faith and works in jn vi 28-29: exegesis or eisegesis?

Faith and Works in Jn vi 28-29: Exegesis or Eisegesis?Author(s): Urban C. Von WahldeSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 22, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 304-315Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560522 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:18:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560522?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum XXII, 4 (g198o)

FAITH AND WORKS IN JN VI 28-29

Exegesis or Eisegesis?

BY

URBAN C. VON WAHLDE The University of Scranton, Scranton, PA, 18510

On the day after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus accuses the crowd of looking for him not because they have seen signs but because they have been filled with bread. Jesus then urges them to work not for the bread which perishes but for the bread which lasts unto eternal life, which the Son of Man will give. The crowd responds by asking (6:28): "What do we do to do the works of God?" (Tt 7ott?sev va 'opyac?2te0 -o&

' py cro O soie;).

Jesus responds (vi 29): "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." (Toi5-L6 a-tv -T k'pyOv 7oi5 osoi5, LvC mC a6'rce etS OV dC7MbE-GTeL'e 'XVSX .)

The common interpretation of the crowd's remark and of Jesus's answer emphasizes the supposed contrast between the plurality of works thought of by the crowd and the single work of faith spoken of by Jesus. As R. BROWN puts it: "... (the crowd's) response is in terms of works they can do. Jesus, in turn, puts the emphasis on faith. Paul and James are the NT names we associate with the problem of faith and works, but here we have the Johannine solution. Obtaining eternal life is not a question of faith without works. Rather having faith is a work; indeed it is the all important work of God" 1).

R. BULTMANN says: "...God's commands are not fulfilled by what man works but in obedience to what God works. Inasmuch as man's work is not just a series of isolated achievements, but properly speaking the persistent attitude of his true being" 2).

More recently, S. PANCARO says regarding vi 28-29; "The Jews question Jesus in terms of 'works' to be 'done' (the works of the

1) R. E. BROWN, The Gospel According to John (AB 29; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), 264-65.

2) R. BULTMANN, The Gospel of John, trans. G. R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, R. W. N. HOARE, and J. K. RICHES (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 222.



FAITH AND WORKS IN JN VI 28-29 305

Law) in order to allow him [Jesus] to give the answer he does-which does away with the Jewish terms of reference (the Law) and substitutes a totally new criterion for the attainment of eternal life (of the heavenly bread which gives eternal life)" 3).

The words of the scholars quoted above represent by and large the basic approach taken to these verses-an approach taken almost unanimously by scholars today 4). Although not all features are pointed out by every scholar, the following represent the range of arguments used to support this interpretation. First, some propose that the phrase L& epyo 7-oi 6eoi0 refers to doing (in a legalistic sense) the works of the Law 5). These scholars claim that Jesus rejects such a legalistic understanding of salvation. Second, some scholars propose that for the evangelist the plural use of epyov has a negative connotation to it and that this is not what Jesus desires of man 6). Others point to the term

&py&caOe as having the negative connotation of "trying to do by human

3) S. PANCARO, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John, (NovTSup 42; Leiden: E. J. Brill, I975), 391-92.

4) One exception to the common approach is that of R. BERGMEIER, "Glaube als Werk? Die 'Werke Gottes' in Damaskusschrift II, 14-15 und Johannes 6, 28-29" RevQ 6 (1967) 253-60. BERGMEIER's approach is similar in several respects to the one taken in this study. However there are several differences. Although an interpretation of vi 28-29 can be read out of BERG- MEIER'S work, his much more limited purpose was to determine solely whether the phrase 9pyov roiu

,Ooi0 in vi 29 is a genitive of the author (i.e.

the work "God performs") or an "objective" genitive (i.e. the work "which God demands"). The present study directs itself to the meaning of the entire two verse unit and deals with the full range of arguments for the commonly held interpretation. We would also suggest that BERGMEIER'S overemphasis on the predestinarian tones of the Johannine usage and the Qumran parallels detracts from his overall presentation. This predestinarian emphasis may account at least in part for the fact that BERGMEIER'S work has attracted little attention in the commentaries.

