Johannine Studies
V. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Johannine Studies
V. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Subjects reviewed in this chapter:
Introduction: The General Context, Identities – The Relationships of the Authorities: The Jews, The Pharisees, The Sadducees – Responses of Jesus to the Authorities – Relationships Between Jesus and His Disciples: Relations Between Jesus and Women, Relationships with Individuals – Jesus’ Teachings About Relationships in the Gospel – Conclusion
Introduction
The study of interpersonal relationships presents useful means for improving our skills of understanding and interpretation. Every message occurs in a socio-cultural and an interpersonal context. The perception of contexts determines in no small part the perception of the message.
The General Context
The larger social/cultural context of the Gospel of John is a combination of Greco-Roman and Jewish/Palestinian components. The more immediate social/cultural context of the gospel narratives was a combination of Judean, Galilean, and Samaritan. The most immediate context of the author was his relationship to his audience, likely late first century churches. Since the location of the author at the time of composition cannot be conclusively established, it is not possible to know with certainty his most immediate social context. A Judean context late in the first century is both possible and likely.1
The conventions or rules of interaction in any culture are sometimes stated explicitly (cf. John 4:9b) and at other times must be inferred or derived from other sources. These are the norms by which individuals are socialized in a given culture and which determine what is accepted and expected social behavior.2 Just as individual personality characteristics tend to be very stable over time,3 so the rules of interaction which prevail in given cultures also tend to be very stable. It is the differences in these conventions which help set one culture apart from another.
Jews in first century Palestine proclaimed their identity as descendants of Abraham (John 8:33f.) with vigor. Devotion to the law of Moses likely had never been excelled by any of their predecessors. But culturally, they were more than Abraham’s offspring. Significant influences had come to bear on their self-understanding and values. Of particular importance was the influence of Greek language, philosophy and culture. Just as the ancestors of first century Jews had accommodated themselves to pagan thought, values and practices, so John’s contemporaries had accommodated in varying degrees to the prevailing notions and influences of the Greco-Roman world.
The Hellenization of Judaism brought a syncretism of Jewish ethnic identity, morality, religion, and world view together with elements of Greek culture, traditions, and philosophy, as well as Roman political thought and practice. In some measure it involved the adoption of Greek language, culture and religion in preference to Jewish traditions. In varying proportions the same processes occurred in the somewhat different cultural contexts of both Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism.4
A look at the Gospel of John can be used to reveal some of the normative conventions and rules which operated at the time and then to look at the interactions of Jesus to see in what ways Jesus either followed the conventions of the day or set a new standard in personal relationships.
Identities
The study of the formation of identities provides clues to the ways in which relationships function at personal levels. In Western society, identities are primarily individualistic. People understand themselves in terms of internal frames of reference. In many other societies identities take on a more corporate nature. The primary frame of reference for personal identity is external, such as one’s place within the community.
The term “solidarity” is sometimes used to describe this phenomenon.5 In the Gospel of John there are extensive uses of collectives, names which identify groups. Often the actual identity of the persons is not considered as important as the groups they represent. Examples include: “the Jews,” “priests and Levites from Jerusalem,” “disciples,” “the Galileans,” “the Pharisees.” “the dead,” “the chief priests,” “the officers,” “the scribes,” “descendants of Abraham,” “Samaritans,” “disciples of Moses,” “some Greeks,” and “the authorities.”
Likewise, the personal identities of individuals were often presented in connection with their locales of origin, their parentage or other affinities. Examples include: “John the Baptist, Andrew Simon Peter’s brother, Simon son of John, Philip from Bethsaida – the city of Andrew and Peter, Lazarus of Bethany – the village of Mary and Martha, Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus, – the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know.” In other instances well-known individuals are identified simply by their first names, (Thomas, Caiaphas, Judas, Pilate, etc.).
The question of the identity of John the Baptist (1:19-25) is illustrative. The question was first put to him in simple terms, “Who are you?” The only way in which the delegation which questioned him could understand his identity was in terms of the categories suggested by the names “Christ,” “Elijah,” or “the prophet.” Though he was a unique, perhaps eccentric, individual, they needed to fix his identity with established categories in order to comprehend who he was.
A similar question was put to Jesus later (10:24). Jesus admitted that he was the Messiah when asked directly, but preferred an identity as the Son of the Father (10:30-36: “I and the Father are one . . . I am the Son of God”). On the other hand, Jesus was apparently comfortable with identifications of himself and others simply as individuals.
