When we look at the term “the Jews” in the book of John (or the Fourth Gospel), it’s important to carefully examine what the FG author is trying to communicate, why this one particular term is used in a negative context roughly 40 times throughout the book (as opposed to between five and seven positive uses). Misunderstandings of this image have not only caused Christians to miss out on intended meaning of the text, but it’s led them to horrifically inaccurate thoughts of Judaism as a religion and Jews as people.
Thankfully strides are being made in the whole of biblical studies – and Johannine studies are no exception – regarding the relationship between the New Testament message and first-century Judaism. More and more biblical scholars are concerning themselves with the history and context of the New Testament, rather than parsing NT books into allegorical and spiritualized categories for Christians who wish to read their Bible for its sentences rather than its meaning. Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls aided Johannine studies, as it helped scholars to understand how seemingly Hellenistic elements could fit into a Palestinian setting.
The FG, more than any other New Testament book, has benefited from this shift in perspective, the increased recognition of Christianity as a sect, a continuation, of first-century Judaism.
HOW WE KNOW THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS JEWISH
One case for the Jewishness of the FG is the author’s detailed familiarity for the language and symbols of both Judaism and the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. While this familiarity would hardly make the case for Jewishness on a stand-alone basis, it does provide one good building block from which to start. Gentile Christians also used the Jewish Bible (the LXX), as they saw themselves as people grafted into the olive tree of God’s people. But the explicit, continuous use of OT language and Jewish images goes beyond the level of familiarity possessed by most Gentile Christians (who would have likely began to deeply study the OT upon conversion to Jewish Christianity).
The author communicates in a hermeneutic that is inexplicably geared toward a Jewish audience. The FG is at least partly organized around the Jewish liturgical year, and while Diaspora Jews were familiar with the feasts, very few non-Christian and non-Jewish Gentiles would have been particularly keen to these images and references. Some of the settings and situations in the FG would have made nearly no sense outside of a Jewish context; to a Jewish audience these symbols were obvious and deeply rooted.
In other words, while the Jewish audience of the FG would’ve been familiar with larger Mediterranean culture, non-Jewish members of that larger culture would’ve been ignorant to the Jewishness of the FG.
Jewish customs are on part of the assumed knowledge in this book. For instance, purification vessels (2.6), Jesus’ Jerusalem visit at Passover (2.13, 23), the conversation about circumcision on the Sabbath (7.22-23), and the need for witnesses (8.13-18). The FG is ordered around festivals, whether Passover (chs. 2, 6, 18-19), the Sabbath (ch. 5), Tabernacles (chs. 7-10), or Hanukkah (10.22-39).
The description of Jesus and his role certainly indicate the Jewishness of the FG. Jesus is the paschal lamb (1.29, 36; 19.36), the king of Israel and Jacob’s ladder (1.51). He is the Psalmist’s sufferer in 2.12-22, and the Lord coming to purify his temple (Mal 3.1-3). He is God’s appointed means of deliverance in the wilderness (3.14; Num 21.8-9), and the well in the wilderness for Jacob’s descendants. (4.14; Num 21.16-17). Finally, he’s the “King of the Judeans” (19.19-22).
WHEN THE GOOD BOOK GOES BAD
While the pro-Jewishness of the book seems apparent based on these literary roots, this topic has been a tripping point for many biblical scholars, who have wavered in identifying the FG as an intra-Jewish polemic or a Gentile-sourced attack on Judaism. And one particular phrase – “the Jews” – has been at the heart of their debate. Some scholars, church leaders, and laypersons have taken the FG depiction of “the Jews” as anti-Jewish, and they really took off with the idea. The phrase became fundamental for medieval and modern Christian understanding of Judaism as a faith and Jews as people. Their anti-Judaism quickly and easily snaked into anti-Semitism. The Nazi propaganda and anti-Semitic tracts that circulated less than one century ago used the FG extensively, as a supposed proof-text for its claims regarding Judaism. “The Jews” were depicted in that material as sub-humans who, as an entire people, failed to see Jesus for his messiahship – either because of stupidity, pride, or simply because they were embodied in a untermenschen (sub-human) composite.
It is ignorant and naive to suggest that Christians in the aftermath of the Holocaust have rid their theology of each and every heretical pitfall that propelled them to a gospel of hate toward their spiritual siblings. Handling the FG – and this recurring phrase, “the Jews,” specifically – is paramount to establish a history of careful, accurate, Spirit-guided biblical studies and pastoral teaching.
KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY
As is the case today in families or any type of membership unit, there’s a strong difference between outside slander and critique from within. (It’s one thing to say something harsh to a family member in a moment of contention; it’s a whole separate thing when someone from outside the family chooses to project strong language against the family.) Even the most elementary study of Jewish history will illumine a long history of critique from within, of intra-family debate. Just as it would be dangerous to read the OT prophets as anti-Jewish polemic, so too is it atrocious to conceive of the FG as an anti-Jewish text.
