Context is so important! Often, we read a text without taking context into consideration. For example, I often read chapter three of John’s Gospel and never took into consideration why Jesus felt it was necessary for him to travel to Galilee from Judea by way of Samaria (John 4:1-4). The journey was so sudden and hurried, that Jesus’ disciples weren’t able to buy supplies before their departure (John 4:8). In chapter three we learned that John had not yet been seized and put in prison (John 3:23-24), but the Synoptics tell us that Jesus left Judea for Galilee, when he learned Herod had arrested John and put him in prison (Matthew 4:12). Considering this context for Jesus’ departure from Judea to Galilee put a slant on John 4:1 that implies the Pharisees had something to do with John’s arrest (cp. Mark 3:6; 12:13). Therefore, when their interest in Jesus was piqued (John 4:1), Jesus took it as a threat and fled Judea for Galilee through Samaria (John 4:3-4), because the finicky Pharisees probably wouldn’t seek him there, for they believed the Samaritans were unclean (cp. John 4:9).
So, context is the skeleton around which we wrap the meaning of what is recorded. In my study of the Apocalypse, I claimed the two witnesses of Revelation 11 weren’t only two. They are called two in that two is a valid witness. Only one witness cannot prove a matter. A valid witness is two or more! The New Covenant text was written by seven witnesses, so if the two witnesses were slain, that would mean the valid witness was slain, meaning all seven witnesses were killed, and the guilt for such a thing lay in the streets of Jerusalem. If I have understood this and the time sequence of the writing of the New Covenant text correctly, this means that the author of John’s Gospel was the last remaining witness. Not only believers, but also enemies would read what is said here, so it is in this context that we read: after these things.
John introduces a narrative with these words: after (meta; G3326) these things or after this (tauta; G5023) five times. In each occurrence it wasn’t simply an “after-an-event” type of thing. There was an element of danger involved. During Jesus’ first Passover during his public ministry he threw out all the money changers in the Temple at Jerusalem (John 2:15-16) and the authorities weren’t happy with him (John 2:18). Yet, after these things Jesus returned to Judea to celebrate the Feast of Weeks (John 3:22), only to have to suddenly return to Galilee, when he was told John the Baptizer was cast into prison (cp. Matthew 4:12), and the Pharisees sought to do something similar to him (John 4:1-4). Nevertheless, after these things Jesus returned to Judea to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (28 AD), when his ministry was about a year old (John 5:1), and the Jewish authorities sought his life (John 5:18). Skipping over John 6:1 for the moment, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles in 29 AD, knowing the Jewish authorities were still seeking an opportunity to have him slain (John 7:1-10). Finally, after these things is used after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, when at least some of Jesus’ Apostles, most notably Peter, had decided to return to their former business. They abandoned Jesus when he was in trouble and Peter even denied knowing him (although there are extenuating circumstances about this, and I’ll speak of that in its proper place). At that time, however, after these things… (John 21:1) some of the Apostles were retreating to their former lives, not believing they were faithful enough to carry out Jesus’ will by preaching the Gospel. So, Jesus appeared to them and healed their wounds.
Returning now to: “After these things…” (John 6:1), what is the context here that would add meaning to what follows? Well, we know that Jesus took his disciples to the east side of the Sea of Galilee just after the Twelve returned from their preaching and healing mission throughout Galilee, when they went out two by two (Luke 9:1-6, 10). However, just before the Apostles’ return, John the Baptizer’s disciples sought out and found Jesus and told him that Herod had beheaded John (Matthew 14:12). So, these were dangerous times, even for Jesus, because Herod had taken note of all that Jesus’ Apostles had done and desired to see him (Luke 9:6-9). Probably, Jesus was alerted of the situation by either Joanna or her husband Chuza (Luke 8:3; the nobleman of John 4:46, whose son Jesus healed). Take note of where Jesus went to give his disciples a time of rest. He went out of Herod’s reach by going to Herod Philip’s territory! Antipas’ interest in Jesus was no doubt a curious whim (cp. Luke 23:8), but some of his supporters would have liked to have Jesus slain, (cp. Mark 3:6; 12:13). Therefore, if Jesus fell into Herod’s hands, it may have gone badly for him, hence, his short excursion to Philip’s territory.
If, indeed, my understanding of the time of the authorship of the fourth Gospel is correct (65 AD), all the other writers of the New Covenant were already slain. Therefore, after these things (John 6:1) would serve the author’s purpose at that time too. His identity and the identity of others, such as: Joanna and Chuza, if either were still alive, and if, indeed, they had alerted Jesus of Herod’s intention to seize him, needed to be protected. So, nothing is said about how Jesus had come to know Herod desired to see him. Moreover, any mention of political intrigue might have piqued the interest of any political figure who might be cautious about the political interest of first century believers. After these things… (John 6:1) probably referred to what Herod had done to John, and his curiosity over Jesus’ activity in his realm, very political interests, and Jesus’ response was to move away from his realm of authority. Did Jesus have political interests? If so, what about his followers cir. 65 AD?
Smoodock's Blog 