Interpersonal and community relationships tended to play a very decisive role in the development of personal identities in the culture of Israel. The questions put to John the Baptist and to Jesus (who are you?) were very important in the minds of those who asked them. They would have been similarly significant to the earliest readers of the Gospel of John.
It is also possible that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews of his time was due to his refusal to measure up to their corporate understanding of the identity and nature of Messiah. It was inconceivable to them that Messiah would not be “one of them” or “part of the establishment” to use a modern term. For the early readers of the gospel who might be enduring persecution, a sense of solidarity with the misunderstood, mistreated Jesus would be a powerful, encouraging, and comforting thought.
The Relationships of the Authorities
The largest body of data about relationships in the Gospel of John concerns persons with authority roles. This was a live issue in the Judean and Galilean communities in the first century (cf. Mt. 22:17-21; Acts 4:13-21). Both civil and religious authorities took themselves with utter seriousness. The ascendance of the Roman emperors presented the Jews with a model of authority which some of them apparently found appealing. The Roman rule was on the one hand powerful and autocratic and on the other benevolent, efficient, and usually responsive to local concerns. Such appeal is particularly apparent in the Sadducees and High Priests, whose positions of power hinged on Roman favor.6 In his day, Herod the Great had been efficient as a ruler. He had accomplished much, but his rule had never been popular. Upon his death some Pharisees had petitioned Rome for direct rule.7 Since the deposition of Archelaus in 6 A.D., Judea had been under such rule. In Judea this had apparently provided for greater participation in the political process on the part of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were reluctant to permit anyone to jeopardize these gains.
The Jews
There are several passages in the gospel in which relationships involving authorities may be observed. In the Gospel of John the term “the Jews” often appears to designate the general Jewish authorities. It is useful to examine their style and tactics and compare these with ways Jesus approached relationships.
The Jewish authorities tended to place conditions of compliance on those who were associated with them. When priests and Levites questioned John the Baptist (1:19-23) they were insistent on receiving an answer they could take back to the Jews in Jerusalem (Pharisees) who had sent them. Apparently, the thought of returning empty-handed was unacceptable, perhaps risky. The threat of losing favor with “the Jews” appears to have been a significant motivator for John’s interrogators.
The Jewish authorities functioned in a closed circle of authority which they carefully reserved. This means that they were very reluctant to share their authority, even if someone undertook a cause that was undeniably just. When Jesus was questioned about driving the money changers from the temple by “the Jews” (2:18-24); they wanted some proof that he was authorized to act. Concern for morality and justice and a zeal for the Lord’s house were not sufficient justifications to assume such authority. Hence they called him to account for his action.
The maintenance of political control was a major motivation for Jewish as well as Roman authorities. An early departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee was connected with a discovery on the part of “the Jews” that Jesus was making more disciples than John the Baptist (4:1). Popular religious movements involving Messianic figures would trigger alarm in the circles of the Jews who could expect to lose their positions of power if they could not convince the Romans that they were maintaining control.8
By the time of Christ, a well developed sectarian party system had developed particularly in Judea.9 Relations between the sectarian groups had become far more political than fraternal. Political concerns often overrode theological differences. Sectarian agendas also tended to take precedence over justice and evenhanded responses to evidence.
Breaches of sectarian traditions and norms often brought public confrontation and admonition. For example, “the Jews” confronted the man who was ill for 38 years whom Jesus had healed on the Sabbath (5:10-16). Their allegation was that the man was doing what was not lawful (carrying his mat on the Sabbath). When he protested that Jesus had so instructed him, their response was to persecute Jesus.
These Jewish authorities expected unquestioned acceptance of their judgments. At times this meant that people were not to do their own thinking. At the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus delayed his visit to Jerusalem because “the Jews” sought to kill him and were therefore looking for him (7:1, 10-13,15, 25-26, 32-35, 40-52). Likewise, public conversations about him were suppressed for fear of “the Jews.” When he did arrive, he taught in the temple, causing amazement on the part of “the Jews” on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an arrest warrant which was not executed because the officers were so taken with the authority of his teaching and the people were divided in their assessment of him. Vs. 48 is particularly interesting, “Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?” This rhetorical question addressed to the officers was designed to make faith in him seem absurd and their failure to arrest him shameful. Divergent thinking was attacked.