One of the biggest problems with establishing “the Jews” in an anti-Jewish context is that Jesus himself receives the reference. The FG’s account of the incarnation mentions Jesus as a “Jew” (4.9) from Nazareth (1.45). What’s interesting in Jesus’ case is that he is called a Jew only by non-Jews – the Samaritan woman (4.9) and Pilate (18.35) – as if his own people would not own up to him (1.11). That Jesus takes on the title “Jew” for himself, and that it is never confessed by his aggressors in Jewish leadership, points toward the notion that the term, in its most common usage throughout the FG, is a device of irony that implies Jesus’ opponents (Jewish leaders, not all Jews) view of him.
“The Jews” is generally used to describe Jerusalem-based leaders. They’re at the center of Judean opposition to Jesus. For the Johannine community, they serve as representation for those Judean leaders in their day, those who were keeping Johannine believers out of the synagogue. This type of Jew – “the Jews” of the FG – often represent corrupt Judean leadership, in Jesus’ day and at the time of the FG’s composition.
IRONY AND ITS IMPACT
These “Jews” are both tragic and ironic characters in a book that is filled with irony. The irony employed by Jesus through, and along with, the writer of the FG was not missed on the book’s intended audience. Diaspora and Palestinian Jews alike would have been familiar with rhetoric and literary devices of Greco-Roman literature, and the OT – especially in the prophets – contains (sometimes scathing) ironic statements and images meant to strike a chord in the hearts of the audience.
Irony in the FG often centers on misunderstanding of Jesus’ words or Judaism, of which Jesus is the essence and embodiment. Jesus often speaks in double entendre in the FG, especially gearing those remarks to religious leaders. For instance, “the Jews” attack Jesus’ messianic claims based on his place of birth; they “know” that he’s not from Bethlehem (whereas “the Jerusalemites” and “the Pharisees” admit that they don’t know Jesus’ origin). These leaders want Jesus put to death so that the Romans won’t take their place and nation, yet the audience of the FG would know that the Romans did, in fact, end up taking their place and nation. Irony prevails when Pilate acknowledges Jesus as “King of the Jews” while Jewish leaders deny it.
Another clear example of irony in the FG is the juxtaposition of Nicodemus with the Samaritan woman. Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law, does not recognize Jesus as God’s Word, while the Samaritan woman is able to acknowledge him as such. Her willing faith rubs harshly against Nicodemus’ fear of losing power and influence; as a result, it’s the Samaritan woman to whom Jesus reveals himself.
Again characters are juxtaposed at the end of the FG when the Beloved Disciple – Lazarus, I say – is compared with Simon Peter. John 17 is where we find Peter and “another disciple” (the Beloved Disciple) heading to the door of the high priest’s court. This other disciple is allowed in by the doorkeeper because he is known by the high priest. (The backstory to this is that the scene is taking place about two miles from where Lazarus lived. Lazarus is wealthy and influential – part of the “who’s who” of the locale. His affinity for Jesus would’ve been well known, and the monumental news of Lazarus’ resurrection certainly traveled to Jerusalem authorities.)
In John 20 Peter and the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” approach the tomb. The text goes out of its way to emphasize that the other disciple ran faster than Peter to the tomb. In John 21, it is this “other disciple whom Jesus loved” explaining to Peter that the person before them is the Lord.
Why is this an example of irony? Because the Johannine community – centered around Lazarus, a leader in the messianic church in Jerusalem – was struggling to merge with, and find place in, the Apostolic Church (founded on Peter) at the time of the FG’s composition. Lazarus, the most favored character (besides Jesus himself) in the FG, is a tangible demonstration of the Johannine community’s faithfulness to Jesus’ message. The FG is a faith-building testament to the fact that, while the Apostolic Church had some differences with the Johannine community, their leader, Lazarus, though a different type of leader than Peter, was loved by Jesus as an example of true faith.
In the FG, the Law is constantly used positively as a sign pointing toward Jesus, yet the people who oppose Jesus attempt (and fail) to use the Law as a tool to disprove his messianic claims. When the FG claims that the Law is their Law, this is a form of irony, a statement that these leaders, of all people, should rightly handle and apply the Law. (The device shows up when referencing their father Abraham in 8:39-40 and their Moses in 9:28-29. Neither references are derogatory toward the biblical heroes; likewise the FG is not condemning the Law.)
WHO ARE “THE JEWS”
The “Jews” of the FG represent those Jewish leaders who did not accept Jesus’ claims, those who claimed to understand the essence of Judaism and to be examples of right living. However, when Judaism in all its perfection hit the ground via the incarnation of Jesus, some of these Jewish leaders were blind to Jesus, or “Judaism done right.” It is the Jewish leaders, and not Jesus, who are to be considered the antithesis of Judaism. “The Jews” in the FG is not a pejorative toward all Jewish people; it is a defense of Judaism against those who claimed to have it right but had abused their power and influence. It is corruption, and not Judaism, that is the problem in the FG. Jesus defeats the former and embodies the latter.