6) See for example, C. K. BARRETT, The Gospel According to John (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 282; M.-E. BOISMARD and A. LAMOUILLE, L'Evangile de Jean (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1977) 202; B. LINDARS, The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972) 255; S. PANCARO, Law 390. However for a contrary view on this aspect see J. N. SANDERS, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Edited and completed by B. A. MASTIN; New York: Harper and Row, 1968) 187 and R. SCHNACKENBURG, Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977) 2, 52.

6) These generally are those referred to in note five above and those who see a contrast between the singular and the plural (mentioned in note eight below). The negative connotation comes from being associated with "works" of the Law.

20



306 URBAN C. VON WAHLDE

effort what in reality can only be done by God," and therefore is to be rejected in favor of a response in terms of belief (as express- ed by Jesus) 7). Fourth, many propose that a contrast is intended between the plural 'pyoc as spoken of by the crowd and the single 'pyov (belief) spoken of by Jesus 8). As such the two verses are commonly taken to represent an instance of the Johannine technique of "misunderstanding" used to present the Johannine solution to the problem of the relationship between faith and works.

The phraseology and the juxtaposition of terms in the two verses certainly lend weight to this interpretation and suggest that the evangelist is here providing his own answer to a now classic problem. However there are two features of this explanation which might cause suspicion about its accuracy.

The first peculiarity is that the relationship between faith and works is not an issue as such in the remainder of the Fourth Gospel. It is strange that in a gospel which is so little concerned with such directives, we find, in a context where Jesus seems bent only on encouraging his listeners to believe in him as the one sent by the Father, that he suddenly brings up the issue of faith and works. Although we cannot exclude this as a possibility, we must at least raise the question whether this interpretation would be consonant with the rest of the gospel's theology.

Secondly, these verses are frequently treated as an example of the Johannine technique of misunderstanding. Granted that "misunderstanding" is a common device in the Fourth Gospel for introducing discourses of Jesus which serve to clarify his teaching, a problem is caused here by the fact that four different misunderstandings are suggested as occurring in the space of only four verses. In vi 26 Jesus indicates that his listeners have misunderstood the multiplication of the loaves and now seek him not because they have seen signs but because they have eaten and been filled. He then urges them to work not for the bread which perishes but for the bread which lasts unto eternal life, which the Son of Man will give 9). A second misunderstanding

7) See for example BROWN, John, 265; BULTMANN, John, 222; PANCARO, Law, 390; SANDERS, John, 187; SCHACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, 2, 51.

8) See for example BARRETT, John, 287; BULTMANN, John, 222; J. MARSH, The Gospel of John (The Pelican Gospel Commentaries; Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968) 295; PANCARO, Law, 392; SANDERS, John, 187; SCHACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, 2, 52.

9) See for example BROWN, John, 264; BULTMANN, John, 217-18; LINDARS, John, 254; MARSH, John, 294; SANDERS, John, 185.




occurs in vi 28 where the people speak in terms of "working works." Some suggest that this is a failure to understand Jesus's words because it is not a question of "working" but simply of "receiving" what the Son of Man gives 10). A third misunderstanding is seen in the listeners' mention of ipyo'sea0oL as a failure to understand the word as Jesus has used it in vi 27 11). In vi 27 the term means "strive for" but in vi 28 the people seem to take it to mean "perform, accomplish." A fourth misunderstanding is also apparent when Jesus supposedly corrects the listeners' impression that what is required are several deeds whereas in fact he speaks only of faith 12).

While it is possible that such a large number of misunderstandings occur in this short sequence of verses, it is highly unlikely since such complexity is not found elsewhere in the gospel. And so this suggests that one or more of the misunderstandings may be being "read into" the material or that the understanding of the verses themselves may be deficient.

Another more serious problem is that when the four common arguments for the commonly accepted interpretation (listed above) are examined carefully in the light of usage elsewhere in Jewish literature and in the remainder of the Fourth Gospel, some facts present themselves which cast doubt on the correctness of this explanation. We will examine each of the four arguments outlined above and then in the light of that examination, attempt to suggest what seems to be a more appropriate explanation.

