5-30.
—'Le lavement des pieds et la reponse de Jesus a Saint Pierre (Jean, XIII, 4-10)', RB 44
(1935), pp. 22-33.
—'Le peche du monde selon saint Jean', RevThom 65 (1965), pp. 181-201.
Brawley, R.L., 'An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29', JBL 112
(1993), pp. 427-43.
Brodie, T.L., 'Jesus as the New Elijah: Cracking the Code', ExpTim 93 (1981), pp. 39-42.
Brown, E.K., Rhythm in the Novel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950; repr.,
London: Oxford University Press, 1957).
Brown, R.E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979).
—The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966,1970).
—'The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered', TS 23 (1962), pp. 182-206.
Bibliography 245
—New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965).

Brown, S., 'John and the Resistant Reader: The Fourth Gospel after Nicea and the
Holocaust', Journal of Literary Studies 5 (1989), pp. 252-61.
Bruce, F.F., The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
Brans, J.E., The Art and Thought of John (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969).
Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1971).
—Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; 2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1951, 1955).
Burge, G.M., The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).
Caird, G.B., The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1980).
Carmichael, CM., 'Marriage and the Samaritan Woman', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 332-46.
Carson, D.A., 'The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered', JBL 106
(1987), pp. 639-51.
—'Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel', TynBul 33 (1982), pp. 59-91.
Ceroke, C.P., 'Jesus and Mary at Cana: Separation or Association', TS 17 (1956),
pp. 1-38.
—'The Problem of Ambiguity in John 2,4', CBQ 21 (1959), pp. 316-40.
Charlesworth, J.H., 'A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the
"Dualism" Contained in the Gospel of John', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), John and
Qumran (London: G. Chapman, 1972), pp. 76-106.
Chevallier, M.-A., 'L'apologie du bapteme d'eau a la fin du premier siecle: Introduction
secondaire de l'^tiologie dans les recits du bapteme de J6sus\ NTS 32 (1986),
pp. 528-43.
—'La fondation de TSglise' dans le Quatrieme Evangile: Jn 19.25-30', ETR 58 (1983),
pp. 343-53.
Cohen, T., 'Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy', Critical Inquiry 5 (1978), pp. 3-12.
Collins, R.F., 'Cana (Jn. 2:1-12)—The First of His Signs or the Key to His Signs?' ITQ Al
(1980), pp. 79-95.
—'Jesus' Conversation with Nicodemus', TBT93 (1977), pp. 1409-19.
—'The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel—I', Downside Review 94 (1976),
pp. 26-46.
—'The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel—II', Downside Review 94 (1976),
pp. 118-32.
Cooper, K.T., 'The Best Wine: John 2:1-11', WTJ 41 (1979), pp. 364-80.
Cortes, J.B., 'Yet Another Look at Jn 7,37-38', CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 75-86.
Cotterell, F.P., 'The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal', ExpTim 96 (1985),
pp. 237-42.
Countryman, L.W., The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel: Crossing Over into God
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
Craddock, F.B., John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982).
Craig, C.T., 'Sacramental Interest in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 58 (1939), pp. 31-41.
Crossan, J.D., In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper &
Row, 1973).
Cullmann, O., Baptism in the New Testament (trans. J.K.S. Reid; London: SCM Press,
1950).
—Les Sacraments dans Vevangile Johannique: La vie de Jesus et le culte de Veglise

primitive (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951).
Culpepper, R.A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983).
—TheJohannineHyptfdeigmfl: AReading of John 13', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 133-52.
—'John 5.1-18: A Sample of Narrative Critical Commentary', in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The
Gospel of John as Literature (London: Brill, 1993), pp. 193-207.
—The Narrator in the Fourth Gospel: Intratextual Relationships', in K.H. Richards (ed.),
SBL 1982 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Eighteenth Annual Meeting (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 81-96.
—'Story and History in the Gospels', RevExp 81 (1984), pp. 467-78.
Dahl, N.A., 'The Johannine Church and History', in J. Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation of
John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 121-40.
Danielou, J., 'Le Symbolisme de l'Eau Vive', RevScRel 32 (1958), pp. 335-46.
Darr, J.A., On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in
Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).
Daube, D., 'Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of ai>Y%Tipaoum\ JBL 69
(1950), pp. 137-47.
Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 69; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1992).
De la Potterie, I., 'La mort du Christ d'apres Saint Jean', in M. Dhavamony (ed.) Sens de la
mort dans le christianisme et les autres religions (Rome: Gregorian University Press,
1982), pp. 19-36.
Deeks, D., 'The Structure of the Fourth Gospel', NTS 15 (1968), pp. 107-29.
Delebecque,E., 'Les deux vins de Cana (Jean, II, 3-4)', RevThom 85 (1985), pp. 242-52.
Derrett, J.D.M., Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970).
—'The Samaritan Woman's Pitcher', Downside Review 102 (1984), pp. 252-61.
—'Water into Wine', BZ1 (1963), pp. 80-97.
Dillistone, F.W., Traditional Symbols and the Contemporary World (London: Epworth
Press, 1973).
Dillon, R.J., 'Wisdom Tradition and Sacramental Retrospect in the Cana Account (Jn 2,1-
11)', CBQ 24 (1963), pp. 268-96.
Dodd, C.H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (repr.; Cambridge: Cambridge
—The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (repr.; Cambridge: University Press, 1953).
Donne, J., 'The Flea', in L.L. Martz (ed.), English Seventeenth-Century Verse, I (New
York: Norton, 1969).
Drijvers, H.J.W., 'Ablutions', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (trans. J.C.
Hought and A.S. Mahler; New York: Macmillan, 1987).
Drower, E.S., Water into Wine: A Study of Ritual Idiom in the Middle East (London: John
Murray, 1956).
Du Rand, J.A., 'The Characterization of Jesus as Depicted in the Narrative of the Fourth
Gospel', Neot 19 (1985), pp. 18-36.
Duke, P.D., Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).
Dunn, J.D.G., 'The Washing of the Disciples' Feet in John 13:1-20', ZNW 61 (1970),
pp. 247-52.
Edwards, O.C., Jr, Luke's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
Edwards, R.A., Matthew's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
Bibliography 247
Eliade, M., Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (trans. P. Mairet; New
York: Sheed and Ward, 1952).
Ellis, P.F., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984).
Erich, K., 'The Nature of the Symbol', in R. May (ed.), Symbolism in Religion and
Literature (New York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 50-74.
Eslinger, L., 'The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader and Reader-
Response Criticism', in M.W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as Literature
(Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 165-82.
Fawcett, T., The Symbolic Language of Religion (London: SCM Press, 1970).
Fee, G.D., 'On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4', EvQ 54 (1982), pp. 207-18.
Feuillet, A., Le discours sur le pain de vie (Jean, chapitre 6) (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer,
1967).
—'La signification fondamentale du premier miracle de Cana (Jo., II, 1-11) et le symbolisme
johannique', RevThom 65 (1965), pp. 517-35.
Fish, S., Is There a Text in This Class: The Authority of Interpretive Communities
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).
Flanagan, N. 'The Gospel of John as Drama', TBT 19 (1981), pp. 264-70.
Flemington, W.F., The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1948).
Fletcher, A., Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1964).
Ford, J.M., '"Mingled Blood" from the Side of Christ (John XIX. 34)', NTS 15 (1969),
pp. 337-38.
Fortna, R.T., The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying
the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
Foster, D., 'John Come Lately: The Belated Evangelist', in F. McConnell (ed.), The Bible
and the Narrative Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 113-31.
Fowler, R., 'Born of Water and Spirit (Jn 3.5)', ExpTim 82 (1971), p. 159.
Francis, M., 'The Samaritan Woman', Asia Journal of Theology 2 (1988), pp. 147-48.
Freed, E.D., 'Psalm 42/43 in John's Gospel', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 62-73.
Frei, H.W., 'The "Literal Reading" of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition: Does It
Stretch or Will It Break?', in F. McConnell (ed.), The Bible and the Narrative
Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 36-77.
Frye, N., Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).
—'The Critical Path: An Essay on the Social Context of Literary Criticism', in M.W.
Bloomfield (ed.), In Search of Literary Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1972), pp. 91-194.
—The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich,
1981).
Gachter, O., and A. Quack, 'Symbol, Magic and Religion', TD 37 (1990), pp. 109-14.
Genuyt, F., 'Evangile de Jean: L'entretien avec la samaritaine, 4,1-42, analyse semiotique',
Semiotique et Bible 36 (1984), pp. 15-24.
—'Les deux bains: Analyse semiotique de Jean 13', Semiotique et Bible 25 (1982), pp. 1-
21.
—'Les noces de Cana et la purification de temple: Analyse du chapitre 2 de l'evangile de
Jean', Semiotique et Bible 31 (1983), pp. 14-33.
Giblin, C.H., 'The Miraculous Crossing of the Sea (John 6.16-21)', NTS 29 (1983),
pp. 96-103.
—'Suggestion, Negative Response, and Positive Action in St John's Portrayal of Jesus

