The anonymity of the feast, whether it was the Evangelist’s intention or not, has caused conjecture by many commentators not only regarding the name of it but also regarding the broader structure of the Gospel. Michaels (2010, 287) proposes that ‘this unnamed “festival of the Jews” could be any festival between the first Passover in Jerusalem (2:13) and the second Passover (presumably a year later) at the time Jesus fed the multitude in Galilee (6:4)’. There are a few things to be considered before assuming it is a particular feast. First, the modifier τῶν Ἰουδαίων is used in the Gospel only for feasts commanded by the Lord, so the unnamed feast of the Jews is probably one of the seven feasts mentioned in Leviticus. Secondly, for three feasts male Jews are required to ascend to Jerusalem, so the feast might be one of those three feasts since Jesus ascended to Jerusalem for the feast. Thirdly, three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55) appear in the Gospel and the name of each is mentioned without exception, so ‘it is unlikely... that the author intends us to think it [the unnamed] as Passover’ as Michaels (2010, 287) points out. The feast is located between two Passover observances, therefore it would be either Pentecost or Tabernacles. Fourthly, the feast of Tabernacles is also mentioned by name in the Gospel. Therefore, the probability is that the unnamed feast is Pentecost. Brown (1966, 206) points out that ‘[a]n early tradition in the Greek church identifies this unnamed feast as Pentecost’. Calvin (1961, 116) supports this claim, taking the ‘four months to the harvest’ as his evidence. He says that ‘the order of time leads us to understand it as Pentecost’ (116). Identifying the unnamed feast is not the point,
96
however, though the story related to the feast is well matched with the missional nature of Pentecost.
The Evangelist describes Bethesda, the place into which Jesus entered, as ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ (near the Sheep Gate). According to Nehemiah 3:1, the priest, Eliashib, and other priests rebuilt the Gate. It is probably so-named because the Gate is the place where ‘the sheep were brought into Jerusalem for sacrifice’ as Brown (1966, 206) describes and sacrifice is one of the main elements of the feasts no matter which feast it is (Num 28:19, 27; 29:2, 8, 13). In this sense, the Sheep Gate symbolizes religious fervour. The Jews’ commitment to God could be measured at this Gate by the quality of the sacrifice without defect. The Sheep Gate is the appropriate place to be for all Jews who come to Jerusalem for the feast. Jesus, however, goes not to the Gate, but to Bethesda, a pool where a great number of the sick are gathered. This visit might be a surprise for his disciples primarily, and secondarily for readers of the Gospel who knew the tradition. By going to the pool first instead of to the Gate or the temple, Jesus reveals that the important point is not how well the people of God keep the feast but whether the essence of the feast is still present. The essence of the feast is to know the meaning of it rather than simply to follow the rules. As Jesus says, quoting Hosea in Matthew, ‘[b]ut go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”37 For I
have not come to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matt 9:13). There are lots of people who need ‘mercy’ near the place of ‘sacrifice’. The essence of the sacrifice is to enhance ‘mercy’ as a way of reminding the Jews who participate in the feast that they are to reveal the mercy of God to the world. The Sheep Gate in the Gospel, however, or more precisely, the Jews, did not fulfil their role. Alan Kerr (2002, 276), who suggests that the unnamed feast represents all feasts,38 insists that ‘John may be pointing in the
subsequent verses to a picture of Judaism (including the festivals) in its weakness and impotence’.
Jesus does not stop there, though. If it is a passive challenge for the Jews that he goes to the pool first instead of to the Gate, now he challenges them actively by breaking the Sabbath Law. The day he heals a sick man at the pool is the Sabbath. Again, the primary concern for the Jews is to keep the Law rightly and thereby they have just cause to persecute Jesus because of this violation. Jesus justifies himself
37 Hos 6:6a. 38 Kerr, 2002, 206.
saying, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working’ (5:17). The response of the Jews in answer to Jesus is not curiosity about what kinds of work God and Jesus are doing but displeasure at the blasphemy of Jesus claiming he is equal with God (5:18). It is interesting that a few recent Johannine commentaries39 also
interpret the verse (5:17) in the latter perspective. The thrust of the argument in the commentaries is that God does not cease his work in sustaining the universe, and that Jesus injects himself into the same level with God by saying so. When the argument goes in the direction of the latter perspective, the consequent questions may be similar to those Michaels (2010, 302) poses:
Does it mean that after creating the world God continued working until now, but that now Jesus takes over in God’s place? Or does it mean that God continued working and is still at work, only now through Jesus the Son? Or that God has been at work ever since creation, first through the preexistent Son and now through the incarnate Son? Or is it simply that God is still at work, and Jesus is God’s imitator, like a son apprenticed to his father?
However, I argue that the question should be regarding what kinds of work God and Jesus are doing, and that all this needs to be understood within the overall theme of the Gospel. The study already discussed in the previous chapter the relationship God and the Word had before the world was created. Their relationship was the foundation for Creation, Incarnation and creating a New Community. Therefore, the work of God and Jesus in the Gospel should not be described in generalities such as sustaining the universe and so on. Instead, it should be understood within both a redemptive and a missional perspective. First, the work of God and Jesus is redemptive. God is doing his work by sending his own son into the world. The fact that the Son is in the world signifies that the Father is working at the moment, the work of salvation. Secondly, it is missional. The Father created all creatures through the Word. The Father sent the incarnate Word to the world, so the Father is creating something through the incarnate Word, Jesus, in the world. The whole life of Jesus reveals the process of the new creation. The discipleship community is the start of the new creation; the community is expected to continue the work. In that sense, it is missional.
I propose that the Evangelist uses the unnamed feast and the following narrative to reveal the missional identity of the chosen nation. If the analysis that the unnamed feast is Pentecost is plausible, then the narrative is well matched with the meaning of the feast. Pentecost is the feast requiring the Jews to bring the first fruits (of wheat), and
39 Köstenberger (2004, 185); Michaels (2010, 301-302) uses ‘life’ instead of ‘universe’ saying ‘God is at
98
it later signified the birth of the church. Acts records the church as birthed in the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus (cf Acts 2).