I

First, we must inquire about the meaning of the phrase I& 'pya c ro Oso is). There are two basic sources for our investigation of this phrase: the Jewish background and the usage in the Fourth Gospel itself.

10) See for example BULTMANN, John, 221-22; PANCARO, Law, 391; SCHNACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, 2, 48.

11) BARRETT, John, 282. 12) See for example BARRETT, John, 282; BULTMANN, John, 221-22;

SCHNACKENBURG, Johannesevangelium, 2, 51. (cf. 47-48). 13) Another problem concerns the genitive roi3 Ooi3 in 6:28-29. On this

see A. VANHOYE, "Notre foi, oeuvre divine, d'aprbs le quatribme 6vangile," NRTh 36 (1964) 337-54 and BERGMEIER, "Glaube." I would follow BERG- MEIER who presents convincing evidence for seeing it as the objective genitive.




The Jewish background has been carefully studied in recent years; here we need only summarize the conclusions of such study 14). In the Septuagint 9pyo frequently refers to God's wonders, his works which he performs on behalf of man. This includes his primary work which is creation but also works such as his freeing of the Israelites from slavery in the Exodus 15). The term can also refer to the works of a cultic nature that man performs 16). In this sense, as PANCARO points out, we are dealing primarily with "service" rather than "deeds" 17). In the Septuagint, epy 6so1 also refers to works commanded by God, although there are com- paratively few texts which give direct evidence of this 18). In this usage, the emphasis is not on specific works but on the general carrying out of the will of God.

In the rabbinic writings the term epya is used to refer to specific acts of legal piety but at the same time the distinction between the meaning of "work" and "command" becomes fluid so that in many contexts the two become almost equivalent terms 19).

In the Apocrypha we again find the term used in this more general sense 20) although it is also the standard term for the "works of the Law" 21). A particularly significant example of the general use occurs in T. Levi xix I. Here the text speaks of the hearers choosing "either light or darkness, either the law of the Lord or the works of Belial." (&xhaocs eoZ?c'iS 6 'cpi ~ tb ax6toq, t6v v60ov xupLou TI& 1pyo To3 eXIsLp) 22). The primary

14) See for example, G. BERTRAM, 9pyov, TDNT, 2, 635-52; E. LOHMEYER, "Probleme paulinischer Theologie," ZNW 28 (1929), 177-207; S. PANCARO, Law, 380-84; R. BERGMEIER, "Glaube," 253-260. This summary follows in several respects the analysis of S. PANCARO regarding the OT data and that of BERGMEIER regarding the apocrypha and Qumran materials.

15) For example, in the LXX: Ex xxxii 16; Tob xii 6, 7, II; Ps 1xiii 9; Ps lxv 5; Ps lxxvii 7. Taken from PANCARO, Law, 380, n. 4.

s16) For example, Num iii 7, 8; iv 3, 4, 16, 23, 27, 30; viii II, 15, 19; I Chr xxiii 4, 24, 28; xxv I; xxix I, 5, 6, 7; II Chr xxix 34-35; I Esd vii 2, 3, 9, 15; II Esd iii 8, 9; vi 7, 22; Neh x 33; xi 12, I6, 22; xiii 10. Cited in PANCARO, Law, 381, n. 45.

17) PANCARO, Law, 381. is) Jer xxxi io (LXX); Bar ii 9. See PANCARO, Law, 382. 19) PANCARO (Law, 382) refers the reader to Str-B, 3, 16o ff. for texts. 20) T. Levi xix I; T. Abra. vi 3; T. Benj. x 3; 2 Bar xlviii 38. 21) PANCARO (Law, 383, n. 6o) cites: 2 Bar lvii 2; 4 Esd vii 24; T. Levi

xix I; T. Benj v 3. It is not clear why PANCARO puts T. Levi xix I in both lists. 22) The text is taken from The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the

Old Testament in English (ed. R. H. CHARLES; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 2, 336; the Greek is from The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve




focus here is on the question of allegiance either to God or to Belial. The words r& 'py~ ro u PEhtip are not used here in a legalistic sense to refer to specific works but in an idiomatic way with the general sense of "actions typical of, characteristic of, appropriate to or desired by" Belial.