(John 2.1-11; 4.46-54; 7.2-14; 11.1-44)', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 197-211.
Girard, M , 'J6sus en Samarie (Jean 4,1-42): Analyse des structures stylistiques et du
processus de symbolisation', Eglise et Theologie 17 (1986), pp. 275-310.
Goodenough, E.R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. IV. The Problem of
Method: Symbols from Jewish Cult (New York: Pantheon, 1954).
—Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. VI. Fish, Bread, and Wine (New York:
Pantheon, 1956).
—Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. VII. Pagan Symbols in Judaism (New
York: Pantheon, 1958).
—Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. IX. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue
(New York: Pantheon, 1964).
—Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. X. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue
(New York: Pantheon, 1964).
—Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. XII. Summary and Conclusions (New
York: Pantheon, 1965).
Gourgues, M., 'L'aveugle-ne" (Jn 9). Du miracle au signe: typologie des reactions a 1'egard
du Fils de l'homme', NRT104 (1982), pp. 381-95.
Grassi, J.A., 'Eating Jesus' Flesh and Drinking His Blood: The Centrality and Meaning of
John 6:51-58', BTB 17 (1987), pp. 24-30.
Grelot, P., '"De son ventre couleront des fleuves d'eau." La citation scripturaire de Jean,
VII, 38', RB 66 (1959), pp. 369-73.
—'Jean, VII, 38: Eau de rocher ou source du temple?' RB 70 (1963), pp. 43-51.
Grese, W.C., '"Unless One Is Born Again": The Use of a Heavenly Journey in John 3',
JBL 107 (1988), pp. 677-93.
Grigsby, B.H., The Cross as an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel', JSNT 15
(1982), pp. 51-80.
—'"If Any Man Thirsts. ..": Observations on the Rabbinic Background of John 7,37-39',
Bib 67 (1986), pp. 101-108.
—'The Reworking of the Lake-Walking Account in the Johannine Tradition', ExpTim 100
(1989), pp. 295-97.
—'Washing in the Pool of Siloam—A Thematic Anticipation of the Johannine Cross', NovT
27 (1985), pp. 227-35.
Guilding, A., The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation ofSt John's
Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960).
Haenchen, E., John. I. A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1-6 (trans. R.W.
Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
—John. II. A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (trans. R.W. Funk;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Hall, D.R., 'The meaning of wyxpaouai in John 4:9', ExpTim 83 (1971), pp. 56-57.
Harrison, S.J., 'Cicero and "Crurifragium"', Classical Quarterly 11 (1983), pp. 453-55.
Hartin, P.J., 'A Community in Crisis. The Christology of the Johannine Community as the
Point at Issue', Neot 19 (1985), pp. 37-49.
Heil, J.P., Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22-33,
Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981).
Hengel, M., The Johannine Question (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1989).
Bibliography 249
Hinderer, W., 'Theory, Conception, and Interpretation of the Symbol', in J. Strelka (ed.),
Perspectives in Literary Symbolism (trans. M. Keune; Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1968), pp. 83-127.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).
Hodges, Z.C., 'The Angel at Bethseda—John 5:4', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 25-39.
—'Rivers of Living Water—John 7:37-39', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 239-48.
—'Water and Spirit—John 3:5', BSac 135 (1978), pp. 206-20.
Holbrook, C.A., The Iconoclastic Deity: Biblical Images of God (London: Associated
University Presses, 1984).
Hollis, M., 'The Root of the Johannine Pun—ikacoGvou', NTS 35 (1989), pp. 475-78.
Hooke, S.H., 'Christianity and the Mystery Religions', in W.O.E. Oesterly (ed.), Judaism
and Christianity. I. The Age of Transition (London: Sheldon Press, 1937), pp. 237-
50.
—'The Way of the Initiate', in W.O.E. Oesterly (ed.), Judaism and Christianity, I The Age
of Transition (London: Sheldon Press, 1937), pp. 213-33.
Hoskyns, E.C., The Fourth Gospel (ed. F.N. Davey; London: Faber & Faber, 1947).
Howard, W.F., 'The Gospel according to St John: Introduction and Exegesis', in N.B.
Harmon (ed.), The Interpreters Bible. VIII. The Gospel according to St Luke and the
Gospel according to St John (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), pp. 435-811.
Hubert, J.M.H., and J.P. van Loon, 'The Personal Meaning of Symbols: A Method of
Investigation', Journal of Religion and Health 30 (1991), pp. 241-62.
Hultgren, A.J., 'The Johannine Footwashing (13.1-11) as a Symbol of Eschatological
Hospitality', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 539-46.
Hundry-Clergeon, C , 'De Judee en Galilee: Etude de Jean 4,1-45', NRT 103 (1981),
pp. 818-30.
Jaubert, A., Approches de Vevangile de Jean (Paris: Editions du Seuil. 1976).
Kahler, E., 'The Nature of the Symbol', in R. May (ed.), Symbolism in Religion and
Literature (New York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 50-74.
Kelber, W., Mark's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
Kermode, F., The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1979).
—'John', in R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds.) The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press, 1987), pp. 440-66.
—The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (London: Oxford University
Press, 1966).
Klos, H., Die Sakramentie im Johannesevangelium: Verkommen und Bedeutung von Taufe,
Eucharistie und Busse im vierten Evangelium (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1970).
Koester, C.R., 'Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John', Bib 70 (1989),
pp. 327-48.
—'"The Savior of the World" (John 4:42)', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 665-80.
—Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1995).
Kort, W.A., Narrative Elements and Religious Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1975).
—Story, Text, and Scripture: Literary Interests in Biblical Narrative (Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988).
Krieger, M., A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare's Sonnets and Modern Poetics

