2026/07/27
258. The Gospel of John and the Priesthood of the New Covenant: Chapter 5 of the Gospel of John
From Chapter 5 onwards, the Gospel of John depicts how
Jesus—who was born as the "enmity God has placed" (cf. Lk
2:34–35)—begins to confront "human information" in earnest. The
Gospel of John contains a far greater number of instances of the term
"Jews," compared to the other Gospels. A deep sense of regret must
have accompanied the Gospel writer's fervent affection for his fellow
countrymen towards those who would not accept Jesus nor believe in his name.
This was because he realised that the underlying current of the priesthood of
the New Covenant, running through the Gospel of John, served to fulfil the Old
Covenant priesthood—whose source lies in the story of Genesis—and to bring
God’s plan to fruition. From the very beginning of Chapter 1, the Gospel of
John sets out these thoughts in a manner reminiscent of Genesis (cf. Jn
1:1–18).
In Genesis, after God expelled humankind from the
Garden of Eden and barred the way to the Tree of Life, He left the "enmity
God has placed" to work within the depths of the human heart to safeguard their
"human knowledge." At the same time, He sought out those who were
pleasing in His eyes and entrusted them with a mission, guiding the people to
maintain their relationship with Him. Thus, the people who came together as one
nation have upheld the name of God, the priesthood and the Law given to them in
the time of Moses. Even after the era of David and Solomon, and despite
enduring the hardships of Exile, they continued to uphold these things to the
very end. Just as the construction of the Second Temple continued even after
the birth of Jesus, so too was there a single-minded devotion of the people to
the Temple. However, when the Son, who bore the will of God the Father,
appeared on earth as Jesus, their minds were no longer aligned with God's will.
Chapter 5 of the Gospel of John records the incident
in which Jesus first healed a sick man at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath.
It states that, as a result of this incident, "And this was why the
Jews persecuted Jesus " (Jn 5:16). Jesus replied to them, "My
Father is working still, and I am working" (5:17). Then the Gospel
states: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because
he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself
equal with God" (5:18). This shows that their attitude shifted from
"the Jews persecuted Jesus" to "the Jews sought all
the more to kill him," and draws attention to the fact that the
turning point lay in the fact that He "called God his Father, making
himself equal with God." As we have examined many times in this blog,
a structural problem lies hidden here.
This incident illustrates that, for the Jews of that
time, Jesus' declaration that God was his Father came as a great shock. They
were well aware of the history in which, despite God's promise to David
concerning his son Solomon—"I will be his father, and he shall be my
son" (2 Sam 7:14)—this promise was not fulfilled because Solomon
turned away from God (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1–10). The Gospel of John continues, "Jesus
said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you’" (5:19), and records the
words with which Jesus spoke in strong terms about the relationship between the
Father and the Son right through to the end of chapter 5. This is because they
had such a problem that Jesus could not help but bear witness to.
From a young age, the Jewish people were raised in an
environment where they learnt the Psalms by ear and memorised the Old
Testament. Within this context, the idea of likening God and Israel to a
bridegroom and bride, or husband and wife, had already emerged and developed as
far back as the time of Solomon. Later, the tradition of reading the Song of
Songs as an expression of the love between God and Israel also became
entrenched. This must surely have been a desperate measure for a people who
were unable to establish a parent-child relationship with God. However,
applying the image of marriage—bridegroom and bride, husband and wife—to the
relationship between God and His people carried great risk. This is because the
notion of being on an equal footing with God would secretly take root there.
Even under a patriarchal system, on the day of the wedding, the bride was
congratulated alongside the bridegroom and could feel that she was in an equal
relationship with him. In this way, understanding the relationship with God as
analogous to a marriage between a man and a woman becomes a motive for those
presiding over worship, whilst worshipping God, to divert the people's
gaze—which ought to be directed towards God—towards themselves (cf. Mat
23:1–39). They become ensnared by the illusion that they are equal to God.
In this way, we can see that the sentiments of the
Jews recorded in the Gospels—"because he ... called God his Father,
making himself equal with God"—were imbued with a twofold anger. One
was anger at being confronted with their own reality—that they failed to enter
into a relationship between father and son with God, and had not been
recognised as children of God; the other was anger that the fictional world in
which God loved them as His equals—within the mystery of marriage, where God’s
love for His people is likened to the love of a bridegroom for his bride or a
husband for his wife—had been shattered. These emotions were so intense that
they drove them to the point of wanting to kill Jesus. From the Psalms and the
texts of the Old Testament with which they were so familiar, they had developed
a theology coloured by a kind of nuptial mysticism. As a result, the Old
Covenant priesthood, which had continued since the time of Moses, had gradually
changed its nature through the eras of David and Solomon. And by the time Jesus
began his public ministry, it had become something incapable of connecting with
the priesthood of the New Covenant.
I believe that John the Evangelist, who, despite
chanting the Psalms and being well-versed in the Old Testament just like his
fellow Jews, had come to understand the priesthood of the New Covenant, imbued
the term "Jews" with his sense of regret towards them. That sentiment
must also have been shared by Jesus, who brought about the priesthood of the
New Covenant to fulfil the priesthood foreshadowed in Adam (cf. Gen 3:19) and
to realise the hope given to David (cf. 2 Sam 7:14). It was undoubtedly also a
sense of regret felt by Jesus, who came as a descendant of David and received
the same education as the Israelites. John first realised that these problems,
into which the Jewish people—among whom he himself was born and raised—had
become entangled, were utterly incompatible with the priesthood of the New
Covenant brought by Jesus. They had become so fundamentally distinct that one
might even describe them as an "Old Covenant-dominated mindset" and a
"New Covenant-inspired mindset."
Maria K. M.







