One of the unique characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, when compared to the Synoptic Gospels, is the feast-centred narrative of the Gospel. The word ‘Feast’ and ‘Passover’ are frequently used22 and the two feast terms, σκηνοπηγία (the feast of Tabernacles) and
ἐγκαίνια (the feast of Dedication) only appear in the Gospel and nowhere else in the New Testament. Mollat (in Daise, 2007, 47) notes that ‘[t]he Jewish festivals are the “milestones” (“les jalons”) of Johannine kerygma, which, in distinction to the Synoptics, center Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem; further, they are the contexts in which the semeia and discourses of that kerygma receive their significance’. Flebbe (2009, 112) also proposes:
The mention of feasts in John has a different, and substantially deep-seated purpose. It is therefore clear that feasts are revealing and qualifying events in the narrative sequence, in which dealings and dialogues of Jesus are reported. In this way it is shown that John’s appears largely (if not almost exclusively) within the context of feasts, and his works have to be seen in conjunction with feasts.
Jewish feasts are mentioned six different times in the Gospel: three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), an unnamed feast (5:1), the feast of Tabernacles (7:2) and the Dedication (10:22). Since Jesus in the Gospel makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the season of the feasts,23 most of the narratives in the Gospel happen in Jerusalem or
somewhere in Judea, while the backdrop of his public ministry in the Synoptic Gospels is Galilee or somewhere in the North. In the encounters of Jesus with the Jews, the Jewish feasts not only provide the background of the scenes but also are woven into the content of the ensuing arguments.
Before each feast is discussed, it is necessary to examine how the feasts are viewed overall in the Gospel. The feasts in the Gospel function as the background for Jesus to reveal the contrasting and complementary role he fills in the Jewish traditions. Those who emphasize the contrastive aspect between Jesus and the Jewish traditions claim that Jesus himself replaces the Jewish traditions. Kerr (2002, 266-267) states that
22 The word ἑορτὴ (feast) is used 17 times (7 times in the Synoptics) and πάσχα (Passover) 10 times (16
times in the Synoptics) in the Fourth Gospel.
23 The only exception to Jesus not being found in Jerusalem at the time of the feast mentioned in the
‘[t]here seems to be an underlying critique of the festivals running through chs. 5-11 of the Gospel’. He supports this by pointing out that ‘Jesus seemed to have little respect for the festivals. He scarcely attended them’. On the other hand, there are scholars who see the complementary or fulfilling feature of Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish traditions. Wheaton (2015, 24) insists that ‘[a]s Jesus never adopts a negative attitude toward the Law but rather sees himself as the fulfilment of it, so he does not condemn the institutions of Judaism but participates in them’. It is true that there are disputes between Jesus and the Jews in the Gospel and, at the same time, it is also true that Jesus does not criticize the Law itself. The point, however, is not whether Jesus is the replacement or fulfilment of the Jewish traditions. Furthermore, even if Jesus is seen as the replacement of them, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus has a negative attitude toward them. Likewise, there is no straightforward equivalence between fulfilment and a positive attitude. Whether Jesus is the replacement, fulfilment or both, the point is that the Jews fail to keep the meaning of the traditions, particularly the inclusive attitude towards others, such as those individuals with whom Jesus interacts in the Gospel. The dispute between Jesus and the Jews on the traditions should be viewed from this perspective.
The Gospel uses the term τῶν Ἰουδαίων (of the Jews), the genitive of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to modify the feasts (2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55).24 Porter (2015, 163) provides a
syntactic function of the genitive form, saying, ‘οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is used within a genitive word group modifying a head term indicating a feature of Jewish religion-ethnicity. The governed genitive word group indicating the Jewish people as a whole restricts the meaning of the head term, often identifying it by restricting the range of options’. He means that the feast of the Jews indicates the feasts are only for the Jewish people themselves. This syntactic explanation provides a basis for both negative and positive reactions from scholars. Those who see the negative aspect of the phrase insist that it is evidence for a distance between the Jews and the Evangelist.25 However, it is hard to
defend that distance considering both Jesus’ participation in the feasts by ascending to
24 Out of six feasts in the Gospel, the Dedication (10:22) is the only feast introduced without the modifier.
The Dedication is not one of the pilgrimage feasts, so the modifier functions to differentiate the pilgrimage feasts and non-pilgrimage one even though it is not the primary function of the modifier.