Even more significant is the passage in T. Naph ii 9-3:1. So then, my children, let all your works (ivrc r& pyc p[L&v) be done

in order with good intent in the fear of God, and do nothing disorderly in scorn or out of its due season. For if thou bid the eye to hear, it cannot; so neither while ye are in darkness can ye do the works of light (o'sU ... 8U'vaO, nouelv 9pya 96YL65).

Be ye, therefore, not eager to corrupt your doings through covetousness or with vain words to beguile your souls; because if ye keep silence in purity of heart, ye shall understand how to hold fast the will of God (auvy4'asT r6 0Bk~Xl7 ro O0oi5 xporeZs) and to cast away the will of Beliar (xal &~oppuzretv r6

Og~i co o5 BeXtlp) 238).

In this passage doing the works of light is described as holding fast to the will of God. "Epyc cypcr6 is not used in a legalistic sense but in the general sense to indicate actions in agreement with a general orientation to either light or darkness, either to Belial or to God. Thus in the apocryphal literature we find two passages employed within a dualistic framework in which the phrase r& 'pya (with the genitive of the person) is used in the general sense rather than in the specific legalistic sense 24).

The Qumran literature also provides close parallels to this

Patriarchs (ed. R. H. CHARLES; Oxford: Clarendon, 19o8). In the recent critical edition of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, edited by M. DE JONGE in cooperation with H. W. HOLLANDER, H. J. DE JONGE and TH. KORTEWEG (Leiden: Brill, 1978) the passage runs as follows: 9?ga0e oiv aurot's

t rb ax6roS q ? r6 B, ? v6lov xuptou ? Peh3lp. 23) The text is from CHARLES, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; the Greek

text is from CHARLES, The Greek Versions. 24) See also the discussion in BERGMEIER, "Glaube," 254-57. PANCARO

(Law, 384) seems to overlook the basic difference between the usage in T. Levi xix I, T. Naph ii 6; ii 9 - iii I and CD ii 14-15 on one hand and the legalistic usage of 9pya on the other. He rejects the view which sees 9pya 0o5 as a fixed formula. His reasoning is that the genitive "simply makes explicit the idea already present in the Jewish concept of works ... and so cannot be considered a constitutive element of a fixed formula." In our view, PANCARO fails to do justice to the full context within which the formulaic usage appears. It is the dualistic element that shapes the phrase and gives it a formulaic or "idiomatic" meaning. PANCARO'S explanation also fails to do justice to the same usage in chap eight of John. Consequently his interpretation of vi 28-29 is basically a continuation of the traditional understanding.




general usage of ro 9pya ro" Oso5. In CD 2:14-16 the text runs as follows:

And now, children, harken unto me, and I shall uncover your eyes to see and consider the works of God (?

".I.2); to choose that in which

he delights and to reject that which he hates, to walk uprightly in all his ways and not to wander according to the designs of a guilty inclination and the allurement of lust 25).

Here "works of God" parallels "that in which he delights". The children are presented with a basic decision: to choose what God wants or to choose what he hates (i.e. to follow Belial, who is mentioned by name in iv 14). This is the same choice as presented in T. Levi and T. Naph 26). It is not a question of the legalistic requirements of the Law but the basic choice of following either God or Belial 27).

Within the context of the Fourth Gospel, two passages are important for the light they shed on the meaning of ro& pyaoc ro

soi5: viii 39-47 and iii 19-21. In viii 39-47 Jesus speaks three times of "doing the works" of someone. In the first instance, it is the works of Abraham; in the second, the works of the devil; and in the third (implicitly) the works of God. In the first of these instances, the works of Abraham are described as "what Abraham would do" (viii 40). The phrase occurs in a dispute between Jesus and his listeners in which he accuses them of not being sons of Abraham because if they were they would do the works of Abraham. But they are attempting to kill Jesus and "Abraham would not do that" (To-ro 'APPoC&E ox ?t o ~Oav 28).