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964).
Kysar, R., 'Johannine Metaphor—Meaning and Function: A Literary Case Study of John
10:1-18', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 81-111.
—John (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1986).
—John, The Maverick Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976).
—John's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
Lawler, M.G., Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental Theology (New
York: Paulist Press, 1987).
Lee, D.A., The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 95; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1994).
Lee, E.K., The Drama of the Fourth Gospel', ExpTim 65 (1953), pp. 173-76.
Leon-Dufour, X., 'Situation de Jean 13', in U. Luz and H. Weder (eds.), Die Mine des
Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 131-41.
—Towards a Symbolic Reading of the Fourth Gospel', NTS 27 (1981), pp. 439-56.
Leonard, J.-M., 'Notule sur l'evangile de Jean: Le disciple que Jesus aimait et Marie', ETR
58 (1983), pp. 355-57.
Levin, H., Contexts of Criticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957).
—'Symbolism and Fiction', in R. Scholes (ed.), Learners and Discerners (Charlottesville,
VA: University Press of Virginia, 1964), pp. 3-27.
Levine, E., 'On the Symbolism of the Pedilavium\ American Benedictine Review 33
(1982), pp. 21-29.
Lightfoot, R.H., St Johns Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
Lindars, B., 'Discourse and Tradition: The Use of the Sayings of Jesus in the Discourses of
the Fourth Gospel', JSNT13 (1981), pp. 83-101.
—The Gospel of John (London: Faber & Faber, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986).
—The Passion in the Fourth Gospel', in J. Jervell and W.A. Meeks (eds.), God's Christ
and His People (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 71-86.
—'Word and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel', SJT29 (1970), pp. 49-63.
Linner, S., 'Literary Symbols and Religious Belief, in H. Biezais (ed.), Religious Symbols
and Their Functions (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International, 1979), pp. 117-
25.
Loader, W.R.G., The Central Structure of Johannine Christology', NTS 30 (1984),
pp. 188-216.
Lohflnk, G., 'Das Weinwunder zu Kana: Eine Auslegung von John 2,1-12', Geist und
Leben 57 (1984), pp. 169-82.
Lohse, E., 'Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium', NTS 1 (1981), pp. 110-25.
Luyster, R., 'Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament', ZAW 93
(1981), pp. 1-10.
Mackler, A.L., 'Symbols, Reality, and God: Heschel's Rejection of a Tillichian Under-
standing of Religious Symbols', Judaism 40 (1991), pp. 290-300.
Malatesta, E., 'Blood and Water from the Pierced Side of Christ (Jn 19,34)', in P.-R.
Tragan (ed.), Segni e sacramenti nel vangelo di Giovanni (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana,
1977), pp. 165-81.
Manns, F., 'Le lavement des pieds. Essai sur la structure et la signification de Jean 13',
RevScRel 55 (1981), pp. 149-69.
Marsh, J., Saint John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968).
Bibliography 251
Martyn, J.L., The Gospel of John in Christian History (New York: Paulist Press, 1978).
—History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1979).
Martz, L.L. (ed.), English Seventeenth-Century Verse, I (New York: Norton, 1969).
Matera, F.J., '"On Behalf of Others", "Cleansing", and "Return": Johannine Images for
Jesus' Death', LS 13 (1988), pp. 161-78.
Matsunaga, K., 'Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental?—A New Solution in the Light of the
Evangelist's Milieu', NTS 27 (1981), pp. 516-24.
Mayer, A., 'Elijah and Elisha in John's Signs Source', ExpTim 99 (1988), pp. 171-73.
Maynard, A.H., 'The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 531-48.
McKnight, E.V., The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism
Meeks, W.A., 'Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 85 (1966), pp. 159-69.
—'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism', in J. Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation
of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 141-73.
Meslin, M., 'Baptism', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (trans. J.C.
Haught and A.S. Mahler; New York: Macmillan, 1987).
Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible
Societies, 1971).
Michaels, J.R., 'The Centurion's Confession and the Spear Thrust', CBQ 29 (1967),
pp. 110-15.
Michel, M., 'Nicodeme ou le non-lieu de la verite', RevScRel 55 (1981), pp. 227-36.
Minear, P.S., 'Diversity and Unity: A Johannine Case-Study', in U. Luz and H. Weder
(eds.), Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983),
pp. 162-75.
—John: The Martyr's Gospel (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984).
Mlakuzhyil, G., The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Rome:
Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1987).
Moloney, F.J., 'When Is John Talking about Sacraments?' AusBR 30 (1982), pp. 10-33.
Moore, S.D., 'Are There Impurities in the Living Water that the Johannine Jesus Dispenses?
Deconstruction, Feminism, and the Samaritan Woman', Biblical Interpretation 1
(1993), pp. 207-27.
—'Illuminating the Gospels Without the Benefit of Color: A Plea for Concrete Criticism',
JAAR 60 (1992), pp. 257-79.
—Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale
Morris, L., Reflections on the Gospel of John. I. The Word Was Made Flesh, John 1-5
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986).
—Reflections on the Gospel of John. II. The Bread of Life, John 6-10 (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1987).
Newman, B.M., and E.A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John (London:
United Bible Societies, 1980).
Neyrey, J.H., 'Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10-26', CBQ 41 (1979),
pp. 419-37.
Nicholson, G.C., Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1983).
Nicol, G.G., 'Jesus' Washing the Feet of the Disciples: A Model for Johannine
Christianity?' ExpTim 91 (1979), pp. 20-21.
Nortje, S.J., 'The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel', Neot 20 (1988), pp. 21-28.
O'Day, G.R., '"I Have Overcome the World" (John 16:33): Narrative Time in John 13-17',
Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 153-66.
—'Narrative Mode and Theological Claim: A Study in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 105 (1986),
pp. 657-68.
—'New Birth as a New People: Spirituality and Community in the Fourth Gospel', WW 8
(1988), pp. 53-61.
—Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia:
—The Word Disclosed: John's Story and Narrative Preaching (St Louis, MI: CBP Press,
1987).
Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious
Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic World (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells,
1929).
Oleson, J.P., 'Water Works', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992).
Olsson, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of
John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42 (trans. J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1974).
Painter, J., John: Witness and Theologian (London: SPCK, 1975).
—The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine
Community (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1993).
—Text and Context in John 5', AusBR 35 (1987), pp. 28-34.
—Tradition and Interpretation in John 6', NTS 35 (1989), pp. 421-50.
Pamment, M., 'Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth
Gospel?' ZAW73 (1982), pp. 221-30.
—'John 3:5: "Unless One is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of
God"', NovT 25 (1983), pp. 189-90.
—'Path and Residence Metaphors in the Fourth Gospel', Theology 88 (1985), pp. 118-24.
Parnham, F.S., 'The Miracle at Cana', EvQ 42 (1970), pp. 107-109.
Paschal, R.W., 'Sacramental Symbolism and Physical Imagery in the Gospel of John',
TynBul 32 (1981), pp. 151-76.
Pazdan, M.M., 'Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship',
BTB 17 (1987), pp. 145-48.
Pennells, S., 'The Spear Thrust (Mt. 27.49b, v. 1. / Jn. 19.34)', JSNT 19 (1983), pp. 99-
115.
Petersen, N.R., The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and
Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International,
1993).
—Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
Peterson, A.L., 'Religious Narratives and Political Protest', JAAR 64 (1996), pp. 27-44.
Pinto, E., 'John: The Gospel of Life', TBT 23 (1985), pp. 397-402.
Poirier, J.C., "'Day and Night" and the Punctuation of John 9.3', NTS 42 (1996), pp. 288-
94.
Pollard, T.E., 'Jesus and the Samaritan Woman', ExpTim 92 (1981), pp. 147-48.
Porter, C.L., 'John IX. 38-39a: A Liturgical Addition to the Text', NTS 13 (1967),
pp. 387-94.
Quast, K., Reading the Gospel ofJohn: An Introduction (New York: Paulist Press, 1991).
Rahner, H., Greek Myths and Christian Mystery (trans. B. Battershaw; New York: Harper
& Row, 1963).
Bibliography 253
Rena, J., 'Women in the Gospel of John', Eglise et Theologie 17 (1986), pp. 131-47.
Rensberger, D., Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1988).
Resseguie, J.L., 'John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis', in R.R. Gros Louis (ed.), Literary
Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982), pp. 295-
303.
Richard, E., 'Expressions of Double Meaning and Their Function in the Gospel of John',
NTS 31 (1985), pp. 96-112.
Richter, G., Die Fusswaschung im Johannesevangelium: Geschichte ihrer Deutung
(Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1967).
Ricoeur, P., Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth,
TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976).
—The Rule ofMetaphor (trans. R. Czerny; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977).
Riga, P.J., 'The Man Born Blind', TBT 22 (1984), pp. 168-73.
Robinson, D.W.B., 'Born of Water and Spirit: Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism?' Reformed
Theological Review 25 (1966), pp. 15-23.
Robinson, J.A.T., 'The Significance of the Foot-Washing', in W.C. van Unnik (ed.),
Neotestamentica etPatristica (Leiden: Brill, 1962), pp. 144-47.
Robinson, J.M., 'The Gospels as Narrative', in F. McConnell (ed.), The Bible and the
Narrative Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 97-112.
Roth, W., 'Scripture Coding in the Fourth Gospel', BR 32 (1987), pp. 6-29.
Rudhardt, J., 'Water', in M. Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (trans. E. Meltzer;
New York: Macmillan, 1987).
Ryken, L., 'Literary Criticism of the Bible: Some Fallacies', in K.R.R. Gros Louis (ed.),
Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974),
pp. 24-40.
Sawicki, M., 'How to Teach Christ's Disciples: John 1:19-37 and Matthew 11:2-15',
Lexington Theological Quarterly 21 (1986), pp. 14-26.
Schnackenburg, R., Baptism in the Thought ofSt Paul (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; New
York: Herder & Herder, 1964).
—The Gospel according to StJohn (trans. K. Smyth; 3 vols; New York: Crossroad, 1987).
Schneiders, S.M., 'Born Anew', TTod 44 (1987), pp. 189-96.
—'The Foot Washing (John 13:1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics', CBQ 43 (1981),
pp. 76-92.
—'History and Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel', in M. de Jonge (ed.), L'Evangile de Jean
(Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1977), pp. 371-76.
—The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1991).