Dismissing people as incompetent if they differed from official positions or else excluding them from the community were common tactics of the Jews. In a discussion with Jesus about slavery and being children of Abraham (8:48-59) “the Jews” accused Jesus of being a Samaritan with a demon. Their purpose appears to have been to dismiss his logic as coming from a mentally incompetent person. When Jesus maintained his claim calmly, and asserted his preexistence to Abraham, “the Jews” attempted to stone him.
Similarly, the man born blind was brought to the Pharisees for interrogation (9:13-34). His testimony and estimation of Jesus as a prophet created a division among the Pharisees. His assertion that he was blind and had received his sight was not accepted by “the Jews.” So his parents were called. They were willing to affirm only that he was their son and had been blind since birth for fear of being put out of the synagogue by “the Jews.” When the healed man challenged the incredulity of the Jews, they cast him out as they had already agreed they would do. For the Pharisees it was a theological dilemma, and for the Jews (perhaps a more inclusive reference) it was a larger practical problem of maintaining control.
Entrapment into acts considered blasphemy were favored tactics of the Jewish authorities. At the feast of dedication (10:22-38) “the Jews” surrounded Jesus and asked him to plainly declare himself to be Messiah. When he indicated that he had already made that claim and that he and the Father were one, “the Jews” again took up stones, threatening to kill him. When Jesus challenged their logic they then tried unsuccessfully to arrest him. Their sectarian thinking permitted a lynch mob mentality to develop among them.
The reaction of the disciples to Jesus’ suggestion that they return to Judea (at the death of Lazarus) (11:8-16) was the protest that “the Jews” were but now seeking to stone him and he wants to go there again? This would indicate that the hostile reactions of the Jewish authorities to Jesus was well understood by the disciples and that they tended to take the threat to Jesus as a threat to themselves as well.
It would be a mistake to think that “the Jews” were entirely heartless. They publicly demonstrated their remorse over the death of Lazarus and offered their sympathies to his sisters (11:33-37). But they were at the same time critical of Jesus’ failure to prevent the death of Lazarus. Their initial reaction to Jesus’ presence was clearly cynical and their purpose was to inspire doubt where possible.
The control by Jewish authorities extended over people who dared not think for themselves about the meaning of what they had witnessed. Their beliefs about the meaning of events would be formed by the interpretation of the events they witnessed which those they regarded as authorities provided for them. When some of the same Jews witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus (11:45-53, 57) it convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah. However, others of them went to the Pharisees to report it. They appeared unable to form their own judgments of the evidence.
Upon receiving that report, the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the council. Their concern was that allowing Jesus to gather more believers would lead the Romans to destroy both the temple and the nation. The concern which they expressed was not with truth or justice, but with the avoidance of a political embarrassment. The response of the chief priests (of the party of the Sadducees) to the resurrection of Lazarus (12:10-11) was to conspire to put him to death and thereby suppress the evidence. This was motivated and designed to control defection from the ranks of the Jews,10 (likely used in the generic sense of the term) particularly since a great crowd of them had come together. The dimensions of the problem which Jesus was creating for them were clearly growing.
In many situations, the Jewish authorities employed intermediaries to deal with problem situations. This was noted in the questioning of John the Baptist and the arrest of Jesus. When he was ready to betray Jesus, Judas (18:3, 12) obtained a band of soldiers and their captain and some officers of “the Jews” from the chief priests and Pharisees. The band of soldiers was led by a captain. The officers were likely Jewish police, possibly patterned after the model of the Roman militia.11 An officer (likely of the same force) struck Jesus when he answered the High Priest in a way he found offensive (18:22).
It appears that the relationship between Pilate and the Jewish authorities was rather finely balanced (18:29-19:16). Their relationship involved power politics. The process of placing Jesus on trial before Pilate required formal accusations, which were lacking. So Pilate referred Jesus back to them. He wanted Jesus to be tried by Jewish law. But “the Jews” wanted Pilate to handle the matter since they had only one outcome in mind for Jesus: death.
The claim that Jesus was the King of the Jews was a puzzlement to Pilate, but one about which he showed little concern. At one point there had been a movement in Galilee to make Jesus king, but he did not cooperate with it (6:15). At other times people had referred to Jesus as the King of Israel (1:49, 12:13-15), but this was apparently a fairly isolated phenomenon. As Pilate interrogated Jesus, it is clear that he regarded the Jewish authorities he was dealing with as the legitimate spokesmen for the nation as a whole. If Pilate was impressed with Jesus, it was not with his political clout. He likely saw Jesus more accurately as a religious teacher.