25 Köstenberger (2004, 104) summarizes those claims as follows: ‘Barrett (1978: 197) conjectures that the
phrase may presuppose the existence of a Christian Passover at the time writing (so, earlier, Westcott 1908: 1.89; cf Borchert 1996:162). Schnackenburg (1991: 1.345 [1980a, 345]) and Beasley-Murray (1999: 39) suggest that the evangelist or the church had stopped participating in the Jewish Passover. Witherington (1995: 86-87) notes that the phrase indicates a certain distance between the author and Judaism and at least a partial Gentile audience (similarly, Morris 1995: 169)’.
90
Jerusalem and the feast-centred structure of the Gospel. The negative position, if there is one, does not come from renouncing the feasts by creating a gap between the Evangelist or Jesus and those referred to by the modifier τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Rather it comes from a desire on the part of the writer to recover the significance of the feasts through emphasizing participation in them and confronting the shift in their meaning (as Jesus did) and through focusing on the feasts in writing (as the Evangelist did). Others who interpret the phrase positively claim that the Evangelist kindly uses the term for the sake of his Gentile readers.26 Furthermore, the positive interpretation is even used as
evidence that the Gospel is a missional document for the Gentiles. Such shallow proof, however, only depreciates the deeper sense of the missional nature of the Gospel. For such an insistence, Carson (1991, 176) responds, saying, ‘[i]t is hard to believe that John’s readers are Gentiles so ignorant of Judaism that they do not know the Passover is Jewish, when at several scores of points John’s argument depends on his readers’ grasp of subtle and detailed points of Old Testament history and Scripture’. The meaning- based quotations from the Old Testament by the Evangelist in the Gospel suggest that the Evangelist assumes his readers know the Old Testament well. Because of the seeming contradiction, Culpepper (1983, 221) questions, ‘Are the comments added for the sake of the non-Jewish readers while the heart of the narrative is intended for readers who know a great deal about the festivals?’ As an answer to the question, he (1983, 222) concludes that ‘the reader is not Jewish but has extensive knowledge of the Old Testament’, so ‘the reader is either Christian or one familiar with Christianity’.
However, I argue that the modifier τῶν Ἰουδαίων should not be the basis for the claim that the reader is not Jewish. It should be noted that the term τῶν Ἰουδαίων is not used for all the feasts mentioned in the Gospel. The modifier is used only for the pilgrimage feasts given by the Lord in Leviticus 23 (cf Deut 16:16)27 but not for the
nation-made feast, the Dedication: ‘Then came the Festival of Dedication [τὰ ἐγκαίνια] at Jerusalem’ (10:22). This would indicate that the Evangelist uses the term τῶν Ἰουδαίων intentionally. For this reason, I argue that the Evangelist uses the modifier to point out the distortion of the original purpose and meaning of the feasts by posing a contrast between current attitudes (of the Jews) and what appeared in the Old Testament
26 See Kruse (2003, 98), Anderson (2007, 49).
27 In 5:1, the modifier is used for the unnamed feast; it could be supposed that the feast is one of the
texts (of the Lord), regardless of who his readers are.28 Brown (1966, 114) points out
that the modifier ‘may indicate a hostility to these feasts which are to be replaced by Jesus’.29 The reason and purpose of the use of τῶν Ἰουδαίων, as it were, come from
internal factors rather than external factors such as Gentile readers, even though that could be one of the outcomes. The internal factor is that the Jews lost the core meaning of the feasts and, instead, changed them into their own feasts, thus diminishing the missional purpose of God through them. According to Leviticus 23, what God repeatedly emphasizes when he establishes the feasts is that the feasts are ἑορταί μου (the feasts of me, Lev 23:2, LXX), that is ἑορταὶ Κυρίου (the feasts of the Lord).30 As
mentioned above, the Evangelist prefers meaning-based quotations from the Old Testament rather than direct quotations from the Greek version (LXX).31 Wheaton
(2015, 18) observes that ‘it is not out of character for John to work directly from the Hebrew text when citing the Old Testament’. Then, why does the Evangelist change the modifier Κυρίου to Ἰουδαίων, of God to of the Jews? What meaning or sense does he suggest by the change? I propose the change implies that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι reduced the meaning of the feasts by distorting them, shifting them from being God’s to being their own, thus misrepresenting the meaning of the feasts.