—'Symbolism and the Sacramental Principle in the Fourth Gospel', in P.-R. Tragan (ed.),
Segni e sacramenti nel vangelo di Giovanni (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977),
pp. 221-35.
—'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church',
BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45.
Scholes, R., and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (London: Oxford University Press,
1966).
SchusslerFiorenza, E., 'The Ethics of Interpretation: De-Centering Biblical Scholarship', JBL
107 (1988), pp. 3-17.
Scott, B.B. Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
Segovia, F.F., The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Philadelphia:
—The Final Farewell of Jesus: A Reading of John 20:30-21:25', Semeia 53 (1991),
pp. 167-90.
—'John 13:1-20, The Footwashing in the Johannine Tradition', ZNW 73 (1982), pp. 31-
51.
—'The Journey(s) of the Word of God: A Reading of the Plot of the Fourth Gospel', Semeia
53 (1991), pp. 23-54.
—'The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 258-
272.
—Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982).
—'Towards a New Direction in Johannine Scholarship', Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 1-22.
Sloyan, G.S., John (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988).
Smalley, S.S., 'Salvation Proclaimed VIII. John 1:29-34', ExpTim 93 (1982), pp. 324-29.
Smith, J.Z., 'The Influence of Symbols upon Social Change: A Place on Which to Stand',
Worship 44 (1970), pp. 457-74.
Smith, R.H., 'Exodus Typology in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 329-42.
Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, rev. edn, 1920).
Snyder, G.F., 'John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition', BR 16
(1971), pp. 5-15.
Spriggs, D.J., 'Meaning of "Water" in John 3:5', ExpTim 85 (1973), pp. 149-50.
Staley, J.L., The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the
Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
—Reading with a Passion: Rhetoric, Autobiography, and the American West in the Gospel
of John (New York: Continuum, 1995).
—'Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9',
Semeia 53 (1991), pp. 55-80.
Stemberger, G., La symbolique du bien et du mal selon Saint Jean (Paris: Editions du Seuil,
1970).
Stibbe, M.W.G., John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Fourth Gospel
(ed. G.N. Stanton; SNTS, 73; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
—John's Gospel (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1994).
Suggit, J.N., 'John 13:1-30: The Mystery of the Incarnation and of the Eucharist', Neot 19
(1985), pp. 64-70.
—'John 2:1-11: The Sign of Greater Things to Come', Neot 21 (1987), pp. 141-58.
Talbert, C.H., Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on I and 2
Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987).
—Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the
Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1992).
—Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York:
Crossroad, 1982).
Taylor, M.J., John: The Different Gospel (New York: Alba House, 1983).
Thomas, J.C., 'A Note on the Text of John 13:10', NovT29 (1987), pp. 46-52.
Thompson, M.M., The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988).
Tillich, P., 'The Religious Symbol', in R. May (ed.), Symbolism in Religion and Culture
(New York: George Braziller, 1960), pp. 75-98.
Bibliography 255
Tindall, W.Y., The Literary Symbol (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955).
Tolbert, M.A., Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective
Toussaint, S.D., 'The Significance of the First Sign in John's Gospel', BSac 134 (1977),
pp. 45-51.
Trudinger, P., '"On the Third Day There Was a Wedding at Cana": Reflections on St John
2,1-12', Downside Review 104 (1986), pp. 41-43.
Trumbower, J.A., Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1992).
Vanhoye, A., 'Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2,4)', Bib 55 (1974),
pp. 155-67.
Vawter, B., 'The Johannine Sacramentary', TS 17 (1956), pp. 151-66.
Vellanickal, M., The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1977).
Viviano, B.T., 'The Missionary Program of John's Gospel', TBT22 (1984), pp. 387-93.
Von Wahlde, U.C., 'The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31-40 and Belief in the Fourth
Gospel', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 385-404.
Wagner, G., Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (trans. J.P. Smith; Edinburgh:
Oliver & Boyd, 1967).
Walcutt, C.C.y Introduction to Moby Dick, by Herman Melville (Toronto: Bantam Books,
1981).
Wead, D.W., The Literary Devices in John's Gospel (Basel: Freidrich Reinhardt, 1970).
Webster, E.C., 'Pattern in the Fourth Gospel', in D.J.A. Clines, P.R. Davies, and D.M.
Gunn (eds.), Art and Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982),
pp. 230-57.
Weiss, H., 'Foot Washing in the Johannine Community', NovT 21 (1979), pp. 298-325.
Wellek, R. and A. Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company,
1942).
Westcott, B.F., The Gospel according to St John (2 vols.; repr.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
1980).
Wheelwright, P., The Burning Fountain: A Study in the Language of Symbolism
(Gloucaster, MA: Peter Smith, 1982).
—Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962).
Whitacre, R.A., Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1982).
Wilder, A.N., The Language of the Gospel: Early Christian Rhetoric (New York: Harper &
Row, 1964).
Wilkinson, J., 'The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34', SJT 28 (1975),
pp. 149-72.
Witherington, B., 'The Waters of Birth: John 3.5 and 1 John 5.6-8', NTS 35 (1989),
pp. 155-60.
Witkamp, L.T., 'The Use of Traditions in John 5.1-18', JSNT 25 (1985), pp. 19-47.
Wojciechowski, M., 'La source de Jean 13.1-20', NTS 34 (1988), pp. 135-41.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 42.1-2 203 Ezekiel
24 109 51.7 204 36.25-26 48,75
24.10-61 91 69.21 203 37.5-6 48
29 109 78.15 154 39.29 48
29.1-30 91 87.7 110 47.1-9 210
29.7 97 104.10 110 47.1 154
49.10-12 56 107.35 110 47.12 154
114.8 110
Exodus
Hosea
2 109 Proverbs U.I 56,59
2.15-22 91 5.15-18 98
12.22 201, 204 5.15 92 Joel
12.46 201, 208, 9.17 92 2.28-29 75
213 13.14 99 3.1
14 136 18.4 99, 154 4.18 56
14.19-25 139
19-24 63 Isaiah
Amos
11.2 50 9.13-14
Numbers 56,59
12.3 154
9.12 201, 208, 29.17 56
213 Zechariah
32.15 48
12.6 73 40.3 43 12.10 213
41.18 110 13.1-3 48
Deuteronomy 43.19-21 154 14.8 155, 210
2.14 127 44.3 14.16-21 151
48, 75, 154
21.22 208 55.1-2 18.4 154
154
21.23 208 58.2 154
Ecclesiasticus
58.11 110,154
Joshua 24.21 99
59.21 48
8.29 208 61.1 50
10.27 208 Baruch
24 103 Jeremiah 29.5 56
24.15 103 2.13 98,99
17.13 99
Psalms 31.5 56
41.9 193 31.12 59
NEW TESTAMENT
1.18-21 68 1.30 46
Matthew
1.18 38 1.31 37, 44, 47,
31 41
232 1.19-17.26 36 49, 61, 78,
3.15
4.12 80 1.19-12.50 36 79, 84, 219,
11.2-3 80 1.19-3.36 36 232
14.22-27 136 1.19-2.11 63 1.32-33 40, 45, 47,
1.19-36 239 222
1.19-35 66 1.32 47,158
Mark
1 4. 41 1.19-34 29, 35-37, 1.33 37, 48, 49,
i .*+ 64, 71, 84,
80 49, 85, 219,
1.14 232 87, 94, 191,
6.45-51 136
1.19-28 38,40 215, 219,
1.19-23 40,41 223, 233
Luke
'i on 80 1.19-21 40, 41, 45 1.34 38-40, 45,
80 1.19 38, 40, 41, 48, 84, 219
7.18-19
45, 158, 240 1.35-51 37,121
1.20-21 44 1.35-42 51
Johtt
85 1.20 39,41,42, 1.35 38, 52, 55
1-3
36 82 1.36 201, 204,
1.1-18
1.1-3 239 1.21 39 208
38 1.22-23 40,41,43, 1.39 38, 58, 224
1.1-2
1.3-4 155 45 1.40-46 108
1.4-5 231 1.22 42 1.41 157
1.4 68,113 1.23 39, 41, 43, 1.42-44 187
68,139 46,50 1.43-51 51
1.5
1.6-8 39 1.24-34 69 1.43-49 239
1.7 42, 44, 69 1.24-28 68,80 1.43 52,55
1.8 47,82 1.24-27 40,43 1.46 107, 158,
1.9 104 1.24-26 40, 43, 45 224
1.10-13 73 1.24-25 223 1.48 61,183
1.10-11 42 1.24 43, 82, 88, 1.49 52
1.10 158, 191 95 1.50-51 52,55
1.11-12 190 1.25 44,81 1.50 59,62
1.11 42, 103, 204 1.26-27 40, 43-45 1.51 52
1.12-13 50, 242 1.26 44, 47-49, 2-4 36
1.12 62, 63, 69, 191, 219, 2 65, 67, 175
70, 155, 222 2.1-25 37
217, 220, 1.28 40,45 2.1-12 11
225 1.29-34 11,39,40, 2.1-11 29, 35, 37,
70, 212 45, 219, 224 51, 53, 84,
1.13
1.14 62, 90, 104 1.29 37, 39, 40, 86, 92, 113
1.15 39, 44, 46 45, 52, 55, 120, 132,
1.17-18 134 201, 204, 133, 141,
1.17 100, 104, 208, 219 151, 195,
128 1.30-31 40, 45, 46 220, 239
John (cont.) 3.1-15 117, 137, 3.14 73, 83, 95,
2.1-5 241 148, 197
2.1-2 104, 213
54 3.1-10 27,158,223 3.15
2.1 73, 88, 90,
52, 53, 121, 3.1-6 133 152
225 3.1-3 66,67 3.16-17 133
2.3-10 54,55 3.1 67, 95, 152, 3.16 184, 222
2.3-4 54-56 240 3.17-21 222
2.4 56, 183 3.2 66-69, 72, 3.17 133, 166,
2.5 54, 55, 58 97, 132, 173
2.6-8 220 139, 221, 3.18 173
2.6 54-56, 58, 233 3.19-21 68,231
81, 85, 109, 3.3-8 113 3.21 69
152 3.3-5 241 3.22-36 36
2.7-8 54, 55, 60 3.3 67, 69-71, 3.22-30 11,29,35,
2.7 63 74, 195 37, 54, 60,
2.8 60, 166 3.4-8 66,69 76-78, 83,
2.9-10 54, 55, 61, 3.4 66, 69, 75, 86,94
204 99, 189,
2.9 3.22-24 78,92
60, 61, 63, 221, 225, 3.22-23 78, 224, 233
72, 158, 233 3.22 66,71,77-
191, 223 3.5-9 88
2.10 79, 151,
53, 223 3.5-8 75
2.11 222, 232
52-54, 61, 3.5 11,37,67, 3.23-24 29, 78, 79
62, 116,
70-72, 74, 3.23 77, 79-81,
117, 121,
88, 99, 104, 83, 222,
156, 220
2.12 111, 151, 225, 226
53,77
212, 214, 3.24 80
2.13-3.21 121
218, 221, 3.25-30 80, 222, 233
2.13-22 52, 125, 133
224, 225 3.25-26 78, 81, 92
2.13-21 27 3.6 72,75 3.25 80, 88, 109
2.13 179 3.7 67, 71, 73, 3.26 71, 79, 80,
2.17 203 83, 95, 104, 82, 84, 121,
2.18-21 100 105 222, 223,
2.18-20 134 3.8 61, 72, 74, 232
2.18 52 76 3.27-30 77, 78, 82,
2.19-21 210 3.9-21 66,72 93
2.22 53, 188, 200 3.9-12 116 3.27 77, 81, 82,
2.23-25 65, 68, 116, 3.9 66, 72, 75, 84
125, 132, 221, 225, 3.28 81,82
137, 205 233 3.29-30 81
2.23 77, 151, 239 3.10 66, 67, 72, 3.29 83,92
2.25 101, 183 75, 191, 221 3.30 77, 83, 95,
3 65, 76, 93, 3.11 66, 67, 72 104
95 3.12 73, 75, 88, 3.31-36
3.1-21 29, 35, 37, 77,93
221, 233 3.31-35 239
65, 66, 74, 3.13-14 100 3.31 77
125, 188, 3.14-16 239 3.34 166, 233
221, 233
3.35 185
3.36 70 4.14-15 113 4.31-34 114,234,
4-6 89,143 4.14 99-101, 106, 240
4 87,93, 115, 112, 114, 4.31 107, 205
122, 127, 142, 143, 4.32-33 107
175 155, 161, 4.32 107, 203
4.1-5.47 36 203, 210, 4.34-38 108
4.1-42 35, 89, 92, 212, 218, 4.34 184, 205
93, 109, 224, 226, 4.35 94, 108, 109
115, 121, 242 4.39-42 93, 108, 239
188, 205, 4.15 91, 92, 100, 4.39 93, 108, 145
223, 233 189 4.40-41 93
4.1L-30 11 4.16-26 240 4.40 92
4.1L-15 27 4.16-20 94, 96, 101 4.41-42 109, 111,
4. L-6 93,94 4.16 96 119
4. L-3 93, 116, 4.17 101, 143 4.42 92,93, 110,
123, 134 4.18 101 118
4. L-2 71,233 4.19 90, 102, 4.43-45 115
4. 11,94, 121 170, 173 4.43 115,119
4.2 79,94 4.20 102, 152 4.44-45 121
4.3-4 93,115 4.21-26 94, 96, 103 4.44 115
4.3 93,95, 116, 4.21 57, 96, 103, 4.45 116, 118
121 110, 111, 4.46-54 35, 89, 115,
4.4-6 93 125, 133 116, 121,
4.4 91, 93, 95, 4.22 103, 111, 132
102, 109 116,191 4.46-52 239
4.5-6 95 4.23-24 104, 111, 4.46 89, 116,
4.5 144 224 117, 121,
4.6 91, 95-97, 4.23 87, 104, 225
99 110, 112, 4.47-50 117,118
4.7-26 93,96 144 4.48 116-18, 120
4.7-15 89, 94, 96 4.24 104,111 137
4.7 89-91, 96, 4.25 90, 104, 4.49 118, 155
97, 100, 107, 158 4.50-53 129
203, 205 4.26 104, 113, 4.50 116-18
4.8 97 224 4.51-53 119
4.9 98, 101, 4.27-38 93 4.51 119
102, 108, 4.27-30 94 4.52 119
223 4.28-30 240 4.53-54 116
4.10 90,98, 113, 4.28-29 91, 100, 4.53 117,119
152, 155, 226, 227, 4.54 93, 116, 120
224 239 5-12 122
4.11 61, 99, 173 4.28 114,224 5-10 36
4.12-15 202 4.29 90, 104, 5 93, 116,
4.12 90,99, 110 106, 107, 122, 123,
4.13-14 110, 224, 157, 196, 143, 167,
242 224 168
4.13 100 4.31-38 107
John (cont.) 5.18 123, 132, 210, 217,