The accusations of “the Jews” were not sufficient to lead Pilate to proceed with a criminal condemnation. When Pilate presented Jesus as their King, it may have been a taunt that another Herod-like king was at hand. Both Pharisees and Sadducees wanted no part of a return to the sort of situation they endured under Herod and his son Archelaus. So they affirmed again that “if he let Jesus go, he was no friend of Caesar,” and that they had “no king but Caesar” (1, 9:12-15). Pilate finally gave way to their demands when his loyalty to Caesar was questioned. The chief priests clearly revealed their political inclinations when they affirmed, “We have no king but Caesar.” “The Jews” would push Pilate on some issues such as their loyalty to Caesar, but on other issues, such as the inscription (19:21-22), would yield when he stood firm.
The Pharisees
There are eleven contexts in the Gospel of John in which are found references to “the Pharisees.” In general, the Pharisees were regarded by the author of the gospel as a part of the Jewish authority establishment. The basis of their authority in the public mind was the general perception that they were expert in matters of the law of Moses. In addition to the references cited already, the following are significant.
Mutual accusation was the response of the Pharisees to the triumphal entry (12:19). When the resurrection of Lazarus turned the sentiments of the general public in favor of Jesus, the Pharisees became impatient with each other over their inability to persuade the public that Jesus was another imposter. The problem was rapidly becoming larger than that. Many authorities believed also (12:42-43) but would not confess it for fear the Pharisees would put them out of the synagogue. There are no significant differences between the ways “the Jews” and the ways the Pharisees approached their relationships.
The woman taken in the act of adultery (8:3-11) was brought to Jesus by Pharisees and scribes. Their purpose was to test Jesus and to find cause for legal action against him. They apparently expected him to contradict the law of Moses. When they could not reply to the conditions which Jesus articulated for executing the woman, they left not as a group, but one by one. They apparently could not openly acknowledge when they had suffered a moral defeat.
The Sadducees
While there are no references to the Sadducees in the Gospel of John, there are some references to the High Priestly family who were known to be Sadducees.12 They were apparently a relatively small group composed primarily of wealthy aristocrats from Jerusalem.
The High Priest had several who attended him as slaves or servants (18:10,26) which indicates something of his status in the community. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, had been appointed High Priest about A. D. 18.13 His cynical comment “. . . it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish” was interpreted by the author of the gospel as a prophecy of the death of Jesus (11:49-52). Personal knowledge of the High Priest provided entry into his courtyard for “a certain disciple” and Peter (18:15-18). If that “certain disciple” was the author of the gospel, then it is possible that there was not just acquaintance but also some feelings of mutual respect between the author and Caiaphas.
After his arrest, Jesus was first interrogated by Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas (18:19). Annas was the patriarch of the high priestly family and apparently quite influential in political affairs. He had been appointed high priest in A.D. 6 and deposed in A.D. 15 by the Romans for unknown reasons.
In the Jewish mind, a high priest held office for life.14 The author’s only comment about Annas is that he questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching and that he sent Jesus in bonds to Caiaphas.
Observations. The behaviors of the Jewish and Roman authorities reveal a heavy emphasis on control strategies. These began with benign approaches in the early chapters such as “faint praise,” appeals to custom, needs for secrecy, calling for answers to questions presented by a delegation, pretences of reasonableness, statements about lawful action, questions about loyalty, and challenges to personal and vested authority. As the situation became more difficult, the authorities resorted to greater use of pressure and force. These included persecution, loss of social privileges such as access to the synagogue, the issue of orders and warrants, physical force and abuse, destruction of evidence, use of police and military, compromise of due process, conspiracy, and finally execution.
The relationship between the Roman Governor Pilate and the Jewish authorities15 was delicately balanced if not finely tuned. They were like adversaries who needed each other. There appears to have been a mutual paranoia existing between them. On the one hand, the Romans were officially disliked because of the loss of national autonomy which their presence implied. On the other hand, appeals of loyalty to Caesar could be used as their pretext for wanting Jesus (supposedly a pretender to the throne of David) executed at the hand of the Roman governor in order to maintain control. Another example of the old cliché, “politics makes strange bedfellows.”
Similarly, the threat of Roman intervention was used as a reason for suppressing the evidence concerning the resurrection of Lazarus and what that implied about their doctrine of no resurrection. The Gospel of John presents the Jewish authorities as primarily interested in the maintenance of control and as willing to use whatever strategies of rationalization, intimidation, manipulation, suppression, coersion, or force necessary to keep it. The alliance between the Sadducees and the Romans made the latter's control of the high priesthood possible.
