Month: May 2020

May 31: Acts 2:1-13 (part 1)

In celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, I will be exploring the Pentecost Narrative in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-13, cf. also the article “The Sending of the Spirit”), with one of three central themes highlighted for each of the three days of Pentecost (Sunday-Monday-Tuesday):

    1. Theophany
    2. Tongues of Fire
    3. The Restoration of Israel

To see how these three themes fit together, it is important to look at the introductory verse (v. 1) of the Narrative. Here I break out the specific words of this short verse:

    • kai\ (“and”)
    • e)n tw=| sumplhrou=sqai (“in the being filled up” [su/n as intensive prefix, i.e. “filled completely”]—but here as a temporal clause = “when it was completely filled”)
    • th\n h(me/ran th=$ pentekosth=$ (“the Fiftieth day”)
    • h@san (“they [i.e. the Disciples] were”)
    • pa/nte$ (“all”—all of them, together)
    • o(mou= (“as one” or “at one”, i.e., together, the same; see the similar o(moqumado\n [“of one impulse”] in 1:14)
    • e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (“upon the [same] thing”—this phrase occurs repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts, though somewhat obscured by conventional translations; it is indicative of the unity of the believers)

Here is the verse in literal translation:

“And in the Fiftieth day’s being filled completely, they were all at one upon the (same) thing [or, place]”

And in a more conventional translation:

“And when the Fiftieth day had been fufilled, they were all together in the same place.”
[As C. C. Torrey and other scholars have noted, the Greek may reflect an Aramaic expression “when the Weeks had been fulfilled” (e.g., aY`u^Wbv* <l^v=m!b=W), which is more intelligible]

The “Fiftieth” day (usually transliterated as “Pentecost”), is the festival of Weeks (toub%v*) in Israelite and Jewish tradition (cf. Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 16:9-12). Fifty days (seven weeks) are counted from the offering of the firstfruit sheaf of grain at the time of Passover. Traditionally, it was also the time associated with the Sinai theophany and giving of the Law (Ex. 19:1ff). In the Exodus narrative, the entire camp of Israel was gathered together beneath the mountain “to meet God” (Ex. 19:17). Here, the disciples, too are gathered together in the same place and will “meet God”. Elements of the Sinai theophany also have their parallel in the manifestation of the Spirit, as we shall see. Indeed, this brings us specifically to the first theme of the narrative which I would emphasize, the subject of today’s note.

1. Theophany

Here the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) is recorded in dramatic fashion, in the language and imagery of Theophany. A theophany is a manifestation (literally “shining [forth]”) of God—at the historical level of Scriptural narrative, of course, this means a manifestation in time and space, one which can be observed by God’s people. Within the Old Testament tradition, specific manifestations of God (YHWH), are typically described (and experienced) in terms of natural phenomena—light, wind, fire, thunder, earthquake, and so forth.

Since the manifestation of God at Sinai (occurring at Pentecost, by tradition) was mentioned above, and is perhaps the most prominent such manifestation recorded in Scripture, it is worth looking at elements of that theophany:

    • Thunders (lit. “voices”) and lightnings (19:16)
    • A thick cloud
    • Fire went down upon the mountain; smoke (as of a furnace) went up from it (19:18), perhaps parallel to the cloud in v. 16.
    • The mountain “trembled” (or “quaked”); in v. 16 it is said the people trembled (same verb, drj)
    • The sound (lit. “voice”) of a horn (rp*ov, shofar) (19:19, also mentioned in v. 16), which sounded long and grew louder

Consider also the theophany to Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-12):

    • A great and strong wind (or “breath”, “spirit” j^Wr = pneu=ma) which swept through and tore at the mountain
    • An earthquake (“quaking”, “shaking” vu^r^)
    • Fire (va@)

all of which occur as God (hwhy) is “passing over” (or “passing by” rb@u), but God Himself is not in (b) the wind, quaking or fire. Then comes a quiet, thin voice.

Here is the manifestation of the Spirit as recorded in Acts (note the theophanic details in italics, with specific parallels in bold):

    1. “And suddenly there came to be out of the heaven a sound as of a violent wind [pnoh/] being carried (along) and it filled the whole house (in) which they were sitting” (2:2)
    2. “And there was seen [i.e. appeared] unto them tongues as if of fire divided through(out), and it sat upon each one of them” (2:3)
    3. “And they all were filled of/by (the) holy Spirit [pneu=ma] and began to speak in other tongues even as the Spirit gave (to) them to utter forth” (2:4)

The parallels with the Sinai theophany, especially, make clear that, to the author of Acts at least (and/or the underlying tradition he inherited), the coming of the Spirit is meant to indicate the very power and presence of God Himself. In this respect, the Acts narrative is somewhat different from the account of the coming of the Spirit in the Gospel of John (Jn 20:19-23), which, in light of the earlier Paraclete passages of the Discourses of Jesus in Jn 13-17, emphasizes the Spirit as the continuing presence of Jesus in the hearts and lives of his disciples. This is just one of several fundamental differences between the Lukan and Johannine accounts; however, one important point of emphasis they hold in common is that the coming of the Spirit is central to the empowering and equipping of the disciples for the Christian mission. This mission is only touched upon briefly in Jn 20:19ff (and again in the ‘epilogue’ of Jn 21), but it encompasses almost the entirety of the book of Acts. As we shall see, the theme of the mission to the wider (Jewish and Gentile) world is a thread underlying the Pentecost Narrative.

The Sending of the Spirit, Part 2: Book of Acts (2)

For introductory notes on the first chapter of Acts and other matters preliminary to the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, see Part 1 of this article.

The main narrative of the sending of the Spirit during Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) I divide as follows:

    1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), verse 1.
    2. Manifestation of the Spirit, verses 2-4.
    3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the crowds), verses 5-13.

I will discuss each of these in turn.

1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), Acts 2:1:

As I did for Acts 1:14 in Part 1, I break out the specific words of this short verse:

  • kai\ (“and”)
  • e)n tw=| sumplhrou=sqai (“in the being filled up” [su/n as intensive prefix, i.e. “filled completely”]—but here as a temporal clause = “when it was completely filled”)
  • th\n h(me/ran th=$ pentekosth=$ (“the Fiftieth day”)
  • h@san (“they [i.e. the Disciples] were”)
  • pa/nte$ (“all”—all of them, together)
  • o(mou= (“as one” or “at one”, i.e., together, the same; see the similar o(moqumado\n [“of one impulse”] in 1:14)
  • e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (“upon the [same] thing”—this phrase occurs repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts, though somewhat obscured by conventional translations; it is indicative of the unity of the believers)

Here is the verse in literal translation:

“And in the Fiftieth day’s being filled completely, they were all at one upon the (same) thing [or, place]”

And in a more conventional translation:

“And when the Fiftieth day had been fufilled, they were all together in the same place.”
[As C. C. Torrey and other scholars have noted, the Greek may reflect an Aramaic expression “when the Weeks had been fulfilled” (e.g., aY`u^Wbv* <l^v=m!b=W), which is more intelligible]

The “Fiftieth” day (usually transliterated as “Pentecost”), is the festival of Weeks (toub%v*) in Israelite and Jewish tradition (cf. Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 16:9-12). Fifty days (seven weeks) are counted from the offering of the firstfruit sheaf of grain at the time of Passover. Traditionally, it was also the time associated with the Sinai theophany and giving of the Law (Ex. 19:1ff). In the Exodus narrative, the entire camp of Israel was gathered together beneath the mountain “to meet God” (Ex. 19:17). Here, the disciples, too are gathered together in the same place and will “meet God”. Elements of the Sinai theophany also have their parallel in the manifestation of the Spirit, as we shall see.

2. Manifestation of the Spirit, Acts 2:2-4:

Here the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) is recorded in dramatic fashion, in the language and imagery of Theophany. Since the manifestation of God at Sinai (occurring at Pentecost, by tradition) was mentioned above, it is worth looking at elements of that theophany:

    • Thunders (lit. “voices”) and lightnings (19:16)
    • A thick cloud
    • Fire went down upon the mountain; smoke (as of a furnace) went up from it (19:18), perhaps parallel to the cloud in v. 16.
    • The mountain “trembled” (or “quaked”); in v. 16 it is said the people trembled (same verb, drj)
    • The sound (lit. “voice”) of a horn (rp*ov, shofar) (19:19, also mentioned in v. 16), which sounded long and grew louder

Consider also the theophany to Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-12):

    • A great and strong wind (or “breath”, “spirit” j^Wr = pneu=ma) which swept through and tore at the mountain
    • An earthquake (“quaking”, “shaking” vu^r^)
    • Fire (va@)

all of which occur as God (hwhy) is “passing over” (or “passing by” rb@u), but God Himself is not in (b) the wind, quaking or fire. Then comes a quiet, thin voice.

Here is the manifestation of the Spirit as recorded in Acts (note the theophanic details in italics, with specific parallels in bold):

    1. “And suddenly there came to be out of the heaven a sound as of a violent wind [pnoh/] being carried (along) and it filled the whole house (in) which they were sitting” (2:2)
    2. “And there was seen [i.e. appeared] unto them tongues as if of fire divided through(out), and it sat upon each one of them” (2:3)
    3. “And they all were filled of/by (the) holy Spirit [pneu=ma] and began to speak in other tongues even as the Spirit gave (to) them to utter forth” (2:4)

Clearly, there is wordplay with “tongues (as if) of fire” [glw=ssai w(sei\ puro/$] anticipating “with other tongues” [e(te/rai$ glw/ssai$] in v. 4. There is at least one other occurrence of the phrase “tongues of fire” from roughly the same period in a Qumran text (represented by fragments of 1Q29 and 4Q376: these with 4Q375 and 1Q22 may all be part of the same work). 1Q29 fragment 1 can be restored on the basis of 4Q376 (ellipses indicate gaps [lacunae] in the text):

“…the stone, like… they will provide you with light and he will go out with it with tongues of fire [va twnwvlb]; the stone which is at its left side will shine to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest finishes speaking. And after it [the cloud?] has been removed… and you shall keep and do all that he tells you. And the prophet … … who speaks apostasy … … YHWH, God of …”

Another tiny fragment reads: “… the right stone when the priest leaves … … three tongues of fire … … And after he shall go up and remove his shoes ….” (translations taken from García Martínez & Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Brill/Eerdmans 1997/2000, vol. 1 pp. 108-9). The words (possibly spoken by Moses) refer to an anointed Priest; the stones on the right and left (urim and thummim?) are associated both with light and the voice of the Priest as he addresses the assembly. It is possible the “three tongues” are also “divided out”, one over each stone, and one directly over the Priest in the middle.