265) The text is taken from T. H. GASTER, The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation (3d ed; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) 68.

26) SCHNACKENBURG (Johannesevangelium, 2, 51) notes the parallel in CD ii 14-15 but does not seem to notice the dualistic framework implied since his treatment remains basically the traditional one. He is correct however in stressing that the Johannine emphasis is not on the question of faith and works but on the Jewish denial of Jesus as Messiah.

27) See also CD i 1-2 which also refers to the works which God commands. The text is discussed in BERGMEIER, "Glaube," 255.

28) PANCARO (Law, 393-97) takes this usage also as referring to the works of the Law. This leads him to define the "works of Abraham" as the written and unwritten precepts of the Law. He points out that Abraham was trad- itionally revered not only for his observance of the Law but for his great faith. PANCARO then suggests that even though Abraham was not held up primarily for his faith among the Rabbis, it was this aspect of his character that is most frequently mentioned in the N.T. Therefore, says PANCARO, John is probably looking at the 9pyoc rou 'A~ppoccl as faith in the light of vi 28.




In the second example, Jesus accuses his listeners of doing the "works" of their real father, the devil (viii 41). Later Jesus says that these persons are "of your father the devil" ('Y[et" ?x

-oi %napb~ o" 8uL64Xou ~) "and you do his wishes" (xoc -& 7r LOq 9

la

roi 7rocpb 6k tv 06Xere oLseiv) (viii 44). Here "doing the wishes" of the devil is synonymous with "doing his works." T& opya rou

SLoca6ou clearly has a general meaning rather than the specific legalistic one 29).

In the third example, Jesus proposes that if God were their father, (we may fill in by analogy with viii 39, 44) they would do the "works of God;" they would love Jesus for he has come from the Father. Therefore we may say that as used in viii 39-47 to "do the works" of someone is to do what he would do and to do his wishes. This is clearly the general sense of the phrase. The context is again dualistic: the works of God (Abraham) versus the works of the devil.

This same dualistic framework is undoubtedly behind the context of iii 19-21 also. There it is said that the one who does the truth comes to the light and his deeds (&'pya) are shown to have been done in God (tv' payvspo0o auror a' epya 6L vv Oej o"arv e pymatlivx). The thought here is similar to that of chapter eight. In both cases it is said that one can determine one's allegiance by examining the nature of one's actions. In iii 19-21, the possible allegiances are described in terms of light and darkness and between truth (and implicitly) falsehood. Again epyc does not refer to works in the legalistic sense.

What can be said then about the usage in vi 28-29? At this point in our investigation we can only say that the meaning of the phrase does not have to be restricted to the legalistic sense since another meaning for the phrase is attested elsewhere in contemporary Jewish literature and in the Fourth Gospel itself. However before we can be certain which of these meanings is intended by the evangelist in vi 28-29 we must investigate the various other aspects of the traditional interpretation.

This position seems to do violence to PANCARO's own thesis. According to PANCARO, John takes the Jewish terms of reference in their normal Jewish meaning and applied them to Jesus (Law, 397). However if we follow PANCARO John would not be taking 9pyo crou 'Appo&dV in its normal Jewish meaning, but in a particularly Christian emphasis.

29) So also BERGMEIER, "Glaube," 257-58.




A second feature of the traditional interpretation proposes that the evangelist has intended the plural Upya in vi 28 to have a negative connotation. A negative connotation could be suggested either by the use of

epy, elsewhere in the gospel or by the contrast

seemingly implied by the shift to the singular in the following verse. We will examine the first of these possibilities here and then treat the second separately below.

One reason for suspecting that epya is not meant to be held in disrepute in the Fourth Gospel generally is the fact that it occurs so frequently as a description of the miracles of Jesus. It seems unlikely that the evangelist would use the term positively in relation to Jesus and then use it disparagingly of the people.