5.1-18 11,29,35, 134 226
89, 116, 5.19-47 123 6.38-40 184
121-24, 134, 5.19 123 6.38-39 172
137, 149, 5.24 239 6.38 166
151, 175, 5.30 184 6.40-43 227
226, 234 5.35 166 6.40 70
5.1-9 152 5.37-38 231 6.41-42 89,158
5.1 77, 122, 5.39-47 111 6.44 166
125, 151, 5.39-40 127 6.45-48 239
179 5.41-44 156 6.51 137, 140,
5.2-9 125, 126 6 123, 145, 158, 205
5.2-3 126 148, 172, 6.52 89
5.3-4 122, 124 226 6.53-54 172
5.4 134 6.1-10.42 36 6.53 137, 148,
5.5 126, 127 6.1-15 136-38 236
5.6 122, 126, 6.1-14 89 6.54 144
128 6.1 77, 123 6.55 89, 144, 210
5.7 122, 126, 6.2 123 6.56-58 236
128, 134 6.4 151 6.56 174
5.8-9 124, 126, 6.14-15 157 6.57 166
129 6.14 137 6.58 145
5.8 121, 122, 6.15 137, 139 6.60-71 142
129, 130 6.16-21 11,35,89, 6.61 183
5.9 124, 129, 136-38, 140, 6.63 71,113
130, 210 151, 226, 6.64 183, 185,
5.10-18 238 239 190
5.10-13 125, 129 6.16-18 138, 139 6.66-71 163
5.10-11 129 6.16 139 6.66-69 137
5.10 130, 131 6.17 139 6.66 89
5.11 124, 130, 6.19-21 138, 140 6.68-69 189
132 6.19 138 6.68 187
5.12-13 130 6.20 194 6.69 141
5.12 130 6.21 210 6.71 185
5.13 130, 132 6.22-71 136, 138, 7-10 161, 162,
5.14 77, 122, 142 176
125, 130, 6.22-59 141, 151, 7-9 176
132, 135, 236 7 147-50
226 6.22-34 142 7.1 150, 238
5.15 124, 125, 6.29 138 7.2-4 149
131 6.32 104 7.2 179
5.16-18 125, 132, 6.33-35 239 7.5 147
207 6.35-59 142 7.6 159
5.16 123, 132, 6.35-39 89 7.10-13 238
133 6.35 89, 137, 7.10 149, 162
5.17 122, 132, 140-42, 144, 7.12 159, 161
133 153, 196, 7.14-24 111
7.14 149, 162
7.15 149 7.41-42 157, 161 9.1-2 162, 240
7.16 166 7.41 147 9.2-5 164
7.18 156 7.43-44 157, 159 9.2 163, 171,
7.25-31 159 7.45-52 149 172, 174
7.25-28 61 7.45 149 9.3-5 165
7.25-27 158 7.50-51 230, 240 9.3 162, 165,
7.25-26 147, 161 8-10 149 172, 185
7.26-31 157 8.1 162 9.4-5 231
7.26-27 149 8.2 162 9.4 68
7.26 149 8.12-59 162 9.5 172
7.27-29 161, 191 8.12 149, 162, 9.6-7 162, 164,
7.27 171 165, 231 165
7.28 166 8.13 163 9.7-11 234
7.29 166 8.14 61 9.7 135, 148,
7.30 57, 147, 8.16 166 151, 162,
159, 183 8.18 166 166, 172,
7.31 161 8.19 191 175, 183,
7.32 149 8.20 57,183 227
7.34 231 8.24 194, 239 9.8-13 164, 167
7.35 149, 229 8.26 166 9.11 135, 151,
7.36-39 11 8.28 194, 213 162, 167,
7.37-44 29, 35, 148- 8.29 166 169, 170,
50, 202, 227 8.31-58 162 175, 227
7.37-39 150, 161 8.31-33 147 9.12 175
7.37-38 150, 203, 8.32 104 9.14 164, 168
224, 229, 8.37-38 153 9.15-34 163, 168
231, 236, 8.37 166, 183 9.15-17 168, 169
242 8.40 104 9.15 162, 169,
7.37 147, 148, 8.42 166, 184, 227
176, 196, 242 9.16 175, 208
228 8.44 183, 231 9.17 147, 167,
7.38-39 71, 113, 8.45 104 169, 170,
211,216 8.48-59 238 175
7.38 90, 148, 8.58-59 147, 162 9.18-34 238
155, 156, 8.58 100, 194 9.18-23 168, 170
196, 200, 8.59 162, 165 9.18-19 169
210, 218, 9 27, 122, 9.18 169
229, 242 130, 131, 9.23 169
7.39 94, 150, 152, 162, 9.24-34 168, 171
156, 159, 180, 234 9.24-31 191
188, 206, 9.1-44 35, 162, 163 9.24 171, 183
210, 217, 9.1-41 11,29, 161, 9.25 171
227, 229, 174, 227, 9.26 171
236 239 9.27 171
7.40-44 150, 157 9.1-14 163, 164 9.28-29 171
7.40-42 150 9.1-11 195 9.29-30 61
7.40-41 157 9.1-5 164, 165 9.31-33 171
7.40 147, 161 9.1-3 208 9.31 167
John (cont.) 12.4 185 13.7 187, 188,