While these men generally thought of themselves as loyal and true believers, relations among them were often characterized by rivalry, suspicion, characterization, accusation, recrimination, and collusion. Those outside their circles who had to relate to them experienced interrogation, aloofness, pressure to conform, fear, condescension, inconsistency, closed-mindedness, intimidation, ruthlessness, callousness, rejection and ostracism. Expediency and efficiency tended to be the dominating principles in these sectarian groups when control was at issue. Parenthetically, it may be noted that similar strategies often characterize sectarian groups arising since that time.
Responses of Jesus to the Authorities
John portrays the responses of Jesus to the authorities, Jewish and Roman, as restrained and limited. His sign for his authority to cleanse the temple (2:19) was a simple affirmation: “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” John indicated that the major thrust of this response was toward the disciples, not the Jews.
When questioned by Nicodemus, Jesus assumed the role of authoritative teacher. He spoke of the nature which those in the Kingdom were to take. When Nicodemus revealed that he did not understand, Jesus chided him for being a teacher and not understanding and for being a part of a group that would not receive “our testimony” (3:11). Jesus communicated no special respect for Nicodemus as a ruler or religious authority nor did he attempt to “charm” him into becoming a disciple. The fact that Nicodemus turned out to be a “political moderate/personal sympathizer” did not win for him special treatment by Jesus.
In the face of persecution and threats on his life, Jesus continued to teach and to affirm his identity as the Son and God’s identity as His Father (5:15-47). At times his teachings contained elements of judgment and accusation (5:44). At other times they were enigmatic (6:41-58), which made for difficulty in understanding on the part of those who tended to think concretely (see also 7:32-36).
When the motives of the authorities were to test Jesus and to induce him to incriminate himself Jesus tended to reaffirm the Law of Moses, and particularly the intent and spirit of the Law. To the accusers of the adulterous woman, Jesus encouraged introspection concurrent with giving permission to execute judgment. His response was to encourage them to do what they proposed to do, if they could say that they were guiltless. Of course, his implication was that they did not have a right to be so judgmental.
When the authorities challenged him to declare, on demand, that he was the Messiah, his response was to turn the tables and focus on their reluctance to believe, either his word or his works (10:22-38). Jesus felt they had no right to judge him and acted accordingly. While he did not hide from the Jewish authorities, he tended to appear in Jerusalem only when their efforts to apprehend him were not likely to succeed, when the city was full of people (until his time came).
When Judas, the soldiers, and officers went looking for Jesus in the garden, Jesus responded with directness. He identified himself to them as the person for whom they were looking. He also indicated that since it was himself they were seeking, his disciples should not be detained. When questioned by Annas about his disciples and his teaching, he affirmed that he had always acted publicly and that any of his disciples could be asked about his teaching. The thrust of this response was to affirm that his was no secret movement or threat. When struck by an officer, he challenged him to identify what he had said that was wrong. Jesus retained his sense of personal authority in the presence of both political and religious authorities. Such personal authority is not derived from the attributions of others. Rather it stems from a strong sense of personal identity and a strong conviction concerning the truths to which one is committed.
Jesus did not act “impressed” with civil or political authorities. He acted as one who had a right to teach anyone, if that person was willing to learn. In this sense Jesus could be quite intimidating. When questioned by Pilate, Jesus first questioned why Pilate was asking him if he was the King of the Jews. He wanted to know if Pilate had been incited to ask the question. When Jesus was satisfied that Pilate was acting on his own, he affirmed his Kingship (18:33-38), but as not political (of this world). When Pilate affirmed his power over him, Jesus noted that Pilate only had what power had been given to him from above (19:10-22). For Pilate, this may have been a reminder of the tenuousness of his position.
Relationships Between Jesus and His Disciples
Public interactions between adults of the opposite sex had become very formal by the time of Christ. In the period of the patriarchs the cultural rules dictated that women think of themselves as the property of their fathers and husbands. That was a patriarchal society. The law of Moses institutionalized many of those customs, but in addition provided measures of justice. A father could not make his daughter a prostitute and sexual relations between next of kin were prohibited (Lev. 18:6-23, 29). A husband could no longer divorce his wife without cause and giving a certificate of divorce (Dent. 24:1-4). These provisions had, over time, tempered the ideas of paternity and absolute rights of fathers and husbands over their possession, although the issues were not finally settled in Jewish minds.16
In general, the Old Testament view of women was positive. In the pre-kingdom era a woman (Deborah) emerged as a judge (Judges 4-5). The wisdom literature presents a portrait of a woman who is not only of excellent virtue but with a strong public profile as well (Prov. 31:10f.). The writings of the exilic period portray Esther as a woman of intelligence, influence, authority, and courage even though she had grown up in captivity and was living in Persia (Esther 2-9).