Aside from these uses of epyov for the miraculous activity of Jesus, there are three texts which indicate the Johannine attitude toward "works": iii 19-21; v 27-29; viii 39-47.

In iii 21, it is clear that nothing negative is implied by 9pyo. Indeed, here it is said that the one who does the truth and comes to the light, his deeds (ipyo) are shown to have been "done in God." Nothing could be more positive!

In viii 39-47 the same is true. There Jesus speaks of doing the works of one's father. This is then applied to Abraham as father, to the devil and to God. There is no indication that 9pyo of themselves are improper or something in opposition to the will of God. The point made by Jesus is that what matters is the "father" one chooses.

In v 27-29, although the word epyov is not used, those who do good (,& &iyoc& o'roavres) are described as rising from the dead in a resurrection of life and those who do evil (,o cpaioXoc ~p0avrS) in a resurrection of judgment. Here again one's deeds are important; the good actions will be rewarded and the evil ones punished.

Therefore we may say that in the light of the positive use of epyov and in the light of the frequent references to the importance of one's deeds for salvation, it seems difficult to believe that vi 28-29 would say that deeds are not important.

Third, the traditional interpretation suggests that there is a negative connotation to the verb 'py&oteaoL as used in connection with epyo and that the question of the listeners Ti 7nOLt(-ev (vaM

epygV.eOoc0 - ~py trou -Oeoi; is somehow improper (i.e. having

the connotation of attempting to do by one's own actions what in reality can only be done by God). However an examination




of the evidence in the remainder of the gospel suggests that the evangelist does not use the term in this way. In iii 21, the evangelist speaks of works which are "done in God" (. . . ~va pavwep0 a roi5 1& 'py~a &t ~v 0?,aVt dpt eymapakvva). The connotation of pyaaOtL is positive. In viii 39-47, a similar phrase [7oLtZv r &pya (roi5 'Appoc&i, xtX.)] occurs. Although &py&taOeaCO does not occur, 7notev is synonymous with it. Again context indicates that no negative connotation is attached to the verb itself but only to the choice of the wrong "father" whose works one then does. Finally in ix 4 Jesus himself seems to use the phrase in precisely this sense to refer to his own actions without negative connotation: 'HIVs ez

,py&OeaoLt r& 'py~ roI' IOvr6

, e... Jesus is doing what was commanded of him by the Father 30) during the time appointed. Since the same term is used positively elsewhere in the gospel, there is no precedent for seeing a negative connotation to the term in vi 28-29. Any attempt to show that such a connotation is present would have to be based on evidence with the verses themselves. Many scholars claim to find such evidence in what we have listed as the fourth point of the common interpretation.

The fourth element of the common interpretation is the supposed contrast between the singular and plural of 'pyov in vi 28-29. Of the four arguments for seeing the issue of faith and works in vi 28-29, this is perhaps the most common one and seemingly both the clearest and the most forceful. While in the context of vi 28-29 a contrast between the two words does seem intended, evidence for another explanation comes from elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel.

30) Although the genitive (ro05 ab av r6 e) can be construed as a genitive of the author (i.e. works like those of the one who sent me) the narrower and the wider context suggest that it is an objective genitive (i.e. the works that were commanded by the one who sent me). In ix 4 Jesus is said to do the works of the one sending him. The primary relation is that of "sender- sent." The one sent does the will of the sender. This suggests that the genitive in question may well be the objective genitive. The wider context confirms this. Three times in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is said to

rhetoiv 6 pyov rou

Ooi (iv 34; v 36; xvii 4). TeXltoiuv here does not mean "bring to completion" work started by the Father; but "begin and finish" the work given by the Father. Doing this total work is what was asked of Jesus; and this is equated with doing the will of God (iv 34, cf. epexegetic xod). ix 4 gives more precision by stating that Jesus had the responsibility to do the will of the one sending him while it was day because night was' coming when no one would be able to work.