9.32-33 147 12.12-19 180 192, 228
9.32 167 12.12-16 239 13.8-10 215
9.33 167, 169 12.12 179,180 13.8 179, 182,
9.34 169 12.17-18 179 186, 188,
9.35-41 163, 172, 12.20-26 240 194-96, 215,
240 12.23-24 205 228
9.35-39 239 12.23 57, 180, 183 13.9-10 197
9.35-38 167, 172 12.27 183, 185 13.9 189
9.36 173 12.28 180 13.10 63, 179,
9.38 163, 172, 12.32-33 180 187, 189,
234 12.32 213 195-97, 228
9.39-41 172, 173 12.35 139 13.11 181, 186,
9.39 173 12.37-43 180 190, 217
9.40 163, 172 12.37-41 239 13.12-19 182, 191
9.41 163, 172, 12.37 179 13.12-17 28
183, 231 12.41-42 179 13.12-14 185
10.1-18 163 12.44-50 180 13.12 179, 182,
10.11 186, 191, 12.55-56 179 191, 195,
205, 209 13-19 36, 217 196, 228
10.14 191 13 155, 180, 13.13-17 191, 192
10.15 186, 191, 181, 183 13.13-15 192
209 13.1-20.31 36 13.14 155, 179,
10.17-18 191, 209 13.1-17.26 198 194-96, 228
10.17 186 13.1-20 11,29,35, 13.15 182
10.19 163 151, 179-82, 13.16 192, 194
10.21 147 195, 228, 13.17 192
10.30-31 147 235 13.18-19 191, 193,
10.31-39 238 13.1-14 182 239
10.35 200 13.1-4 183 13.18 181, 190,
10.40-41 83 13.1 55, 57, 151, 194, 200
10.40 147 178-83, 188, 13.20 155, 191,
11-12 36 194, 195, 194, 198,
11 45 203, 209 218
11.1-17.26 36 13.2-4 183,184 13.21 181, 190
11.1-44 179 13.2 179-81, 190, 13.26 190
11.3 184 198, 235 13.27 185
11.5 184 13.3 187 13.30 68, 181,210
11.10 68 13.4 191 13.31-17.26 181
11.17-37 240 13.5-11 182, 186 13.31-32 156
11.25-26 239, 241 13.5 178, 179, 13.32 210
11.31-39 111 186, 187, 14 155
11.36 184 195, 228 14.1-7 239
11.48 178 13.6-10 186, 187 14.6 104, 189
11.50-52 178 13.6-8 185 14.7 70
11.54 179 13.6 179, 188, 14.8 103
12.1-8 180 195, 228 14.11 103
12.1-3 240 14.15 231
14.16-17 71, 155, 18.11 202, 203 19.31-33 200, 207,
160, 216, 18.13-19.16 198 208
227, 229 18.14 199 19.31 214
14.17 104 18.28-32 238 19.33 201
14.20-23 194 18.35 206 19.34-35 200, 207,
14.25-26 188, 216, 18.37 104 209
229 19 58 19.34 11, 151,
14.26 71, 104, 19.1-16 240 154-56, 160,
113,156 19.1-12 239 199, 201,
14.33 141 19.9 61 229
15.1 104 19.13-16 238 19.35 155, 199,
15.10 194 19.14 97, 185, 214, 229,
15.13 184, 186, 201, 204, 237, 239
209 208, 212, 19.36-37 200, 207,
15.25-26 206 214 213
15.25 203 19.15 208 19.36 200, 208,
15.26-27 239 19.16 199, 206 214
15.26 104, 156, 19.17 199 19.37 200
160, 216, 19.19-23 199 19.38 77, 199, 239
227, 229 19.23-25 199 19.39 202, 230,
16.7-13 156 19.24-25 239 240
16.7-11 239 19.24 200 19.42 199
16.7 206, 216, 19.25-27 199 20 36
229 19.25 241 20.15 57
16.13 104, 113, 19.28-37 35, 198-200, 20.19-23 239
188 214 20.21-23 160
16.25 105 19.28-30 200, 202 20.21 212
16.27-38 105 19.28-29 200, 202 20.22-23 156, 230
16.27-30 105 19.28 97, 199, 20.22 71, 104,
16.27 105 200, 239 154-56, 206,
16.31-38 105 19.29 201, 212, 211,215,
17.1 57 214 218
17.12 200 19.30 154, 178, 20.30-31 231, 239
17.20-23 194 184, 200, 20.31 113, 209,
17.20-21 189 202, 205, 212,214
18.1-20.31 36 214, 215, 21.1-25 36
18.1-12 198 218, 229
18.1-4 180 19.31-37 29, 200, Revelation
18.2 206 207, 239 22.1 154
18.4-8 199
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES
Pseudepigrapha Early Christian Midrash