If one takes into consideration the cultural tendencies of the middle east, it is possible to see in the Old Testament a view of women that places them alongside their mates as persons of honor and respect (cf. Gen. 2:18f.).
By the time of the New Testament this had changed somewhat. The honor with which women were treated in the Old Testament had given place to a popularly expressed view that women were suspected of being, by nature, evil.
The intelligence of women was called into question. Their participation in public worship was sharply limited. Their moral qualities were in doubt.
This view, which appears to have originated with the Greek philosophers,17 was picked up by the Rabbis and readily incorporated into the official teachings of the day. For example, “Rabbi Eliezer says, If any man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he teaches her lechery.”18 The result was an official contempt for women. Public communications between men and women were to be avoided.19 The disciples were apparently accustomed to this.
Relations Between Jesus and Women
The Gospel of John describes Jesus taking a remarkably different approach to his relations with women. While, on first glance, his verbal response to his mother at the marriage feast in Cana appears to question her propriety (2:4), she knew that he would do something to help. His actions justified her expectation that led her to instruct the servants to do as he said (4:5-10). The quality of the relationship and the interest of Jesus in his mother is most vividly demonstrated in his instruction to her and the beloved disciple while he was on the cross (19:25-27). It was a relationship of mutual respect, concern, and willingness to help.
When Jesus was talking with the woman at Jacob’s well near Sychar in Samaria, (4:7-26) both the woman (4:6) and the disciples marveled (4:27). Jesus not only engaged the woman in casual conversation, but in rather personal dialogue and teaching as well. His disclosures about her personal life, instead of resulting in complete humiliation, eventuated in her exuberant return to the city inviting the residents to “come see a man who told me all that I ever did” (4:29).
The response of Jesus to the woman taken in the act of adultery was at once judicious (“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8:7), and forgiving (“Has no one condemned you? . . . Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” 8:10-11).
The responses of Jesus to Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were compassionate and defensive of their good intentions. He met their grief with both reassurance and sympathy (11:23-35). When Judas criticized Mary’s anointment of the feet of Jesus with pure nard and the wiping of his feet with her hair Jesus rebuked Judas and instructed him to “Let her alone . . .” (12:3-8).
Against the Jewish background of contempt for women in general, the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is remarkable.20 She was present at his crucifixion (19:25) and at his tomb early on the first day of the week. When she was distressed at the absence of his body, she first notified Peter and “the other disciple.” When he called her by name and identified himself to her, she grabbed him and held on. His gentle admonition, “Stop holding me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father . . .” appears to have had an element of amusement coupled with reassurance. His mission for her made her the first visual witness to the disciples of his resurrection.
Surely the impact of these narratives (as well as those in the Gospel of Luke especially) on the women and men of the early church would have been highly instructive. The regard in which Jesus held women was clearly different from the cultural norms of his day. Women were attracted to him and helped by him in a most refreshing way. Dorothy Sayers expressed it concisely. “A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them . . . who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female, who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend, who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious.”21
Relationships with Individuals
The Gospel of John provides sketches of relationship, which existed between Jesus and a number of individuals. In the context of John's gospel these serve to assert the reality of his humanity, uphold his divinity, and provide a normative example for the gospel’s readers. Consider three examples.
Jesus and Peter. The information provided in the gospel about this relationship is brief and descriptive. Upon meeting Simon, Jesus named him Cephas (Peter), meaning “rock” (1:42). When many of the disciples were turning away from the company of Jesus and the apostles, Peter is credited with affirming loyalty to Jesus; “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God,” (6:68-69).
Chapter 13 describes three interactions between Jesus and Peter. In the first (13:5-11) Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. Peter initially protested and then profusely submitted. In the second (13:24) Peter uses and intermediary to get Jesus to reveal the information he wants. In the third (13:36-38) Peter affirms his loyalty and willingness to follow Jesus unto death if needed, only to have Jesus predict his denial before the coming day breaks.