There is some uncertainty whether the “other tongues” refer to an ecstatic ‘heavenly’ language or ‘earthly’ foreign languages. Other New Testament references (Acts 10:46; 19:6, and those in 1 Cor. 12-14) suggest the former, while the context here (cf. Acts 2:11) indicates the latter. Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional, in order to reflect both: (a) heavenly origin, and (b) the languages of the nations. Returning to the Sinai theophany, there is an old Jewish tradition that as the Torah (each word of God) went forth it was split into the seventy languages of the nations (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 88b); that is, each nation could hear the voice of God (the “thunderings”) in its own language (cf. Exodus Rabbah V.9). A tradition along these lines seems to be at least as old as Philo of Alexandria (On the Decalogue §46), and so nearly contemporary with the book of Acts.

3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the Crowd), Acts 2:5-13:

The following outline indicates the main elements of this section:

    • Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)
    • Response of the crowd (vv. 6b-11) in two aspects:
      1) Each person hears in his/her own language
      2) Nations respond in a (symbolic) united voice
    • Confusion (v. 12, see also in vv. 6-7)—”What does this wish to be?”

The mocking retort in v. 13 serves as a lead-in to Peter’s address in vv. 14-40. Let us look at each element in a little more detail:

a. Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)

The mention of “Jews” ( )Ioudai=oi) being in Jerusalem may seem unnecessary, but it is significant for at least two reasons: (1) to emphasize the underlying religious and cultural unity of the ‘nations’ present in the city, and (2) it draws attention to the (post-exilic) reality of the current situation. When Israel, and particularly the southern kingdom of Judah (centered at Jerusalem), was taken into exile, the people were dispersed among the nations; and it was in the “dispersion” (diaspora) that a distinctly Jewish identity developed. It is generally assumed that these Jews are sojourning in Jerusalem for the festival of Weeks (Pentecost); the verb katoike/w often implies a more permanent residence, but here may simply mean generally “to dwell”. These Jews are “from every nation under heaven”, and have come together in the city (for the festival). At the coming-to-be of “this voice” (th/ fwnh/), again Jews, symbolized as a specific crowd (plh=qo$), “come together” (sune/rxomai) in confusion (being “stirred together” [sugxe/w]). It is interesting that, just in the tradition regarding the Sinai theophany, the multitudes are hearing different languages but one voice.

b. Response of the Crowd (v. 6b-11)

V. 6b and 7a reprise the confusion—they “stood out of (their minds)” and “wondered” in amazement as they heard the disciples speaking. It is unnecessary to ask just how, when, or where these people heard the disciples—and altogether beside the point. The author has crafted a marvelous dramatic scene, with events (at the historical level) certainly having been compressed together into a single moment. Similarly, it is rather unlikely that a single person or group of persons in the crowd would have said precisely what the crowd is recorded as saying here. Instead, various reactions and responses are represented by one voice. This is important thematically, and, one might say, theologically as well. Often a creative literary device conveys far more truth than a ‘sober’ record of events. Consider several of the themes inherent in the crowd’s response:

  • The reference to the disciples as “Galileans” (Galilai=oi), while serving to emphasize the wonder of the situation, also creates a subtle shift stressing ethnic (and geographic) identity. Most of the disciples, and certainly the Twelve were Galileans (“men of Galilee”, 1:11). The early Christian mission began in Galilee (cf. 1:1-2), is centered in Jerusalem (by the united community of the Disciples), and will spread from there into all nations (1:8).
  • Two key references to hearing the voices speaking “in our own language” (th=| i)di/a| dialek/tw| h(mw=n, v. 8, cf. also v. 6) and “in our tongues” (tai=$ h(mete/rai$ glw/ssai$, v. 11) bracket the list of nations in vv. 9-11a. The importance of this description should by now be apparent. It may be useful to consider the qualifying phrase accompanying each reference:
    (1) V. 8: “in our own language in which we came to be born” [e)n h! e)gennh/qhmen]
    (2) V. 11: “(hear speaking) in our tongues the great (work)s of God” [ta\ megalei=a tou= qeou=]
    The first phrase clearly indicates ethnic sense; the second echoes Old Testament language whereby news of the great and glorious deeds of God is spread into the surrounding nations (cf. Ex. 15:11ff, and many others)—geographic sense.
  • The list of nations (vv. 9-11) has been a source of some confusion, as indicated by the number of textual variants and proposed emendations. However, much of the difficulty disappears when its literary nature is recognized, rather than simply being a list rattled off by someone in the crowd. The inclusion of “Judea” has seemed strange (since Jews are speaking, and they are already in Judea!) as well as its position, leading to many suggested emendations; however, as a separate geographical list it actually makes sense—moving from East (Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia) to West (Anatolian/Asian provinces, Egypt, Lybia, Cyrene and Italy) with Judea in the middle. While still a bit uneven (the final two, Cretans and Arabs, don’t fit in order as well) and not without difficulties, its significance as a list of the (known and relevant) surrounding nations is obvious.

c. Confusion (v. 12, cf. also vv. 6-7)

The confusion of the crowd is re-iterated, stating that they all were beside themselves (again e)ci/sthmi, lit. “stand out of [one’s mind]” v. 7) and “thoroughly at a loss” (diapore/w). Their summary response is: ti/ qe/lei tou=to ei@nai; (literally “what does this wish to be?”), often translated more conventionally as “what does this mean?”—however a more literal rendering preserves better a sense of the strange, dynamic nature of the situation in which the crowd finds itself: events almost seem to have a will of their own! The ironic, mocking retort that closes the crowd’s response (“they are filled with sweet [wine]!”), of course, serves to lead into Peter’s great Pentecost speech (vv. 14-40). The disciples are indeed “filled” (plh/qw) with the Spirit (v. 4), rather than “filled” (mesto/w, a somewhat cruder verb which can indicate “stuffed”, “intoxicated”) with ordinary wine.

In conclusion, it is perhaps worth considering again the theme of the “restoration of Israel” in light of the Pentecost narrative:

  • The disciples have returned (turned back) to Jerusalem
    • The Twelve have been reconstituted and are gathered together (in Jerusalem) in one place
      • Jews from all nations (the Dispersion) also are gathered together in Jerusalem
    • They again hear the voice (word of God) in the languages of the nations, spoken by the Twelve and other disciples (echo of the Sinai theophany)
  • The disciples go out from Jerusalem into the nations (even to the Gentiles)

The Sending of the Spirit, Part 1: Book of Acts (1)

There are two accounts of the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Disciples—in the Gospel of John (20:19-23) and Luke-Acts (Acts 2:1-4ff). Commentators continue to debate the relationship between these two passages, whether to harmonize them (the traditional-conservative view) or to regard them as separate traditions (the critical view). I will address these issues briefly in Part 3 when discussing the account in John. Here I will be looking at the (Pentecost) narrative in Acts.

It should be pointed out that the Holy Spirit has a special emphasis in Luke-Acts. One can see this already in the early chapters:

a. The Infancy Narrative(s): Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25-27
b. The Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:21-22. Compare the description in v. 22 with the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark (key difference in italics):

Mark 1:10

…kai\ eu)qu\$ a)nabai/nwn e)k tou= u%dato$ ei@den sxizo/meno$ tou\$ ou)ranou\$ kai\ to pneu=ma w($ peristera\n katabai=non ei)$ au)to\n
“…and right away stepping up out of the water, he saw the heavens being split (open) and the Spirit as a dove stepping down into him”

Matthew 3:16

…eu)qu\$ a)ne/bh a)po\ tou= u%dato$: kai\ i)dou\ h)new/|xqhsan [au)tw=|] oi( ou)ranoi kai\ ei@den [to\] pneu=ma [tou=] qeou= katabai=non w(sei peristera\n [kai\] e)rxo/menon e)p’ au)to\n
“…right away he stepped up from the water, and see—the heavens opened for him and he saw [the] Spirit of God stepping down as if a dove [and] coming upon him”

Luke 3:21b-22
(the passage cannot properly be translated without including all of vv. 21-22, the sequence e)ge/nto + infinitives and acc. being difficult to render into English):

e)ge/neto de\ e)n tw=| baptisqh=nai a%panta to\n lao\n kai\  )Ihsou= baptisqe/nto$ kai\ proseuxome/nou a)new|xqh=nai to\n ou)rano\n kai\ katabh=nai to\ pneu=ma to\ a%gion swmatikw=| ei&dei w($ peristera\n e)p’ au)to\n, kai\ fwnw\n e)c ou)ranou= gene/sqai: su\ ei@ o( ui(o\$ mou…
“And it came to be, in the dipping of all the people—and Jesus (also) being dipped and praying—the opening (passive) of heaven and stepping down (active) of the Holy Spirit in a bodily sight [i.e. shape/form] as a dove upon him and a voice out of heaven coming to be: ‘You are my Son…'”

The accounts in Mark and Matthew could be understood as a private vision to Jesus; Luke’s language, on the other hand, seems to imply a tangible manifestation visible to everyone.

c. The beginning of Jesus’ ministry (before and after the Temptation): Luke 4:1, 14, 18. Note especially: Mark 1:12 says that the Spirit “cast/drove out” (e)kba/lei) Jesus into the desert, Matthew 4:1 that Jesus was “brought up by [lit. under]” (a)nh/xqh…u(po\) the Spirit; while Luke 4:1 states that Jesus was “led in”  (h&geto e)n) the Spirit, being “full of the Holy Spirit” (plh/rh$ pneu/mato$ a(gi/ou).

In addition, Luke on numerous occasions speaks of the Holy Spirit “coming upon” individuals (1:35; 2:25; 4:18), as well as persons being “filled with” the Spirit (1:15, 41, 61; 4:1) or “in the Spirit” (2:27; 4:1; 10:21), language which is really not found in the other Gospels, and which will reoccur frequently in the book of Acts. Also, while there are a few instances of the promise of the Spirit to believers in the wider Synoptic tradition (Mark 1:8; 13:11 and par.), only Luke speaks of the “sending” of the Spirit (24:49, “the promise of my Father”), which foreshadows the narrative in Acts (cf. Acts 1:8). There are similar parallels in John (14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13, etc), which, of course, also has an account of the sending of the Spirit (20:19-23).