The reductions and the distortions of the feasts have resulted in two problems. First, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι described in the Gospel lost their identity as a ‘treasured possession’ of God, a ‘kingdom of priests’ and a ‘holy nation’ (Exod 19:5-6). They kept the given Law, including the feasts and the Sabbath, on the surface, but in fact they did not recognize that already they had lost the essence of these traditions. In the Gospel, the Jews keep focusing on the form of the Law, such as following the Law of the Sabbath day and the feasts, while Jesus keeps pointing to the meaning of the Law even by breaking the form of it. The Jews believed that they were still the descendants of Abraham (8:33, 39). However, Jesus said that they were no longer the descendants of
28 Michaels (2010, 158) points out that ‘it signals that at this festival Jesus will confront “the Jews,” that
is, the religious authorities in charge of festival, and hints that there will be controversy’.
29 Barrett (1978, 197) mentions that ‘the feast is so defined partly because it is John’s habit to set “the
Jews” as a body over against Jesus and the church’. Lincoln (2005, 137) says that ‘the narrator is not simply adding an explanation for Gentile readers; it is likely that he is also putting distance between himself and Jewish religious festivals’. Carson (1991, 176) insists on a geographical reason for the expression.
30 Lev 23:2, 4, 37, 39
31 Barrett (1947, 156) finds that ‘he [John] uses it [the Old Testament] in a novel manner, collecting its
sense rather than quoting’. Wheaton (2015, 18) points out that ‘full of grace and truth’ (πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας) in John 1:14 is probably quoted from ‘abounding in love and faithfulness’ (πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς, LXX) in Exodus 34:6 but comes directly from the Hebrew text (ואמת רב־חסד).
92
him but of the devil. ‘You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires’ (8:44). Jesus’ encounters with the Jews were thus debates about their identity. Although they did not realize it, these became essential tool for educating the disciples who accompanied Jesus, helping them form the identity of the new community, which would be started with them shortly.
Secondly, an even bigger problem is misunderstanding the Messiah, since those feasts point to the Messiah. As the apostle Paul points out, one of the advantages ‘in being a Jew’ is that ‘the Jews have been with the very words of God’ (Rom 3:1-2). In a sense, they are the nation of ‘revelation’ of God. By being ‘with the very words of God’, they were expected to recognize the incarnate Word, Jesus. The Evangelist says, ‘He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him’ (1:11). As Jesus points out, the problem with the Jews is that they do not understand that the Scriptures testify about Jesus, even though they diligently study the Scriptures (5:39). Therefore, the attitude of Jesus toward the feasts should be read as his efforts to recover the meaning of them and the missional identity of the Jews (cf Matt 23:37).
In the Fourth Gospel, the reaction of Jesus to the distorted feasts, or more precisely, toward the Jews, grows progressively stronger. In the first feast (Passover), he enters the temple immediately, even though his visit precipitates his angry cry against the business people whom he drives from the temple. In the second feast (unnamed), however, he comes to Jerusalem but goes to Bethesda first, which is ‘near the Sheep Gate’, and comes to the temple later. In the third feast (Passover), no visit of Jesus to Jerusalem is mentioned. In the fourth feast (Tabernacles), ‘he hijacked it for his own purposes’ as Kerr (2002, 266) points out. In the last Passover he eventually fulfils his purpose. To sum it up, the Evangelist uses the feasts and related traditions to demonstrate the way in which Jesus criticizes the distorted identity of the Jews and refreshes the missional identity of the people of God for the new discipleship community. He also uses them to point out their real meaning fulfilled in Jesus. It is a matter of the missional identity of the Jews, thus of the new community.