Chapter 18 describes two interactions between Jesus and Peter. In the first (18:10-11) Peter attempts to resist the arrest of Jesus with a blow to the ear of Malchus, a servant of the High Priest, only to have Jesus instruct him to put his sword away. In the second (18:15-27) Peter followed Jesus with “another disciple” to the house of the High Priest where he waited at the gate until the other disciple arranged for Peter to enter. It was at this point that Peter’s denials of knowing Jesus began. As he joined the company of officers and soldiers by a fire, his denial continued.
Chapter 20 describes the reaction of Peter to the report of the resurrection of Jesus, but records no interactions between them. Chapter 21 provides a detailed account of the revelation of Jesus to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. At daybreak, Jesus called to them about their catch and instructed them to let their nets down on the other side of the boat. When the report was made that it was the Lord, Peter put on his clothes and jumped into the water (probably to swim to shore where Jesus was) while the others came in the boat dragging the fish. When the Lord instructed them to bring some of their fish, Peter is the one who complied, hauling in the nets and counting the fish.
After breakfast, Jesus began asking Peter about his love for the Lord. The question was repeated three times with the author using different terms to describe Jesus’ questions and Peter’s affirmation of his love. After each of Peter’s affirmations of filial love, Jesus instructed him to first “feed my lambs,” second, “tend my sheep,” and third, “feed my sheep.” Then Jesus began to tell Peter about events that would happen in his later years, specifically how he would die. Peter’s reaction was to question the Lord about what would befall “the disciple Jesus loved.” The Lord’s response was authoritative; “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me.”
The relationship between Jesus and Peter was characterized by closeness, personal intensity, the intimacy that comes from self-disclosure, yet marked by very clear boundaries. Jesus commenced his relationship with Peter by giving him an identity, a name meaning “rock.” When Peter attempted to play the hero as Jesus was washing the feet of the disciples, Jesus calmly insisted on compliance as a condition of discipleship and in order to teach the lesson of servanthood. Jesus never abandoned the role of authoritative teacher and Lord in relation to Peter. His will for Peter and his other disciples did not change because of personal feelings or affinities which they tried to develop with Him. Jesus responded to Peter’s flattery and affirmations of loyalty by predicting future difficulties for him, to Peter’s excesses with calls for simple compliance, to Peter’s curiosity with clues he would understand later, to Peter’s militarism with an admonition and a rhetorical question, to Peter’s denials with a glance (Luke 22:60), to Peter’s affirmations of love with questioning of its purity and an instruction to tend to others, and to Peter’s concern about fair-play with a reminder that his will and purpose for each disciple is individually tailored, absolute, and not open to question.
While their relationship was close, caring and intimate, there was no inappropriate familiarity. Jesus responded to the personal concerns of Peter for his mother-in-law (cf. Luke 4:38) but He did not allow Peter to dictate his course where his purpose in life was at issue (cf. John 11:7f.). Jesus maintained his autonomy and identity as teacher and Lord.
Jesus and the beloved disciple. There are five references to “the disciple Jesus loved” in the gospel. They appear in the contexts of the last supper (13:23), the crucifixion (19:26), the report of the empty tomb (20:2-10), the fishing trip with Peter (21:7), and the interrogation of Peter by Jesus (21:20). The last reference is followed by a reference to the author (a witness to the events recorded in the gospel – 21:25).
The author’s editorial activity in preparing and interpreting the narratives of the gospel is very easy to observe. He inserts numerous definitions, parenthetical and other explanatory statements.22 In several instances these statements reveal penetrating insight into the mind of Jesus. In 2:24 he reported that Jesus did not trust himself to the people at the Passover feast in Jerusalem who believed in him. In 4:1 is a reference to the Lord’s motive for leaving Judea – his knowledge that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John. 4:6 includes the explanatory phrase “and so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey . . .” 6:64 stated that Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
There are many such statements, some of which are after the fact interpretations, and some of which indicate a relationship of unusual closeness between Jesus and the author of the gospel, and an awareness of the Lord’s thoughts and feelings. It was not an exclusive sort of love, as the author points to the love of Jesus for Mary, Martha and Lazarus (11:5). But it was a relationship that allowed the author to see clearly the emotional facet of the Lord’s personality (cf. 11:35, 11:38, 12:27, 13:21, 14:9). It was also a relationship that moved the author to record very significant blocks of the Lord's sayings, most of which are not found in the other gospels. No insight is provided, however, into how the relationship may have differed from that between the Lord and other disciples. The author cites no special prerogatives that were his, nor special experiences that were not shared with the other disciples. Taking the Lord’s mother into his home may have provided opportunities for developing insight into the mind of the Lord in retrospect. If there was a purpose for that special love, it appears to have only been to further the process of revelation.