Turning to the Pentecost narrative in Acts, it is most useful to keep in mind the context and structure of the early chapters, which I outline as follows:

  1. Lukan Introduction (1:1-5)—a long, complex and difficult sentence (cf. Luke 1:1-4), which turns into an historical summary (vv. 2-4a) and concludes with a direct address of Jesus to his disciples (vv. 4b-5).
  2. The Ascension (1:6-11), comprising:
    (a) the question regarding the Kingdom and Jesus’ reply to his disciples(vv. 6-8),
    (b) the visible ascension with theophanic/apocalyptic imagery (v. 9),
    (c) appearance of the (Heavenly) men and their address to the disciples
  3. A summary narrative (1:12-14) recording the return of the disciples to Jerusalem, and their united presence in the Upper Room (the Twelve [minus Judas Iscariot], some women, Jesus’ mother Mary and his brothers). This summary parallels Luke 24:52-53, and is an important bridge between the Ascension and the following narrative.
  4. The Reconstitution of the Twelve (1:15-26)—two key parts, both of which act as seminal motifs for the remainder of the book:
    a) Peter’s speech (vv. 15-22)—the first of many such speeches in Acts, centering on quotation/interpretation of Scripture (a tradition regarding Judas Iscariot has been inserted parenthetically, vv. 18-19)
    b) The selection/commission of a disciple (Matthias) for (apostolic) ministry (vv. 23-26)
  5. The Pentecost Narrative (chapter 2)
    5a. Narrative of the coming of the Spirit (2:1-13: a detailed outline will be given in Part 2)
    5b. Peter’s Speech (2:14-40), again centered on quotation/interpretation of Scripture.
    5c. Historical/editorial summary (2:41-47).

This same structure will be carried out through much of Acts; for example, in the next two chapters:

  • Main historical narrative, including notable ministry work, miracles, etc. (“Acts”) of the Apostles (3:1-11; 4:1-22)
  • Speech (or intercourse), centered on a passage (or passages) of Scripture, and containing early Gospel proclamation (kerygma) (3:12-26; 4:23-30)
  • Historical/editorial summary (none in ch. 3; 4:31)

Each of sections 1-4 (which make up Acts 1) is important thematically for an understanding of the Pentecost Narrative. Here I summarize some key notes:

Section 1: Lukan Introduction (Acts 1:1-5):

  • The historical summary (vv. 2-4a) has, at its heart the double phrase:
    oi!$ kai\ pare/sthsen e(auto\n zw=nta meta\ to\ paqei=n au)to\n e)n polloi=$ tekmhri/oi$,
    di’ h(merw=n tessera/konta o)ptano/meno$ au)toi=$ kai\ le/gwn ta\ peri\ th=$ basilei/a$ tou= qeou=
    “…and to whom [i.e. the disciples] he stood himself alongside [i.e. presented himself] alive after his suffering in many fixed marks [i.e. signs/proofs],
    through forty days being seen by them and recounting/relating the (things) about the kingdom of God”
    We can break down chiastically the elements of this phrase:

Living presence of God/Christ in his disciples
[to whom he stood himself alongside alive…]
—   Demonstration that He is the Messiah and Son of the Living God
[…after his suffering in many fixed marks/signs]
—   Ministry and proclamation
[through days being seen by them and recounting/relating…]
The Kingdom of God
[…the things about the Kingdom of God]

These are all seminal themes and motifs of the Book of Acts, and, one might say, form the core of the Gospel message.

  • The narration continues in v. 4a and blends into an address (in direct speech) of Jesus to his disciples. Again note the key elements:

a. Stay in (do not depart from) Jerusalem (see Luke 24:52; Acts 1:12)
b. Remain about (i.e. wait) for the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49)
which you have heard from me (see Acts 1:13-14, also Luke 24:53)
c. Reprise of John’s testimony:
“(On the one hand), John dipped/dunked in/with water,
but (on the other hand), you will be dipped/dunked in the Holy Spirit
after not many (of) these days”

Section 2: The Ascension (Acts 1:6-11):

Note again how one can break this passage down chiastically:

    • Question regarding the Kingdom of God with Jesus’ reply, including a reiteration of the promise of the Holy Spirit (vv. 6-8)
      • The Ascension of Jesus (v. 9)
        —At their seeing/looking
        —      He was raised up(on)
        —      A cloud took him under
        —Away from their eyes
    • Angelic appearance and eschatological announcement about Christ’s return (vv. 10-11)

The theme of the Kingdom—shorthand for “Kingdom of God (or Heaven)”—is most significant; I will be discussing it later this week in more detail. One can, I think, outline four principal ways of understanding the phrase:

    1. As the Eternal rule of God (in Heaven)
    2. As an eschatological (Messianic) Kingdom, on earth, the establishment of which will involve: (a) judgment/defeat of the nations and enemies of God, and (b) restoration of the Davidic inheritance to Israel.
    3. In the person and work of Jesus—the miracles, teaching, foundation of the church, atoning death and resurrection, etc.
    4. As the (spiritual) presence and power of God in the heart, mind, and lives of believers.

Other interpretations are possible, but they likely will end up being a variation on one of the above. These four meanings can be found in the New Testament—even, I think, in Jesus’ own teaching on the Kingdom—but probably #1 and 4 are most common. The thorniest question scholars raise is to what extent #2 is part of Jesus’ teaching. It is likely that his proclamation “the Kingdom of God has come near” (Mark 1:15 par.) would have been understood in this manner—of eschatological/Messianic expectation—by his contemporaries; and this certainly seems to be what the disciples have in mind here at Acts 1:6.

Let us briefly examine the disciples’ question:

ku/rie, ei) e)n tw=| xronw=| tou/tw| a)pokaqista/nei$ th\n basilei/an tw=|  )Israh/l;
“Lord, (if) in this time will you set down again the kingdom to Israel?”

A more literal rendering of a)pokaqisth/nai would indicate setting the Kingdom down from (a)po/) where it is currently, back to its former condition; conventionally, we could translate “reconstitute” or “restore”.

Jesus’ reply comes in two parts: first—

“It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in (his) own e)cousi/a“

e)cousi/a (from e&cestin), almost impossible to translate literally, has the sense of “ability” or “authority” to do something. Jesus effectively dispenses with their question, without necessarily denying its validity—however, the brusque response may suggest a misunderstanding on their part. Earlier it is stated that Jesus, during the days following his resurrection, related to his disciples “the things concerning the Kingdom of God” (v. 3). Almost certainly this involved more than the sort of eschatological Messianic kingdom (meaning #2 above) common in popular religious thought. Yet this is what they ask about here. If the first part of Jesus’ reply does away with their question, the second part, in some sense re-establishes it:

“But you shall receive (the) power of the holy Spirit (which is) coming upon you, and you shall be my witnesses (both) in Jerusalem, and [in] all Judea and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.”

Indeed, I would maintain that the idea of the “restoration of the kingdom”, or, one may say, the “restoration of Israel” is an important idea both in Jesus’ teaching and in the book of Acts.

Section 3: Summary narrative (1:12-14):

I have already mentioned a couple of themes found in this short passage; but, to reiterate, in light of the above comments:

  • The disciples “return (or turn back) into Jerusalem”, v. 12. On the surface this is a simple description; however, consider the language in light of the implied motif of the “restoration” of Israel:
    a) The dispersed Israelites will return to the land, and to Jerusalem
    b) The restoration of Israel is often tied to repentance (turning back)
  • The Twelve disciples are gathered together in one place (upper room), v. 13. If the Twelve represent Israel (see below), then here we also have an image of the twelve tribes gathered together again.
  • The initial words of v. 14 contain a number of related, seminal motifs:
    • ou!toi (“these”—the twelve, along with the other disciples)
    • pa/nte$ (“all”—that is, all of them, together)
    • h@san proskarterou=nte$ (“were being strong” [sense of “endurance”, “patience”] “toward” their purpose/goal)
    • o(moqumado\n (“with one impulse”—a key phrase that occurs throughout Acts, cf. 2:46; 4:24, et al. qumo/$ is often translated as “soul”, “mind” [“with one mind”], but also as “passion”, “desire”; the primal sense of the word was something like a “[violent] stirring”)
    • th=| proseuxh=| (“in prayer”)

Does this not seem a beautiful, concise image of what one might call the “kingdom of God” on earth?

Section 4: The Reconstitution of the Twelve (1:15-26):

Here it is important to emphasis again the theme of the Twelve. On purely objective grounds, the Twelve represent one of the earliest Christian traditions—a fixed tradition and symbol, separate, it would seem, from much of the actual historical detail. This appears clearly enough from passages such as 1 Cor. 15:5 and Matthew 19:28, where “the Twelve” are mentioned, even though only eleven disciples could be involved (Judas being dead or disqualified). Also, note the variant lists of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1-14; Mark 3:14-19; and Luke 6:13-16 / Acts 1:13). Most likely the Twelve were chosen (by Jesus) in part to represent the tribes of Israel. This is not stated directly, but note Matthew 19:28 (and the Lukan parallel 22:30) and the sending out of the Twelve in Matthew 10:5f. It is possible too, at least in early Christian tradition, that the twelve baskets in the miraculous feeding came to be thought of as symbolic of Israel re-gathered, as well as an image of Church unity (see Didache 9:4 on the Eucharist). In the book of Revelation 21:12-14, the twelve apostles are also identified in terms of the twelve tribes.

So here, in Acts, the choosing of a twelfth apostle, to take the place of Judas Iscariot, takes on great significance. According to the logic of the narrative, Israel (the Twelve tribes) cannot be restored until the Twelve are reconstituted. This may seem strange to modern thinking, but the symbolism was powerful indeed to early Christians, for whom Israel and “the Church” were closely connected.

This sets the stage for the Pentecost narrative (Acts 2:1-14ff) which I will discuss in Part 2.

Saturday Series: Exodus 32-34, continued)

Exodus 32-34

Last week we looked at chapters 32-34 of Exodus from the standpoint of textual, source, and historical criticism, introducing some of the issues and questions which commentators face when dealing with this section of the book. These are important, and should not be ignored; however, ultimately, we must grapple with the text as it has come down to us, whenever and however it was composed, and in whatever manner the various traditions came to be incorporated. This wider view relates to the area of Biblical Criticism called literary criticism—analysis of the passage as part of a written text and literary document, examining its structure, points of emphasis, its themes, and the images and concepts which reflect the story and message with the author wishes to communicate.