1 Enoch Gos. Thorn. Cant. R.
10.19 56 108 155 4.12 92,98
4.15 98
21.14 186
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ahr, P.G. 186 75, 77, 94-96, 99, 104, 106, 109,
Allison, D.C. 29 112, 114, 117, 119, 124, 135-37,
Alter, R. 33, 91 140, 151, 153, 154, 156, 160, 164,
Ashton, J. 134, 206 166, 168, 172, 174, 176, 184-89,
Aus, R. 53, 59, 60 191-94, 197, 201, 202, 204-206,
208-10, 212, 234, 236, 237, 239,
Bacchiocchi, S. 133 240
Ball, R.M. 184, 216, 236 Brown, S. 238
Barrett, C.K. 26, 27, 51, 52, 56, 58- Bruce, F.F. 44, 55, 57, 59, 60, 98, 99,
60, 64, 94, 95, 99, 103, 104, 106, 173, 188
113, 117, 119, 124, 125, 127, 140, Bruns, J.E. 21, 37, 127
153, 154, 156, 158, 166-68, 170, Bultmann, R. 45, 57, 62, 107, 111,
173, 181, 184-90, 192, 193, 197, 124, 153, 160, 168, 173, 179, 182,
198, 201, 203-206, 208, 209, 211- 185, 188-90, 197, 201, 204, 205,
13, 215, 216, 221, 232, 236 208, 213, 236, 238
Barth, K. 38, 71, 221
Beardslee, W.A. 30 Carmichael, CM. 91, 92
Beare, F.W. 109, 153 Ceroke, C.P. 57
Beasley-Murray, G.R. 49, 56, 59, 69, Charlesworth, J.H. 238
78, 106, 152, 186 Collins, R.F. 53, 57, 62, 67, 240
Betz, O. 101, 103 Cooper, K.T. 56
Blass, F. 74 Cortes, J.B. 153
Bligh, J. 97 Countryman, L.W. 83, 108, 117, 128,
Boers, H. 90, 98, 100, 102, 106-108, 133, 139, 197, 204
115 Craddock, F.B. 117, 181, 198
Bolen, E.R. 48, 90, 220 Craig, C.T. 26, 212, 216, 232
Bonneau, N.R. 91 Crossnan, J.D. 30
Booth, W. 33 Culpepper, R.A. 12, 14, 16, 17, 19,
Borg, MJ. 122 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 32-34, 39, 51,
Botha, J.E. 95, 98, 101, 106 86, 87, 121, 123, 125, 126, 132,
Bouyer, L. 47, 135, 198, 216 164, 181, 183, 185, 186, 189, 192,
Braun, F.M. 153, 154 194, 196, 221-23, 230, 240
Brawley, R.L. 203, 204
Brodie, T.L. 164 Darr, J.A. 32
Brown, E.K. 19, 87, 223, 225 Daube, D. 98, 106
Brown, R.E. 26-28, 38, 42, 45, 47, Davies, M. 64, 70, 95, 154, 211
48, 53, 57, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 71, Debrunner, A. 74
Delebecque, E. 57 Hoskyns, E.C. 42, 59-61, 78, 127,
Derrett, J.D.M. 56 153, 154, 166, 188, 196
Dillistone, F.W. 240 Howard, W.F. 83, 153, 154, 170, 171,
Dodd, C.H. 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 41, 64, 188,213
65, 109, 135, 155, 176, 195, 196, Hubert, J.H.M. 86, 87
210, 212, 216, 231, 234 Hultgren, A.J. 182, 187, 189, 195, 197
Donne, J. 15, 17
Drijvers, H.J.W. 49 Jaubert, A. 29, 216
Duke, P.D. 92
Dunn, J.D.G. 186, 196-98 Kahler, E. 16
Kelber, W. 31
Edwards, O.C. 31 Kellogg, R. 19, 32
Edwards, R.A. 31 Kermode, F. 91, 151, 153, 154
Eliade, M. 11 Klos, H. 216
Ellis, P.F. 43, 54, 56, 63, 97, 125, Koester, C.R. 12, 18, 24, 25, 31, 34,
139, 151, 158, 163,201,202,216 50,64,76,90,99, 106, 110-12,
Eslinger, L. 92, 98, 99, 102 127, 155, 186, 215, 232, 239
Krieger, M. 32
Fawcett, T. 16, 17, 51, 86, 87, 145,
Kysar, R. 26, 31, 33, 41, 46, 53, 63,
161, 222
73, 81, 90, 94, 103, 124, 134,
Fee, G.D. 124
154, 155, 161, 166-68, 172, 173,
Flemington, W.F. 49
184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193, 196,
Ford, J.M. 201, 202
197, 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, 210,
Foster, D. 53, 198, 206
213, 232, 238
Francis, M. 90
Freed, E.D. 203
Lawler, M.G. 16-18, 86, 87, 145
Frye, N. 15
Lee, D.A. 17, 18, 22-25, 115, 145
Gachter, O. 15, 18, 51 Leon-Dufour, X. 21, 22, 71, 196, 221,
Genuyt, F. 52 230
Goodenough, E.R. 18, 62, 70, 110, Levin, H. 15, 221, 223, 225, 227
151, 152, 160, 161, 231 Levine, E. 186
Grelot, P. 155 Lightfoot, R.H. 28, 45, 63, 71, 84, 97,
Grese, W.C. 69 99, 151, 156, 164, 197, 204
Grigsby, B.H. 136, 211 Lindars, B. 27, 43, 46, 49, 64, 69, 70,
Guilding, A. 26, 125, 136, 137, 164- 73,81,99, 101, 103, 106, 114,
66, 232 124, 127, 137, 139, 151, 153, 154,
156, 160, 167, 176, 179, 183-86,
Haenchen, E. 41, 56, 57, 59, 67, 70, 190, 193, 196, 201-204, 206, 208,
71, 99, 166, 171, 187, 192, 216 209, 210, 213, 216, 232-34, 236
Hall, D.R. 98 Lohse, E. 198
Harrison, SJ. 208 Loon, J.P. van 86, 87
Heil, J.P. 139, 141 Luyster, R. 72
Hengel, M. 239
Hinderer, W. 225 Mackler, A.L. 14, 115
Hirsch, E.D., Jr 21 Malatesta, E. 215, 216, 230, 236
Hodges, Z.C. 124 Marsh, J. 41, 51, 52, 106, 111, 151,
Holbrook, C.A. 14, 51, 87 153, 166, 168, 185, 196, 201, 205,
Hollis, M. 73 208, 216
Martyn, J.L. 54, 125, 163, 170 Resseguie, J.L. 163, 164, 174
Matera, F.J. 188 Richard, E. 21
Matsunaga, K. 26 Richter, G. 182
Mayer, A. 61 Ricoeur, P. 16
Maynard, A.H. 197, 198, 236 Riga, P.J. 167, 173, 176, 234
Meeks, W.A. 22, 238 Robinson, J.A.T. 195, 197
Meslin, M. 49 Roth, W. 53, 127
Metzger, B.M. 124, 189 Rudhardt, J. 12
Michel, M. 67
Minear, P.S. 210-12, 216 Sawicki, M. 38
Mlakuzhyil, G. 54, 164 Schnackenburg, R. 45, 48-50, 53, 55,
Moloney, F.J. 27 57, 59, 65, 67, 69, 70, 77, 81,
Moore, S.D. 30, 99, 156, 203 106, 112, 124, 125, 137, 152, 153,
Morris, L. 98, 153 156, 164, 168, 171, 172, 176, 182-
84, 186, 188-90, 193, 194, 197,
Newman, B.M. 60, 166, 171, 186, 201-203, 204, 206, 208, 210, 213,
187, 191, 192, 202 216, 232
Neyrey, J.H. 92, 100 Schneiders, S.M. 12, 17, 18, 21, 23,
Nicholson, G.C. 58 25, 51, 67, 69, 70, 105, 106, 145,
Nida, E.A. 60, 166, 171, 186, 187, 186, 223, 225, 230, 240
191, 192, 202 Scholes, R. 19, 32
Nortje, S.J. 64, 240 Segovia, F.F. 31-33, 36, 151, 179,
181-83, 187, 188, 195, 197, 198,
O'Day, G.R. 22, 33, 54, 66, 96, 97, 238
105, 106, 112, 164, 171, 183 Shiissler Fiorenza, E. 71, 211, 215
Odeberg, H. 29, 70, 111, 233 Sloyan, G.S. 202, 209
Oleson, J.P. 110 Smalley, S.S. 38, 46
Olsson, B. 29, 59, 60, 63 Smyth, H.W. 74
Snyder, G.F. 193
Painter, J. 19, 22, 77, 95, 98, 122, Staley, J.L. 32, 33, 36, 42, 53, 91,
140, 141, 164, 230, 238 110, 132,165, 170
Pamment, M. 70 Stemberger, G. 12, 21, 29, 30
Parnham, F.S. 58, 60 Stibbe, M.W.G. 36, 54, 101, 102, 211
Paschal, R.W. 27, 64, 173, 216 Suggit, J.N. 184, 236
Pennells, S. 210
Petersen, N.R. 30, 32, 242 Talbert, C.H. 31, 179, 201, 204, 208,
Pinto, E. 112 213
Poirier, J.C. 165 Taylor, M.J. 114, 186, 191, 211, 233
Potterie, I. De la 206 Thomas, J.C. 189
Thompson, M.M. 57
Quack, A. 15, 18, 51 Tillich, P. 17
Quast, K. 164, 176, 186, 191, 192, Tindall, W.Y. 15, 17, 223, 225
201, 204, 234 Tolbert, M.A. 31
Trumbower, J.A. 69
Rahner, H. 225
Rand, J.A. Du 240 Vellanickal, M. 69, 71, 221
Rena, J. 90, 240 Viviano, B.T. 61
Rensberger, D. 27, 28, 67, 170, 238
Wagner, G. 49 Wheelwright, P. 14, 17, 51, 231
Walcutt, C.C. 19 Whitacre, R.A. 42, 100, 112, 203
Warren, A. 14, 51 Wilder, A.N. 30, 223
Wead, D.W. 21 Wilkinson, J. 208
Weiss, H. 182 Witherington, B. 29, 70
Welleck, R. 14, 51 Witkamp, L.T. 122, 128
Westcott, B.F. 156, 185
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
10 R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective
11 CJ. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting
12 D.L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old
Testament Christology
13 R.P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal
History in Mark 7
14 M.L. Soards, The Passion according to Luke: The Special Material of
Luke 22
15 T.E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels
16 S.H. Brooks, Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings
Material
17 A.T. Hanson, The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought ofSt Paul
18 C. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and
Discipleship in Matthew 11.25-30
19 L.J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul's Eschatology
20 M.D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm
21 M.C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension
Narratives in Context
22 M.C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1
Corinthians 15 and Romans 5
23 M. Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy
24 J. Marcus & M.L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament:
Essays in Honor ofJ. Louis Martyn
25 D.E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal
26 T.J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology
27 C.C. Black, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current
Debate
28 D. Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Pauls
Concept of Salvation
29 G.W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts
30 F.W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians
31 D.R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design
32 K. Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in
Crisis
33 M.A. Beavis, Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark
4.11-12
34 P.H. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and
Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles
35 A.P. Winton, The Proverbs of Jesus: Issues of History and Rhetoric
36 S.E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the
Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus
37 A. J.M. Wedderburn (ed.), Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays
38 D. J. Weaver, Matthew's Missionary Discourse: A Literary Critical Analysis
39 G.N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1-4
40 J.L. Sumney, Identifying Paul's Opponents: The Question of Method in
2 Corinthians
41 M.E. Mills, Human Agents of Cosmic Power in Hellenistic Judaism and the
Synoptic Tradition
42 D.B. Howell, Matthew's Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric
of the First Gospel
43 H. Raisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays (trans. D.E. Orton)
44 S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews
45 N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy
and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism
46 J.O. York, The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke
47 P.J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus
48 W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple
Presented to Ernst Bamniel
49 J.M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews
50 D.F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric
in Honor of George A. Kennedy
51 J.A. Crafton, The Agency of the Apostle: A Dramatistic Analysis of Paul's
Responses to Conflict in 2 Corinthians
52 L.L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul's Polemical Use of the Moses-
Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1-18
53 T.J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae
54 R.P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology, with
Special Reference to Luke-Acts
55 L.A. Jervis, The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure
Investigation
56 D. Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John
57 B.W. Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4
Ezra and Romans 1-11
58 D.A. Neale, None but the Sinners: Religious Categories in the Gospel of
Luke
59 M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in
Romans 12.1-15.13
60 S.E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays
61 J.C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community
62 R.L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study
63 J.S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing
of their Land, 100 BC-AD 70
64 H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition
65 D.A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26
66 N. Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and
Authority in Earliest Christianity
67 F.S. Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations
68 M. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in
Matthaean Redaction
69 M. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel
70 J.W. Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in
Revelation 20
71 M. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus
72 S.M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts
73 M.E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to
the Hebrews
14 E.K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the
Gospel of Mark
75 J. Kin-Man Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in
Corinth
76 R.W. Wall & E.E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in
Canonical Criticism
11 R. Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity
78 L.G. Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians
79 B. Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew's Gospel
80 S.E. Porter & D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and
Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research
81 In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians
82 B.W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4
83 C.A. Evans & J.A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel
84 M.C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New
Testament Christology in Honour ofMarinus de Jonge
85 W.J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the
Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1
86 B.H. McLean (ed.), Origins of Method: Towards a New Understanding of
Judaism and Christianity—Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd
87 M.J. Wilkins & T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the
Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin
88 M. Coleridge, The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in
Luke 1-2
89 C.A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological
Background of John's Prologue
90 S.E. Porter & T.H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament:
Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference
91 J.C. Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again
92 E. Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew
93 J. Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation:
Visionary Antecedents and their Development
94 C.A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel
95 D.A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of
Form and Meaning
96 R.E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae
97 E.K. Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in
Mark 14-16
98 C J . Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in
1 Thessalonians 2.14-16
99 N. Richardson, Pauls Language about God
100 T.E. Schmidt & M. Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New
Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H Gundry
101 J.A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter
Closings
102 J.F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major
Figures in Mark's Gospel
103 W. Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20
104 C.A. Evans & W.R. Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of
Israel
105 W.P. Stephens (ed.), The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in
Honour of James Atkinson
106 J.A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts
107 E. Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist
108 L.A. Jervis & P. Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians,
Galatians and Romans for R.N. Longenecker
109 E.S. Malbon & E.V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the
New Testament
110 M.L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its
Fulfillment in Lukan Christology
111 I.H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters
112 J.B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity
113 S.E. Porter & D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in
Biblical Greek
114 L. Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian
Paraenesis
115 S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation
116 C M . Tuckett (ed.), Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays
117 K.G.C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23
118 T.W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to
a Cynic Critique
119 D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel
120 S.E. Porter & D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study
111 T.C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient
Christian Letter
122 A.D.A. Moses, Matthew's Transfiguration Story in Jewish-Christian
Controversy
123 D.L. Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and
Interpretation
124 D.M. Ball, 7 Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and
Theological Implications
125 R.G. Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses according to
John
126 B.H. Mclean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and
Pauline Soteriology
127 R.B. Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and the
Rhetoric of Criticism
128 T. Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark
129 CJ. Davis, The Names and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New
Testament Christology
130 C.S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's
Imprisonments
131 S.E. Porter & T.H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology:
Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference
132 J.N. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse
133 M.S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New
Paradigm
134 L.J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New
Testament World
135 C. Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle ofJude
136 J.T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the
Debate over Lierary Integrity
137 R. Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Contexts of Early Christian Literature
138 K. Clarke, Textual Optimism: The United Bible Societies' Greek New
Testament and its Evaluation of Evidence Letter-Ratings
139 Y.-E. Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel
140 T.R. Yoder Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior from
Isaiah to Ephesians
141 R.I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in
the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts
142 S. Cunningham, Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Persecution
in Luke-Acts
143 R. Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of
Jesus
144 S.J. Roth, The Blind, the Lame and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts
145 L.P. Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John