Jesus and his family. In general, the gospels provide very limited insight into the relationship between Jesus and his family. Whereas the synoptic narratives make only one reference to the presence of his family during his ministry (Matthew 12:46-49 and parallels), John mentions her as present at the marriage feast in Cana, in his company as he went to Capernaum (2:3-12), and as present at the crucifixion 19:25-27). 7:2-10 makes a reference to his brothers who are described as unbelieving and critical.
The relationship between Jesus and his younger brothers is a curiosity. We may detect a note of cynicism in their “encouragement.” The author did not have a very high view of them. Jesus indicated that the world would not find much in them that it could hate like it did in himself. He apparently felt compelled to hide his intentions and plans from them for fear that their knowledge of his presence in Jerusalem could be precipitous of his falling into the hands of the Jews.
Three observations about these relationships can be made. There was a popular public identification of Jesus as “the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know” (6:42). But for the author of the gospel, this was secondary to his identity as the one who had come down from the Father (same context). Secondly, the relationship between Jesus and his mother appears to have been characterized by mutual respect and caring, but his concern for his mother did not take precedence over his concern for others or for the fulfillment of his mission. Thirdly, the failure of the brothers of Jesus to believe during his ministry brought no special efforts on the part of Jesus to persuade them. His words to them were designed to show the difference between their understanding and His own.
Jesus’ Teachings About Relationships in the Gospel
The example of Jesus as he approached relationships was accompanied by teachings which were included in the gospel. 13:3-17 is the account of the washing of the feet of the disciples. When Peter protested, “You shall never wash my feet” the response of Jesus was “If I do not wash you you have no part in me.” This represents one of the few times when Jesus imposed a condition on the disciples for the continuance of the relationship. Interestingly the condition called for submission to the Lord as he assumed the role of a servant. Then he noted that they rightly called him teacher and Lord. If the Lord had set the example of being a servant he had the right to call on them to assume the same role in relationship to each other.23 Service was to become the hallmark of the disciples.
Jesus taught the disciples to love (agapate) each other (13:34, 15:12, 17) using his own love for them as the model. It was given as an unconditional command. His love had resulted in two outcomes: one, they had become his friends (philoi) instead of his servants, which meant that they had come to understand his own mind and all that the Father had revealed to him, and two, he had chosen and appointed them to “bear fruit” that would abide, which meant that their service in his name would be significant and effective. That sort of love can be commanded and developed as a choice of the will. It means that disciples are to will the good of their brothers and sisters. Commonality of wills, surrendered to the will of God, creates the commonality of friendship, first with Christ and then with brethren. If the command to love was obeyed, the outcome would be the recognition by all men that they were his disciples (13:35).
Jesus called for Unity in the relationships of the disciples. It was to derive from their relationship to Jesus and the Father (17:20-26). In this context, “to know” Jesus is equivalent to being “in Jesus” and is on the same order as being “one” as Jesus and the Father are one. 17:3 indicates that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and the Son. There are major implications for personal relationships in these ideas. Eternal life is not to be considered as mainly consisting of existence in a certain sphere or situation, but in relationship to the Father and Son. To the extent that a relationship of knowledge of God based on the revelation of Christ occurs, eternal life becomes a present reality. The proof of their unity was to be the recognition of the world that the Father’s love for the disciples is the same as his love for the Son.
The final encounter between Peter and Jesus which the gospel describes is also instructive for personal relationships. As Jesus revealed what he could expect in old age, Peter attempted to shift the focus to the beloved disciple (probably to determine if they were to share a similar fate). Jesus informed Peter that his will for him was specific and not to be judged by criteria such as human fairness. In the fellowship of the disciples the gifts and the call of God were not to be compared or challenged.24
Conclusion
The study of interpersonal relationships in the gospel is a study in contrasts of style and tactics. On the one hand, the approaches and strategies of the Jews were oriented toward the maintenance of social control. On the other hand, the approach of Jesus was marked by self-disclosure, teaching, concern for the welfare of people, directness and a strong sense of personal authority. Whereas the Jews had developed traditions that defined social roles and public behavior, Jesus set a new standard by publicly honoring people of both sexes from different backgrounds, by demonstrating an example of leadership by service, and by commanding his disciples to love people as he had loved them. In this gospel the contrast between the typical quality of human relationships in sectarian bodies and the standards set by Jesus for his followers can be seen quite clearly.