In approaching Exodus 32-34 within the context of the second half of the book (chaps. 19-40), the first point to note is the way that narrative alternates with a record of legal material. The latter is more properly presented within the narrative framework as instruction (laws, regulations, precepts) which God (YHWH) gives to the people, through Moses. This is reflected in the Hebrew word (tôrâ, hr*ot) which traditionally is used to refer to this material, and which gives its name to the Pentateuch as a whole (Torah). We can see how this torah dominates the second half of the book, being recorded in four main sections, as indicated in the following outline (torah marked by asterisks):

  • Introduction: The people at Mt. Sinai—Preparation for the appearance of YHWH (chap. 19)
    —The role of Moses as intermediary between YHWH and the people (vv. 14-25)
  • Part 1: The covenant is established at Sinai (20:1-24:11)
    —The Decalogue*: YHWH speaks to the people (20:1-14)
    —Moses functions as intermediary/representative for the people (20:15-23)
    —The Book of the Covenant*: YHWH speaks to Moses (21:1-23:33)
    —Ratification of the covenant (24:1-11)
  • Part 2: The ceremonial/ritual dimension of the covenant (24:12-31:18)
    —Moses ascends Sinai (24:12-18)
    —Religious instruction*, regarding the Tabernacle, etc (25:1-31:17)
    —The two tablets of the covenant (31:18)
  • Intermediary: The covenant is abolished (chaps. 32-33)
    —Moses descends Sinai
  • Part 3: The covenant is re-established at Sinai (34:1-28)
    —Moses ascends Sinai again (34:1-9)
    —Second ‘Book of the Covenant’* (34:10-27)
    —The two tablets of the covenant (34:28)
  • Intermediary: The restored covenant (34:29-35)
    —Moses descends Sinai
  • Part 4: The ceremonial/ritual dimension of the covenant (chaps 35-39)
    Religious instruction*, regarding the Tabernacle, etc
  • Conclusion: The people at Sinai—Preparation for the presence of YHWH (chap. 40)
    —Moses’ role of leadership in preparing the Tabernacles, etc (vv. 1-33)

There is a thematic symmetry to this structure, and to the character of the Torah, as it relates to the establishment of the binding agreement (covenant) between YHWH and his people:

    • Establishment of the covenant—Moses ascends Mt. Sinai
      • Theophany—Appearance of YHWH (chap. 20)
      • The “Book of the Covenant” (21:1-33)
      • Religious instruction—the Tabernacle (25:1-31:17)
      • The two tablets of the covenant (31:18)
    • Re-establishment of the covenant—Moses ascends Mt. Sinai
      • Theophany—Appearance of YHWH (34:1-9)
      • Second ‘Book of the Covenant’ (34:10-27)
      • Religious instruction—the Tabernacle (35:1ff)
      • The two tablets of the covenant (34:28)

The Torah itself may be summarized two ways, according to two fundamental aspects:

    1. The regulations and precepts which are to govern Israelite society, and their identity as God’s chosen people; and,
    2. As the terms of the binding agreement (covenant) between God and his people; in written form (the two tablets, etc) it provides the legal basis for the agreement. Transgression of the torah represents more than violation of a law or regulation; it means the violation of the agreement itself, which entailed very specific punishment, tied to the ritual image of cutting (dismembered animals, circumcision, sacrificial offering [with blood])—the one who violates the covenant will similarly be “cut off”.

Any attempt to understand and interpret the legal material in the book of Exodus, without keeping this connection with the covenant clearly in view, will be doomed to failure. It is absolutely essential to the thematic structure and message of the book. You may wish to review our study of the covenant episodes in Genesis 15, 17, and Exodus 24, from recent weeks. Indeed, it is the idea of the covenant, or binding agreement (Heb. b§rî¾, tyr!B=), which governs the intermediate scenes in chapters 32-33—the episode of the Golden Calf, and its aftermath, marking abrogation of the covenant. Let us examine briefly these chapters, along with the following chap. 34, in light of this overriding theme. Several aspects come to fore:

    • The tension involved in Moses as the leader/representative of the people
    • The identity of Israel as God’s people, which is central to the covenant
    • The violation and abrogation of the covenant, and what this entails
1. Moses as the people’s representative

Problematic from the beginning is the people’s dependence on Moses as their representative, serving as an intermediary before God. It is they who request that God speak to Moses, and no longer directly to them (20:16-18), and it is thus only Moses who ascends all the way up the mountain to the place where God’s presence is (24:12-18). This sets the stage for the Golden Calf episode (32:1). The people feared to hear God’s voice, and now they begin to fear what may have happened to their leader and representative. During the 40 days and nights when Moses is on the mountain, the people are without contact with God; implicit in this condition is that it becomes a time of testing. Indeed, this provides the psychological basis for their violation of the covenant (vv. 2ff)—they seek a tangible sign of God’s presence, which, inadvertently, it would seem, leads to idolatry and the worship of “other” gods. The Calf itself, in its historical context and background, almost certainly is to be understood as representing the seat (or throne) of God’s presence, much like the winged figures of the golden Ark. It is, however, a fine line between the creation of such images, and a perversion of true worship. This is a theme which runs through virtually the entire Old Testament, and helps to explain the centrality of the first command(s) in the Decalogue (20:3-5a, see also 34:17). It is the command in 20:4-5 which is violated initially; but the declaration in 32:3 (“These are your gods…”, also v. 8) effectively results in a violation of the first command in 20:3 as well. The words of YHWH in v. 8 reflect his anger over how quickly the agreement was violated, and with the very first words of the Torah.

2. The identity of Israel as God’s people

Verse 10 introduces the idea that God will destroy the people—death/destruction being the punishment for violating the covenant. He intends to start over with Moses, replacing Abraham and his descendants (see the covenant episodes in Gen 15 and 17, etc). Violation of the covenant essentially invalidates this identity of a people belonging to God, who submit to his authority and have established a reciprocal relationship with him. Indeed, in verse 7, God refers to them as Moses‘ people (“your people”, see above on Moses as the people’s representative), no longer referring to them as his own people (v. 9). Moses, however, intercedes for them with God (i.e. the other side of his role as intermediary), requesting that YHWH continue to regard them as His people (vv. 11ff), and this identity seems to be restored, at least in part, in verse 14. There it is stated that YHWH ‘relaxed’ himself over the “evil” (i.e. punishment, destruction) which he was going to do to “His people”. This theme, and the tension involved with it, continues into chapter 33.

3. The violation and abolishment of the Covenant

Even though God may have decided to soften the punishment against the people, the agreement established with them has been invalidated and is over. The breaking of the tablets (v. 19) makes this absolutely clear, according to ancient Near Eastern tradition and practice; e.g., see the Akkadian expression “break the tablet” (tuppam —epû). Still, it is a lesser punishment which is to be administered, in several stages:

    • The people drink water containing powder from the Golden Calf after it was burned down (v. 20). This is presumably for a ritual ordeal to identify the guilty (see the parallel in Num 5:12-31).
    • Once the guilty are identified, they are “consecrated” for destruction and are put to death (vv. 27-29)
    • Apparently, there is also a punishment inflicted on the people through disease (v. 35), though this is stated very briefly, and the exact relation to the events described in the prior verses is uncertain.

Thus, it is not the people as a whole who receive the punishment of death/destruction, but only the specific individuals who are guilty. This important religious principle, which would come up again at various points in the Old Testament, is emphasized in Moses’ second encounter with God (vv. 33-34).

The invalidation of God’s agreement (covenant) with Israel suddenly leaves the narrative at an impasse. The dramatic tension of the scene becomes even more evident in chapter 33, where all the themes from the Golden Calf episode are developed in a unique way, drawing perhaps from a separate line of tradition. I would ask that you read chapter 33 (and on into chap. 34) most carefully. We will be continuing this thematic and exegetical examination of the powerful narrative of Exod 32-34 in next week’s study. Pay attention to each detail and nuance in the text. If you are unable to read Hebrew, make use of whatever tools are at your disposal to study the actual Hebrew words and phrases used. Try to follow carefully the dialogue between Moses and YHWH. How does this relate to the preceding chapters, and to the covenant theme of the narrative? Study and meditate on these points, and I will see you again, God willing…next Saturday.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 1:4

As discussed in the introduction, this series of word study notes deals with the key thematic motifs of Spirit (pneu=ma) and Life (zwh/), as joined together in the statement by Jesus in Jn 6:63: “the utterances [i.e. words] that I speak to you are Spirit and Life”.

These notes will begin with the Johannine writings, as both terms have special significance in these works. The noun zwh/ occurs 36 times in the Gospels (compared with 16 in the Synoptics combined). There are 13 further occurrences in the First Letter; if we include references (16) in the book of Revelation (considered as a Johannine work), there are 65 total, nearly half of all occurrences (135) in the New Testament. The primary verb za/w (“live”), from which zwh/ is derived, is also frequent in the Gospel of John (17 out of 140 in the NT), especially used as verbal adjective or substantive. The verb zwopoie/w (“make [a]live”) also occurs twice in the Gospel.

The noun pneu=ma (“breath, spirit”) is more common in the New Testament, often in reference to the Spirit of God (or Holy Spirit). It occurs 24 times in the Gospel of John, and in all but 2 (or 3) instances, the reference is to the Spirit of God; the specific expression “Holy Spirit” appears three times (1:33; 14:26; 20:22). Thus the Spirit is more prominent in John than the other Gospels (though Luke is relatively close), and evinces a marked development of the early Gospel Tradition. The Johannine Discourses of Jesus are extremely complex literary pieces, reflecting a level of theological and Christological expression (and interpretation), though they certainly derive from authentic sayings and teachings of Jesus. For a survey of the evidence from the Synoptic Gospels, cf. the Introduction.

I begin with the first relevant passage in the Gospel of John, from the initial section of the Prologue (1:1-18).

John 1:4

An analysis of this verse is complicated because there is a variant reading involved. It is not a textual variant per se—rather, it is reflected more in the way that verses 3 and 4 are punctuated. In order to see this in context, I begin with verse 1 (note that for the sake of simplicity, I translate lo/go$ conventionally as “Word”):

“In the beginning was [h@n] the Word, and the Word was [h@n] toward God, and the Word was [h@n] God. This (One) was [h@n] in the beginning toward God.” (vv. 1-2)

The first two verses are governed by a four-fold use of the verb of being (ei)mi), in the imperfect active (indicative) form h@n (“he was…”). There are three components in verse 1, each characterized by an h@n phrase:

    • in the beginning was the Word
    • the Word was toward [pro/$] God [qeo/$ w/definite article]
    • the Word was God [qeo/$ w/out definite article]

Verse 2 restates the first two phrases: “This (One) was in the beginning | toward [pro/$] God”. The preposition pro/$ likely reflects the idea of facing God (or even moving toward him), suggesting that the Word is in close proximity (and intimacy) with God. What is most important is to realize how the verb of being (h@n, “was…”) characterizes the divine, eternal Being and Existence. In standard theological parlance, we might say that this relates to the inner life of the Godhead.