In viii 39-47 there is a shift from the plural of Epyov to a singular several times and in none of these is a contrast intended. In viii 39-40, Jesus says that the Jews claim to "do the works of Abraham" but they in fact do not do them since they seek to kill Jesus. The "works of Abraham" therefore would be "not killing Jesus." Although the idiomatic expression "works of Abraham" is plural grammatically, it is correlated with a single action: killing Jesus 31). The grammar shifts but no contrast is intended since it is supposed that the reader will recognize the idiomatic character of the first phrase. In viii 41 Jesus says that in attempting to kill him the Jews are "doing the works of their father" the devil. Again the idiomatic plural of Epyov is identified with a singular object. Finally in viii 42 Jesus says that if God were their father (they would be "doing the works of their father"), they would love Jesus. Again no contrast between singular and plural. Therefore, in the light of this usage, one must recognize that the common explanation need not be considered the only possible one. In fact the crowd of vi 28 seems to expect a singular answer since it begins: "T nocoEV. ..; ("What (singular) do we do... ?)

II We have now examined the various aspects of the traditional

interpretation of vi 28-29 in some detail and have found that there is no support for this interpretation in the rest of the gospel and that on the basis of language use elsewhere, there is no need to see the traditional interpretation as the only possible one. If this casts doubt on the validity of the common interpretation, what are we to say is the proper one ?

We would suggest that it is precisely the usage in the remainder of the gospel which provides both the simplest and most plausible explanation of the meaning intended by the evangelist. Specifically we would suggest that "working '(doing) the works of God" is used idiomatically in vi 28 and is equivalent to the phrase "doing the will of God." Elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel the phrase has this meaning in iii 21; viii 39-47 and (?) ix 4, a meaning which, as we saw above, also occurs in T. Levi and T. Neph and in the Damascus Document from Qumran. In these instances the phrase serves to identify the basic orientation of one's life. In each case the context indicates that the choices are dualistically opposed

31) So also BERGMEIER, ,,Glaube," 257-58.




and so confront the hearer with radically different alternatives. We would also suggest that the change from the plural to the

singular is not a contrast but simply a linguistic necessity in order to explain what the will of God is for the questioners. We saw this same sort of correlation in viii 39-47. In iii 19-21 the same correlation is hinted at when one's works are said to be "done in God" if one "does the truth" and "comes to the light." These are definite parallels to the usage in vi 28-29 where Jesus says that "doing the works of God" is believing.

Thus we would propose that vi 28-29 should be understood: Then they said to him, "What do we do to do the will of God?" Jesus answered them saying, "This is the will of God that you believe in the one that he [God] has sent."

As such the meaning of the verses is quite simple compared to the common interpretation and does not introduce themes foreign to the rest of the gospel. Nor does it do violence to the idiomatic use of pyo'0sea Ooctr& py oc 70-o soul. Furthermore it provides a resolution to the problem of excessive "misunderstandings" in the verses. Thus from several points of view this explanation seems more appropriate than the one commonly advanced.

Finally, we might point out two possible causes of the past failure to see such a meaning in vi 28-29. First, the idiomatic character of "doing the works of God" as it occurs in vi 28 is not immediately evident. Since the phrase itself is ambiguous (i.e. could have the legalistic meaning), it is only when the phrase occurs in a context which can be identified as dualistic or in which the exact meaning can be identified in some other way (e.g. ex- plained by a synonym as in viii 42) that the correct meaning becomes apparent. Neither of these factors is evident in vi 28-29.

Secondly, it is very tempting to see a contrast in the explicit shift from the plural pyoc to the singular epyov. In the other instances studied, the correlation of a single action with the plural epya does not cause problems because both occur on the lips of the same speaker. However, in vi 28-29 the two elements of the relationship occur on the lips of separate speakers. This requires the repetition of epyo (now in the: singular) to correlate linguistically with the 'voa-clause which follows. Given these two factors, and given the importance of the issue of faith and works elsewhere in the NT and in later theology, it is easy to see how the verses could be taken as dealing with that issue. But, we would suggest, to do that is to eisegete the text rather than exegete it.



faith and works in jn vi 28-29: exegesis or eisegesis?

Documents