The Symbol of Water in The Gospel of John

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Symbol of Water in The Gospel of John

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Symbol of Water in The Gospel of John

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

library of new testament studies

Larry Paul Jones

Sheffield Academic Press

Larry Paul Jones

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

Although I bear full responsibility for the errors and inadequacies of

AusBR Australian Biblical Review

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

1. Water in the Gospel of John: Why Ask the Question?

In the Fourth Gospel, water serves in nearly every capacity mentioned

The use of water in these passages establishes it as a principal symbol

2. We could expect such prominence for the symbol of water in a religious

in the ways in which the narrator employs symbolic language. The

awareness. I intend to offer one way to interpret and understand the

7. R. Wellekand A. Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt,

For example, 'love is a razor' is a metaphor. Readers know what

13. J. Donne, 'The Flea', in L.L. Martz (ed.), English Seventeenth-Century

existing', 19 and Erich Kahler concludes that a symbol 'originates in

19. M.G. Lawler, Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental

nature of life and the meaning of human existence.

26. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 182-83.

scendent reality to which a symbol points, she adds to its function as a

expands in meaning as a narrative progresses.39 From E.K. Brown's

39. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 182-83; Holbrook, Iconoclastic Deity, p. 61;

3. A Brief Look at Johannine Symbolism

symbolic vehicle, along with its narrative context, to provide insights

54. Leon-Dufour, 'Towards a Symbolic Reading', p. 454.

to the Fourth Gospel.62 He moves firmly into a literary approach to the

giving rise to faith as an authentic reader response'.69 She declares

at the same time points in some way to who Jesus is.72

72. Koester, Symbolism, pp. xi, 1-5.

4. The Sacramentalism of the Fourth Gospel

76. Cf. K. Matsunaga, 'Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental?—A New Solution

few have declared the question impossible to answer because it is

and non-sacramental see R.E. Brown, The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered',

5. A Brief Survey of Previous Studies of Water in the Gospel

82. Cf. Brown, 'Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered', pp. 183-84;

85. H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contempo-

sin. 90 Dodd broadly describes water as a symbol of purification,

90. Stemberger, La symbolique, pp. 151, 170.

involved a shift from uncovering the various historical layers of a text

meaning. Literary critics, however, attempted to ask not only how a

101. M. Krieger, A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare's Sonnets and Modern

irony, and other literary devices;107 the use of repetition, type-scenes,

narrative progresses water represents Jesus, revelation, new life, and

110. Culpepper, Anatomy, pp. 192-95.

reading of the text and an understanding of the meaning and function

WATER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS

1. Segovia, 'Journey(s) of the Word', pp. 23-54 (35-51); Staley, Print's

ministry in motion by calling his first disciples (1.35-51), performing

1. Narrative I: The Witness of John (1.19-34)

The Context of John 1.19-34

John 1.19-34 as a Narrative Section: Literary Structure and

John identifies himself to a delegation from Jerusalem. He first declares