This brings us to verses 3 and 4, which can be understood (and translated) several ways. The crux lies in the last two words of verse 3 (o^ ge/gonen), indicated by italics below:

    • Translation (punctuation) #1:
      “All (thing)s came to be through him, and apart from him not even one (thing) came to be (of) that which has come to be. In him was life…”
    • Translation (punctuation) #2:
      “All (thing)s came to be through him, and apart from him not even one (thing) came to be. That which has come to be in him was life…”

Many commentators prefer the latter punctuation, citing a number of key early Church Fathers in support of it (cf. R. E. Brown, Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29, pp. 6-7). Those who favor it also note the supposed “staircase” parallelism of the poetic lines, whereby the start of one line picks up where the previous line leaves off—i.e. “…came to be” // “that which has come to be…” However, in my view, this is incorrect. The strongest argument against punctuation #2 (above) is the specific use (and meaning) of the verb gi/nomai in the context of the Johannine Prologue (and elsewhere in the Gospel). The verb of being (ei)mi) governs verses 1-2, while gi/nomai, a verb of becoming (“come to be, become”) governs v. 3. The verb gi/nomai in the Prologue refers to creation—i.e., that which comes to be (in contrast to God, who Is), especially creatures (human beings) who come to be born. Punctuation #1 above preserves this distinction accurately:

“All (thing)s came to be [e)ge/neto] through him, and apart from him not even one (thing) came to be [e)ge/neto] (of) that which has come to be [ge/gonen].”

The three-fold use of gi/nomai parallels the three-fold use of ei)mi (h@n) in verse 1. In conventional theological parlance, verse 1 deals with the life/existence of the Godhead, while verse 3 deals with creation (and the central role of Word in the process of creation). According to this interpretation, verse 4 has a clear and simple symmetry:

“In him was [h@n] life, and the life was [h@n] the light of men”

The dual use of the verb of being (ei)mi [h@n]) marks a return to a focus on the divine Being/Existence emphasized in vv. 1-2:

    • “in him [i.e the Divine Word] was Life”
    • “th(is Divine) Life was the Light…”

Here there is definitely a kind of step-parallelism:

    • In him was Life
      • Life was the Light of men

This first occurrence of the noun zwh/ in the Gospel of John is significant in the way that it defines the term, not in the traditional sense of the blessed life to be inherited by the righteous at the end-time, but as the life which God possesses (in Himself). This reflects a more profound sense of what might be referred to as “eternal life”—not as everlasting life, but as divine life, the life which is in God. The two halves of verse 4 are virtually a summary of the Johannine Gospel message:

    • The Word (i.e. Jesus, the Son) shares the Life of God and holds it in himself (cf. 5:26, etc)
    • This Life is communicated to human beings in the world (i.e. believers) through/by the Son (Jesus, who is also the [living] Word)

The sense of verse 4, in my opinion, becomes quite confused if one adopts the second punctuation (#2) cited above: “That which has come to be in him was life…”. First it mixes together the verbs gi/nomai and h@n in a way that is most difficult to interpret. What exactly does this statement mean? The difficulty is reflected by the fact that there are two distinct ways of interpreting this reading:

    • “That which has come to be in him was life…” or
    • “That which as come to be was life in him“

The first phrasing suggest that Life (zwh/) was the thing which “came to be” in the Word. The second phrasing allows for the idea that something which “came to be” in the Word was given life, or was identified with Life. In either instance, there is a strange mixing of Creation with the Divine Life which is not at all clear. Admittedly, within the thought and theology of the Gospel, believers come to be “in” Christ, united with him (and God the Father), but this idea does not seem to be in view at this point in the Prologue. Rather, it is introduced in vv. 12-13, only after it is stated that the Word was [h@n] “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw|) [v. 10]. This a foreshadowing of the incarnation, of the Word coming to be born as a human being (vv. 14ff).

What does it mean to say that the Life (h( zwh/) was “the Light of men”? As in the case of the noun zwh/, the word “light” (fw=$) has a special significance in the Gospel of John. It does not typically refer to ordinary light (except in a symbolic sense), nor of human reason, etc as “light, enlightenment”; rather, it relates specifically to the knowledge and awareness of God the Father (and his Truth, etc) which is revealed and manifest in the person and work of Jesus. The Life which Jesus (the Son and Word) possesses is communicated to human beings (believers), bringing Light to them. While this is almost certainly the sense of verse 4, many commentators recognize that the Johannine Prologue likely draws upon ancient Wisdom traditions. In this regard, the “light of men” could be understood in a more general sense—i.e. God and the Divine Word as the source of enlightening wisdom. However, such Wisdom traditions are sublimated in the Prologue as we have it, having been reinterpreted from a Christological viewpoint. We will see further examples of this as we continue through the remaining passages in the Gospel dealing with the motifs of “Life” and “Spirit”.

“…Spirit and Life”

For the next few weeks, in celebration of Pentecost, I will be presenting a series of word study notes based on Jesus’ statement in John 6:63:

“the utterances [i.e. words] that I speak to you are Spirit and Life“

This involves two key words (and concepts) in the New Testament—pneu=ma (“Spirit”) and zwh/ (“Life”). Because these have such an important place in the Johannine writings, those works (especially the Gospel and First Letter) will be my primary focus. However, I will be examining key passages in the remainder of the New Testament as well.

Before proceeding, it will be helpful to define both of these Greek words.

pneu=ma

The fundamental meaning of pneu=ma (pneúma), derived from the verb pne/w (pnéœ), is that of blowing. This is usually understood either (1) of the wind (a natural phenomenon), or (2) of breath (a personal/physiological phenomenon). In ancient thought, of course, these were often combined, especially in the mythological/cosmological sense of wind as the breath of God. For human beings, the life-animating principle, divinely bestowed, was often identified with the breath. Thus pneu=ma came to be used in reference to this inward life-force—the “soul” or “spirit”. When speaking of God (or deity), the source of life given to human beings could likewise be understood as the “breath” or “spirit”—i.e. the life-giving Spirit of God.

zwh/

The noun zwh/ (zœ¢¡) is somewhat easier to explain, being derived from za/w (záœ), a primary verb meaning “live”. Thus zwh/ fundamentally means “life”—usually in the sense of natural, physical/biological life. Again, since God represents the source of life, zwh/ could also be used to refer to the life possessed by God (or the Gods, in a polytheistic worldview). This divine life can be understood both in a qualitative and quantitative sense—both aspects are combined in the expression “eternal life”. Often, the divine life is contrasted with that of mortal beings, thus hinging on the idea of deathlessness (i.e. “without death”, a)qa/nato$). In ancient thought, the righteous or deserving among humans, either after death or following a final Judgment, could come to possess and share in the blessed life of (the) God(s).

The Synoptic Gospels

I begin this study with a survey of passages from the Synoptic Gospels, which include sayings of Jesus which are central to the early Gospel Tradition—thus reflecting one of the earliest (if not the earliest) layers of Christian thought. To someone who has not analyzed the evidence carefully, it may come as a surprise how rarely both words zwh/ (“life”) and pneu=ma (“Spirit”) occur in the Synoptics, especially if we combine together the parallel passages. Admittedly the word pneu=ma itself is found relatively frequently, but often in the sense of a human “spirit” or of other “spirit”-beings (i.e. daimons, “demons”). Passages where the reference is clearly to the Spirit of God (or “Holy Spirit”) are far fewer. Let us survey these.

Pneu=ma in the core Synoptic Tradition

By this is meant the “Triple”-tradition, shared (generally) by all three Synoptics, and usually best represented by the Gospel of Mark. There are just six occurrences of pneu=ma (as “Spirit”) in Mark:

  • Three times in the context of the Baptism of Jesus:
    • The saying of John the Baptist:
      “I dunked [i.e. baptized] you in water, but he will dunk you in the holy Spirit” (Mk 1:8, par Matt 3:11 & Lk 3:16 [both add “and fire”])
    • The Baptism scene:
      “…stepping up out of the water he saw the heavens being split, and the Spirit as a dove stepping [i.e. coming] down unto him” (Mk 1:10; par Matt 3:16 [“Spirit of God”] and Lk 3:22 [“Holy Spirit”])
    • After the Baptism:
      “And straightway [i.e. immediately] the Spirit casts him out into the desolate (land)” (Mk 1:12; cp. Matt 4:1; Lk 4:1)
  • The saying regarding the “sin against the Holy Spirit”:
    “All (thing)s will be released [i.e. forgiven] for the sons of men, the sins and the insults, however they might give insult; but whoever should give insult unto the holy Spirit, he does not have release [i.e. forgiveness] into the Age…” (Mk 3:28-29; cp. Matt 12:31-32; Lk 12:10)
  • In Mark 12:36 (par Matt 22:43), Jesus mentions the Holy Spirit as the source of David’s inspiration in the composition of Ps 110:1ff.
  • Mark 13:11 (par Matt 10:20; cp. Lk 12:12)—as part of the eschatological teaching given by Jesus to his disciples, he refers to the Holy Spirit:
    “…whatever shall be given to you in that hour, this you shall speak—for you are not the (one)s speaking, but (rather) the holy Spirit“

It is only in the last of these (Mk 13:11), part of specific teaching by Jesus to his disciples, that something like the early Christian concept of the Holy Spirit appears to be in view. The sense of the “Holy Spirit” in the famous saying in Mk 3:28-29 is much more difficult to determine.

Pneu=ma in the “Q” material and the Gospel of Matthew

(References marked with an asterisk might be considered part of the so-called “Q” material, shared by Matthew and Luke [but not found in Mark])

    • In the Matthean Infancy narrative, the Holy Spirit is mentioned as the source of the supernatural (virginal) conception of Jesus—Matt 1:18, 20 (on the Lukan parallels, cf. below).
    • Matt 12:18—part of a citation of Isa 42:1-3, a (Messianic) prophecy applied to Jesus (“I will set my Spirit upon him…”)
    • *The saying of Jesus in Matt 12:28: “but if in [i.e. with/by] the Spirit of God I cast out the daimons, then the kingdom of God has (already) arrived upon you”. The parallel saying in Luke 11:20 reads “finger of God” instead of “Spirit of God”.
    • *The saying regarding the “sin against the Holy Spirit” in Matt 12:31-32 and Lk 12:10 differs in certain respects from the Markan parallel, and may be derived from the “Q” tradition.
    • Matt 28:20—The famous statement by Jesus, part of the closing “Great Commission” refers to the Holy Spirit in something like a Trinitarian sense. Here it seems to reflect (or at least anticipate) early Christian thought and understanding regarding the relationship between the Spirit and Jesus.
Pneu=ma in Luke

The Gospel of Luke contains noticeably more references to the Spirit, representing a key theme and motif that continues on in the book of Acts. This will be discussed in a separate note in this series. Here it is necessary to survey the key Gospel references unique to Luke:

    • In the Infancy Narrative, John the Baptist, Mary, Elizabeth, Zechariah and Simeon are said to be “filled with the Spirit”, or that the Spirit is (or will be) upon them, that they are “in the Spirit”, etc.—Lk 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25-27. This reflects both the traditional idea of Prophetic inspiration, as well as a foreshadowing of the role of the Spirit among Christians (e.g., in the book of Acts). In reference to the conception of Jesus (cf. Matt 1:18, 20), “the Holy Spirit” is parallel (and synonymous) with “the Power of the Highest” (Lk 1:35).
    • Luke has expanded the basic Synoptic tradition from Mark 1:12 (par Matt 4:1), describing in more precise terms, the relation between the Spirit and Jesus at the beginning of his ministry (before and after the Temptation scene):
      Lk 4:1: “And Yeshua, full of the holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden, and was led in the Spirit in the desolate (land)”
      Lk 4:14: “And Yeshua turned back in the power of the Spirit into the Galîl…”
    • As part of this narrative recording the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (in Galilee), there is the citation of Isa 61:1 in Lk 4:18: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…” This a fundamental passage regarding Jesus’ identity as the Messiah (“Anointed One”), both at the historical level, and in the Gospel of Luke.
    • This same aspect of Jesus’ relationship to the Spirit is reflected in the introduction to his saying in Lk 10:21:
      “In that hour he leapt (for joy) [in] the holy Spirit and said…”
    • The Lukan version of the saying in 11:13 (cp. Matt 12:34):
      “if you…have known (enough) to give good gifts to your offspring, how much more will the Father out of Heaven give the holy Spirit to the (one)s asking him?”
    • Mention should also be made of Lk 24:49, which, though the word pneu=ma is not used, clearly refers to the Holy Spirit. On “Power” as a kind of synonym for the Spirit, cf. Lk 1:35.

Thus, even without considering the evidence from the book of Acts, it is clear that there has been a degree of development in the Gospel Luke, giving greater emphasis to the (Holy) Spirit, both in relation to believers and to Jesus himself.

Zwh/ (“Life”) in the Synoptic Gospels

It is somewhat surprising that the word zwh/ occurs just 16 times in the Synoptic Gospels (compared with 36 in the Gospel of John). If we exclude the Synoptic parallels as such, the actual number of distinct occurrences is even smaller. Found in the sayings of Jesus, they involve certain idiomatic expressions, generally with an eschatological orientation:

Only twice (in Luke 12:15 and 16:25) is zwh/ used in the normal sense of an ordinary human life (or life-time). In all the other occurrences cited above, it can more properly be understood as eternal life—that is, the divine life which the righteous will come to possess (or enter) at the end-time (following the Judgment). This is important, as it indicates the background to the term as it came to be used regularly by early Christians. If we accept the fundamental authenticity (and historicity) of the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics, we would have to recognize that the early Christian usage has been shaped and influenced in important ways by Jesus’ own teaching.

For more on references to the Holy Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, consult the notes in the recent series “The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition”.

May 28: John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13

John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13

In the previous daily note, I surveyed the passages in the Gospel of John which mention the (Holy) Spirit; today I will focus in a bit more detail on the so-called “Paraclete” passages in chapters 14–16 (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; cf. also 1 Jn 2:1). Of all the references to the Holy Spirit in the Gospels (and Acts), it is here that we perhaps come closest to the idea of the Spirit as a distinct person. This will be addressed further below, at the end of the note.

The Greek noun para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos) is derived from the verb parakale/w (parakaléœ, “call alongside”). Literally, the noun means “one (who is) called alongside” (passive) or “one (who) calls alongside” (active). The “calling alongside” normally implies the sense of giving help—i.e. aid, comfort, encouragement, etc. Sometimes it carries the technical meaning of a legal advocate. This semantic range has made interpretation and translation of para/klhto$ somewhat difficult in these passages, being rendered variously as “Comforter”, “Counselor”, “Advocate”, or simply transliterated as “Paraclete”. In ordinary English, the word is probably best translated as “Helper”.

A number of (critical) commentators have felt that, in the underlying Gospel tradition, this Paraclete/Helper originally referred to a being or figure separate from the Holy Spirit (as understood by early Christians). This is rather questionable, though it must be admitted that, in all three passages, the Paraclete is identified by the title “the Spirit of Truth”, and only once as “the Holy Spirit”. The expression “Spirit of Truth” is not found elsewhere in the New Testament outside of the Johannine tradition (1 Jn 4:6; cf. 5:6; Jn 4:23-24), but it does appear several times in the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), especially in the so-called Community Rule [1QS] 3:18-19; 4:21, 23, the portion sometimes referred to as the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (cf. also 4Q177 12-13 i 5; 4Q542 1 i 10, and note in 1QM 13:10). These “Spirits”—one of Truth, and one of Falsehood/Deceit—correspond to heavenly beings, i.e. Angels (cf. 1QS 3:24), opposed to one another, according to the dualistic worldview expressed in the Qumran texts (as also in the Testament of Judah ch. 20). Thus, at the time of Jesus (and early Gospel tradition), the expression “Spirit of Truth” as referring to a guarding/helping Angel, would have been current and familiar to some. It is also thought that the Paraclete idea in Jn 14-16 may have been influenced by Jewish Wisdom tradition, in which Divine Wisdom, personified or described as a person, gives help and guidance to the righteous. For a convenient survey and discussion of these topics, cf. R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29A, pp. 1135-43 (Appendix V).

There are three basic Paraclete passages in John 14-16:

1. John 14:15-24 (& v. 26)—the Spirit in the disciples.

Here the emphasis is on the abiding presence of Jesus (the Son)—and, by extension, God the Father—in believers. Jesus is going away (back) to the Father, but will come again and be seen by his followers:

    • The world will no longer see (physically)
      —but believers will see (through the Spirit), v. 19 (cf. 9:39; 20:29, etc)
    • The world cannot receive the Spirit, v. 17; only those who trust in the Son can/will do so

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

    • “The Spirit of Truth“—whom the Father sends, at Jesus’ request (v. 17), and also
      “The Holy Spirit“—whom the Father will send in Jesus’ name (v. 26)

The last reference gives specific emphasis on the Spirit/Paraclete teaching the disciples, so that Jesus’ words will remain/abide in them.

2. John 15:18-16:4a—the disciples speaking by the Spirit.

In this passage, the emphasis is on the Divine presence, i.e. of the Son (and the Father), for believers in the face of persecution (hatred by the world), so that they may testify on Jesus’ behalf—i.e., believers as Jesus’ representatives (cf. Mark 13:9-13 par; Matt 10:16-23; Luke 12:10-12). The disciples (indeed, all believers) are chosen out of the world, and do not belong to the world (v. 19).

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

    • “The Spirit of Truth“—whom Jesus will send from the Father (v. 26)
3. John 16:4b-15—the Spirit speaking through the disciples.

Here, in this third section, the emphasis is on the witness by the Spirit (against the world), through the testimony of believers. It is Jesus (the Son), and, by extension, the Father, who is speaking by way of the Paraclete (Matt 10:20; Lk 21:15). This is a profound reflection of the relationship between Father and Son (vv. 12-15), which, through the Spirit/Paraclete, results in the triadic unity: Father—Son—Believers (cf. 14:20-21, 23; 15:9-10; 17:20-26).

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

    • “The Spirit of Truth“—who will come, from the Father and Son together (implied) (v. 13)
Reference to the Trinity?

Commentators and readers are often anxious to find expression of the orthodox formulation of the Trinity in the pages of the New Testament. In all fairness, it must be admitted that is really only present in a very rudimentary, seminal form—e.g., in passages such as 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2; and Matt 28:19 (on this last, cf. my earlier notes). The basis for the orthodox belief, however, is found in the various statements which relate Jesus to the Father and/or the Spirit. There are two main sources in the New Testament which would shape the development of Christological and Trinitarian thought—(1) the letters of Paul, and (2) the Gospel (and First letter) of John, i.e. Pauline and Johannine theology. The Paraclete passages in the Discourses of Jn 13-17 are central to the Johannine view, which, I believe, may be summarized as follows:

    • The Spirit/Paraclete essentially represents the abiding (spiritual) presence of Jesus in believers, while he himself remains in heaven with the Father. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the expression “Spirit of Jesus” or “Spirit of Christ” is effectively synonymous with the “Spirit of God” or the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11; and note also “Spirit of the Lord” in Acts 5:9; 8:39; 2 Cor 3:17).
    • The Son (Jesus) was sent by the Father; once he returns to the Father, he, in turn, will send the Spirit/Paraclete to his disciples in his place. The Son will continue to act and work alongside the Father (in Heaven), but will, at the same time, be present with believers through the Spirit. This is described at several points within the Discourses (cf. above), and in the narrative context of Gospel is referenced (briefly) in Jn 20:17, 22.
    • The (reciprocal) relationship between Father and Son is such that the Son, in turn, does what the Father is doing (or has done). This is expressed throughout the Discourses in the Gospel, and is emphasized all the more in the context of the Son returning to a position alongside the Father in chs. 14-17. An interesting effect of this is that the sending of the Spirit can alternately be said to take place: (a) by the Father, in Jesus’ name (or at his request), or (b) by Jesus, from the Father.
    • This same relationship is extended to believers, in a two-fold manner:
      (1) The Father comes to abide in believers, just as the Son (Jesus) does—the presence of both (together) is realized for believers through the Spirit
      (2) The Son ‘prepares a place’ with the Father in Heaven for believers—he is the way to the Father and believers, insofar as they are faithful, will follow the Son to abide in union with the Father. This is marked by the other side of the Spirit’s presence—just as the Son abides in believers, so also believers abide in the Son.

Thus, we do not see a Trinitarian formula, properly speaking; but rather a triadic unity marked by the Spirit, which one might diagram (however imperfectly) in the following manner:

May 27: John 1:32-33; 3:5-6, 8, etc

This series of daily notes on the Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition, begun in celebration of Pentecost, concludes with a survey of passages dealing with the Spirit in the Gospel of John. For the most part, these references occur in the Discourses of Jesus which make up the core of the Gospel. It is not possible to discuss all of these in detail here; several of the passages have been treated extensively in earlier notes and articles. I would organize the references into five categories which highlight the Johannine view and presentation of the Holy Spirit.

1. John 1:32-33—In relation to Baptism

These two verses combine distinct pieces of early Gospel tradition, also preserved in the Synoptic Gospels and within the book of Acts: (a) the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (vv. 32-33; Mk 1:10; Matt 3:16; Lk 3:22; Acts 10:38); and (b) the saying that Jesus will baptize people in the Holy Spirit (v. 33; Mk 1:8; Matt 3:11; Lk 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16). The latter saying sets a contrastive parallel between water and the Spirit.

2. John 3:5-6, 8—”New Birth”, believers born of the Spirit

Central to the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3:1-15ff is the idea of people coming to be born “out of [i.e. from] the Spirit [e)k pneu/mato$]”. The following points should be noted:

    • It is parallel and synonymous with being “born from above [a&nwqen]”, which can also be understood as “born again” (v. 3)—the dual-meaning serving as the source of Nicodemus’ misunderstanding in the narrative.
    • It is contrasted with physical/biological birth from the mother’s womb [i.e. “water”] (v. 4), and from flesh (v. 6). Indeed spiritual birth has an ineffable, invisible character (v. 8).
    • There is likely also an allusion to baptism—”water and (the) Spirit” (v. 5, cf. 1:32-33; Mk 1:8 par).

This spiritual birth is clearly connected with trust/faith in the Son, who has come down from heaven, sent by God—vv. 11-15, 16-21. Elsewhere in the New Testament, coming to be born “out of [e)k] the Spirit” relates to the birth (conception) of Jesus (Matt 1:18, 20, cf. Lk 1:35), though similar language is applied to believers in Gal 4:29 (cf. also 1 Pet 1:23). In the Johannine tradition, believers are typically said to be born of God (Jn 1:13; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), but certainly this should be taken as synonymous with “born of the Spirit“.

3. John 6:63; 7:39—Symbolic of trust/faith in Jesus, the image of eating and drinking

John 6:63—The contrast between Spirit and flesh, similar to that in 3:5-6; for the dualistic idea in Paul, cf. Rom 8:4-6, 9, 13; Gal 3:3; 4:29; 5:16ff; 6:8; Phil 3:3. Note the phrasing:

    • “The Spirit is the (one/thing) making (a)live [i.e. giving life]”—(by contrast) “the flesh makes nothing useful” (v. 63a)
    • “The utterances/words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life” (v. 63b)

This declaration by Jesus comes at the close of the great “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter 6, in which Jesus identifies himself as the bread (of life) that has “come down out of heaven” (vv. 32-33, 35, 41, 48, 51, 58), parallel to his identity as the Son who has come down from heaven, being sent by God the Father (Jn 3:13-18, etc). It is trust in the Son which leads to eternal life (vv. 64-65ff), and this is principally what is symbolized in the image of eating the bread of life. Actually, Jesus gives to the metaphor the added dimension of eating and drinking, with the bread representing his body and blood. There is very likely a eucharistic allusion here, but, in my view, commentators have given this far too much weight; verse 63 makes clear that this eating is spiritual, and applies fundamentally to Jesus’ words. However, as the Johannine depiction of Jesus shows him to be the incarnate ‘Word’ of God, accepting Jesus’ words is essentially the same as trusting in his person and his sacrificial death (body/blood).

John 7:39—Here also we find the similar image of drinking, with the Spirit symbolized specifically as water. Again, the symbolism refers to trusting in Jesus, i.e. his words and his person (v. 38). It is the Gospel writer who interprets the water, which will flow out for the believer, as referring to the Holy Spirit (v. 39). In passing, it is worth mentioning that the “writing” (Scripture) Jesus apparently cites in v. 38b remains uncertain; it does not correspond exactly with anything in the Old Testament, though commentators have suggested Psalm 78:15-16; Isa 58:11; Zech 14:8; and Prov 5:15; 18:4 (cf. also Sir 24:30-33) as possibilities.

On the (triadic) conjunction of Spirit, water, and blood, cf. also 1 John 5:6, 8.

4. John 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13—Promise of sending the Spirit for believers

These are the famous “Paraclete” passages in the Discourses of chapters 13–17—the sending/coming of the para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos) in 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, also called “the Spirit of Truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13), and once “the Holy Spirit” (14:26). The basic context of chapters 14-16 is Jesus’ impending departure to the Father; actually the language of departure/return takes place at several levels in the (narrative) structure of the discourse:

  • The disciples will no longer see Jesus—
    • 1: He will be put to death
    • 2: He will return to the Father, i.e. remaining in heaven for a time
    • 3: He will go away (depart/return) to his place with the Father
  • They will see him again—
    • 1: He will rise again and appear to them
    • 2: He will come again to them (at the end-time)
    • 3: He will be present with them through the Spirit (i.e. they will see him spiritually)

#1 fits the traditional Gospel narrative context, of Jesus’ impending death and resurrection.
#2 accords with early Christian eschatology, i.e. the end-time return of Jesus.
#3 corresponds to what is often called “realized” eschatology—Jesus’ “return” takes place for believers, even at the present time (at least in part), through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

The Discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John seem to blend together all three of these strands of tradition/interpretation. The Paraclete passages will be discussed further in the next daily note.

5. John 20:22 (and 3:34)—The sending/giving of the Spirit to believers

John 20:22 records—briefly and succinctly—Jesus’ sending/giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Based on Jn 17:20ff, it may be inferred that other believers would (similarly) receive the Spirit through the work and ministry of the disciples. The Gospel of John has nothing matching the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2:1-4ff; however, it essentially holds the same place in the Gospel narrative—i.e., a record of the coming of the Spirit upon the first believers, which Jesus gives/sends from the Father (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4, 7-8 || John 14:1-7, 16, 19-24, 26, 28; 15:26; 16:4-7; 17:11ff; 20:17, 22). I have discussed this in some detail in short series of articles for Pentecost (“The Sending of the Spirit”), to be posted here this coming weekend (see esp. Part 3 on the account in John).

There is a relatively close parallel to Jn 20:21-22 in 3:34:

    • 20:21b—”even as the Father set me forth [i.e. sent me], I also (am) send(ing) you”
      3:34a—”the one [i.e. the Son] whom God [i.e. the Father] set forth [i.e. sent] (from Him)…”
    • 20:22—”(Jesus) breathed in/on (them) and said to them, ‘Receive (the) holy Spirit'”
      3:34b—”he [i.e. the Son/Jesus] does not give the Spirit out of (a) measure [i.e. he gives the Spirit without measure]”

On the Spirit having been given to believers, cf. also 1 John 3:24; 4:13.

May 26: Acts 6:10; 8:38; 11:17, etc

No survey or study of the references to the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts is complete without some mention of the unique passages in the so-called ‘Western’ text of Acts. For those unfamiliar with the terminology, in New Testament textual criticism, ‘Western’ refers to manuscripts and versions which share a specific set of textual readings (or tendencies), distinct from other text-groupings (Alexandrian) and/or the ‘Majority’ text (the reading of the majority of manuscripts). In particular, it refers primarily to the readings common to the Codex Bezae [D] and a good number of Old Latin manuscripts. However the term “Western” is something of a misnomer, since ‘Western’ readings are also shared by various Greek MSS presumably covering a relatively wide/disparate geographical range, as well as by Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), Georgian, etc, versions. While ‘Western’ readings are attested in the Gospels and other New Testament books, the distinctive readings in the book of Acts are extensive (and different) enough to constitute an entirely separate recension, or version, of the book. The relation of this recension to the Alexandrian/Majority text has been the topic of discussion and debate among commentators and textual scholars for decades. The ‘Western’ version is longer and more extensive, containing more (and more verbose) literary/historical detail, especially in the introductory and summary portions of the narrative episodes. Of the many theories scholars have put forward, the most noteworthy (and interesting) are:

    • The Alexandrian/Majority text is the original (or more closely so), while the ‘Western’ text represents a secondary expansion by scribes or an author/editor
    • The ‘Western’ text is closer to the original, while the Alexandrian/Majority text is a truncated or redacted version (by a later scribe or author/editor)
    • The original author (trad. Luke) produced two versions or drafts of the book, each of which (somehow) was published or came into circulation
    • The original work was incomplete, surviving in a draft form which included notes/annotations by the author; subsequent scribes/editors created the two versions working from this draft text

The last theory is especially intriguing and offers an attractive explanation for several especially difficult passages; however, it remains highly speculative. Most scholars today would opt for the first theory, that the ‘Western’ text is a secondary expansion. Generally, this would seem to be correct, since the scribal tendency was to expand/add to the text rather than reduce/omit from it—hence the text-critical rule of thumb lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is preferred”). Also, many of the longer narrative sections seem to have the purpose of clarifying the context in detail, to the point of becoming excessively redundant and pedantic.

Some scholars have also thought that the ‘Western’ version shows distinctive doctrinal/theological tendencies (including an anti-Jewish bias); this has been discussed in a number of studies, most notably in Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge: 1966). One feature of the ‘Western’ version of Acts is an increased emphasis on the Holy Spirit—including at least 10 distinct references, in addition to the 50+ in the Alexandrian/Majority text. It has been argued that this difference is theological as well—e.g., (a) the ‘Western’ author/editor wished to give greater prominence to the role of the Spirit (perhaps under Montanist influence), or (b) the Alexandrian/Majority text may have wished to reduce the role of the Spirit due to an anti-charismatic (or anti-Montanist) tendency. Matthew Black expounds this latter point in his article “The Holy Spirit in the Western Text of Acts” (in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Eldon J. Epp & Gordon D. Fee [Oxford: 1981], pp. 159-70). I find such theories to be rather unlikely. Most of what I see in the ‘Western’ version can be explained simply as the result of a tendency to clarify and (over)explain the narrative context. If anything, there may have been a pious interest to enhance the role and prestige of the apostles by including reference to the Holy Spirit whenever possible.

Below I summarize the unique/distinctive passages in the ‘Western’ text which mention the Holy Spirit. I have made use of Black’s study as it provides a convenient compilation of the passages (the Western ‘additions’ are in italics):

  • Acts 6:10 (of Stephen)—”and they did not have strength to stand against the wisdom th(at) was in him and the holy Spirit in which he spoke” (D et al). The shorter text could be taken to mean “the wisdom and spirit“, but the Western version makes clear that this is a reference to the (Holy) Spirit; also the phrase “that was in him” likely is meant to emphasize the divine inspiration which resides within the early believers through the presence of the Spirit. There is a similar variant involving the specific adjective “holy” in Acts 8:18.
  • Acts 8:38—”and when they stepped up out of the water, the holy Spirit fell upon the chamber-official, and the Messenger of the Lord snatched up Philip” (Ac 1739 [and other minuscules] p w, the Harclean Syriac, and other versions/witnesses). It is perhaps incorrect to categorize this as a ‘Western’ reading, since it covers a rather wide and diverse range of textual witnesses. As noted previously, baptism in the book of Acts is always connected with believers receiving the Spirit, so the lack of any such reference in the Majority text of 8:38 is somewhat unusual. This could easily be the reason why a scribe or editor might have added it here; but it also could be an argument in favor of the longer text.
  • Acts 11:17 (Peter speaking)—”who was I powerful (enough) to [i.e. how could I possibly] cut off [i.e. block/prevent] God (so as) not to give (the) holy Spirit to them, the (one)s trusting in Him?” (D p vgms syrh etc). The longer text is curious in that it seems to misunderstand the context and central issue of the narrative in Acts 10-11—the inclusion of Gentile believers as part of the Christian Community. I.e., since the Holy Spirit came upon them miraculously (as a work of God), they certainly should be allowed admission to baptism and entry into the Community. Possibly the sense of Peter’s words underlying the longer reading is, “If I could not prevent God from giving them His Spirit, how could we (other Jewish Christians) dare to prevent them from being baptized?”
  • Acts 15:7—”Peter, standing up in the [holy] Spirit, said…” (D et al)
    Acts 15:29 (The decree)—”…from which [i.e. the things prohibited in the decree] watching (over) yourselves carefully, you (will) perform well carrying (yourselves) in the holy Spirit” (D etc)
    Acts 15:32 (of Judas/Silas)—”…and they, being Foretellers [i.e. Prophets] full of (the) holy Spirit, called the brothers along [i.e. encouraged them] with many words” (D)
    These additions (if such they be) presumably were intended to enhance the status and Spirit-inspired character of the Jerusalem Council, so central to the book of Acts and the account of the early mission to the Gentiles.
  • Acts 19:1—”Paul was wishing to travel unto Jerusalem according to his own plan/counsel (but) the Spirit said to him to turn back into Asia, and coming through…” (Ë38 D syrh mg etc). This is an example of the more expansive narrative introductions typical of the Western text; here it emphasizes the Spirit’s direction (and intervention) in Paul’s travels.
  • Acts 20:3 (of Paul)—”he wished to take up sail into Syria but the Spirit said to him to turn back through Macedonia…” (D syrh mg etc). A similar expanded introduction emphasizing the guiding direction of the Spirit.
  • Acts 26:1—”then Paul stretched out the hand, giving an account of himself, {confident and receiving help/encouragement in/by the holy Spirit}…” (syrh mg [the underlying Greek text is uncertain])

For more on the ‘Western’ version of Acts, consult any reputable critical Commentary. One of the earliest (and best) is The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols), eds. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (1920-33), also available from Biblesoft in electronic form. A popular, compact and very readable modern Commentary is that of J. A. Fitzmyer in the Anchor Bible [AB] series (Vol. 31, 1998). Cf. also the commentaries by E. Haenchen (Westminster/Oxford: 1971) and F. F. Bruce (Tyndale: 1951, and in the NICNT series, 1954/1988), among others. There is a convenient summary of the topic in the Metzger/UBS Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition), pp. 222-36.

Notes on Prayer: John 17:13-15

John 17:13-15

As we continue through the Prayer-Discourse of Jesus (Jn 17) in these Notes on Prayer, we come to what we might call the exposition portion of the first section of the Prayer proper. Keep in mind the basic format of the Johannine Discourses of Jesus, of which this Prayer shares many features in common (thus the designation “Prayer-Discourse”):

    • Saying/statement by Jesus
    • Reaction to those listening to him—his disciples, etc
    • Exposition by Jesus, in which he explains the true/deeper meaning of his saying

This being a prayer (monologue) by Jesus, there is no reaction by the disciples (indicating their lack of understanding, etc, as throughout the Last Discourse); instead, we find the important theme of the needs of the disciples in the face of Jesus’ impending departure (back to the Father). And, in place of the traditional/core saying by Jesus that serves as the base for the Johannine Discourse, we have here the central petition by Jesus (to the Father), which I define as comprised of verses 9-11. There are many ways of outlining the Prayer-Discourse; here I suggest the following:

    • Invocation—introductory address to the Father (vv. 1-5)
    • Narration—summary of the Father’s work which he (the Son) completed on earth (vv. 6-8)
    • Petition—the central request made to the Father (vv. 9-11)
    • Exposition, Part 1: Application to Jesus’ immediate Disciples (vv. 12-19)
    • Exposition, Part 2: Application to All Believers (vv. 20-26)

I discussed the elements of the petition in the previous two notes (on vv. 9-10 and 11-12, respectively). Verse 12 is transitional, in that it picks up the primary theme of the petition and carries it forward into the exposition. Again, because of the prayer setting, the exposition by Jesus takes on a different tone compared with the Discourses. It also has a triadic structure which follows the pattern of the Prayer as a whole:

    • Narration—summary of the work done by the Son on earth (vv. 12-14)
    • Petition—restatement of the central request (v. 15)
    • Theological/Christological Exposition (vv. 16-19)

We can see how verse 12 serves as the hinge, joining the main petition to the expository narration, by the syntax in verse 13:

“12When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name that you have given to me, and I guarded (them), and not one out of them went to ruin…
13 But now [kai\ nu=n] I come toward you, and I speak these things in the world, (so) that they would have my delight filled (up) in themselves.”

The particles kai\ nu=n (“and now”), also used at the start of verse 5, establish the current/present situation that Jesus is addressing. In last week’s study, I discussed the double meaning of the expression “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw=|). In verse 11, Jesus specifically states that he is not (ou)ke/ti, “not yet, no longer”) in the world; and yet now he indicates that he is in the world. The ambiguity has to do with the position of his disciples (believers). On the one hand, they/we do not belong to the world and are not in it (“out of the world”); but, at the same time, they/we remain present in the world and are thus in it, facing the evil and hostility of the current world-order. The latter aspect is what Jesus is referring to in verse 13—even though he is not “in the world” (and is about to leave it, returning to the Father), he still speaks to his disciples (and all believers) “in the world”. The words he speaks—the Last Discourse sequence, including the Prayer-Discourse itself—are primarily intended to give help and comfort to his disciples, along the lines indicated in 14:27ff; 15:11; 16:20ff, 33. This comfort includes the promise of the coming of the Spirit (the para/klhto$, or ‘Helper’), and is central to the idea of Jesus own delight (xa/ra) being “filled” (peplhrwme/nhn) in (e)n) the disciples.

In verse 14, the theme of the contrast between Jesus/Believers and the world (ko/smo$, world-order), found throughout the Last Discourse (and in vv. 6ff), is likewise developed further:

“I have given [de/dwka] to them your word [lo/go$], and the world hated them, (in) that [i.e. because] they are not out of [e)k] the world, even as I am not am not out of [ou)k] the world.”

There are four parts, or phrases, to this statement, each of which delineates an important related theme in the Johannine Discourses. Let us consider each of them briefly:

1. “I have given to them your word” (e)gw\ de/dwka au)toi=$ to\n lo/gon sou). This continues the repeated use of the verb di/dwmi (“give”) throughout the Prayer (cf. the discussion in the previous studies) and emphasizes the relationship between Father and Son: God the Father gives to the Son (Jesus), who, in turn, gives to his disciples (believers). The “word” (lo/go$, used many times, with deep significance, in the Gospel) relates to the idea that the Son faithfully repeats what he sees and hears the Father doing and saying. But there is an even greater theological (and Christological) idea involved—that Jesus (the Son) reveals the person, presence, and power of God the Father Himself. In the context of the Prayer, the “word” Jesus gives to his disciples is parallel to the “name” which he makes known—and which was given to him by the Father. It is the Father’s own name, representing and embodying the Father (YHWH) Himself. So it is with the lo/go$; it is no ordinary “word” (cf. 1:1ff).

2. “and the world hated them” (kai\ o( ko/smo$ e)mi/shsen au)tou/$). The dualistic contrast between the “world” (ko/smo$) and God/Jesus/Believers is one of the central themes of the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters), and is especially prominent in the Last Discourse. The wickedness and outright hostility of the world is the very reason (causa) for Jesus’ petition to the Father. Since he is departing the world, he will no longer be present himself to protect his disciples from this hostility and opposition. The hatred (vb. mise/w), of course, is exactly the opposite of the love (a)ga/ph) which is so vital to Jesus’ teaching in the Disourses, and to Johannine theology as a whole. The theme of love will come into more prominence at the close of the Prayer.

3. “(in) that [i.e. because] they are not out of the world” (o%ti ou)k ei)si\n e)k tou= ko/smou). Just as there is a double meaning for the expression “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw|), so there is for the parallel expression “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou). In verse 6, Jesus’ disciples are said to be “out of the world” in the sense that they do not belong to the world, and have been chosen (and taken) out of it as believers in Christ. Yet here they are said to be not “out of the world” in that they are not from it. This plays on the semantic range of the preposition e)k (“out of, of, from”), but the essential meaning is the same: Jesus’ disciples (believers) do not belong to the world.

4. “even as I am not out of the world” (kaqw\$ e)gw\ ou)k ei)mi\ e)k tou= ko/smou). Here we find a theme which will be developed richly in the remainder of the Prayer: the unity of believers with Jesus himself. This unity is made clear by the compound particle kaqw/$ (“even as, just as”), along with the emphatic pronoun “I” (e)gw/). Believers come from God the Father, having their birth/origins with Him, even as Jesus himself (the Son) does; they do not belong to the world any more than Jesus himself does. Classic Christian theology would explain this as being the result of faith in Jesus; the Johannine emphasis, however, is somewhat different—believers respond in faith to Jesus because they/we have (already) been chosen, belonging to the Father even before coming to faith, and given to Jesus (the Son) by the Father Himself. In classic terms, the emphasis is squarely on Divine Election/Predestination.

This expository narrative sets the stage for a restatement in verse 15 of Jesus’ petition to the Father, in which the danger believers face from the world (ko/smo$) is stated vividly (and bluntly):

“I do not ask that you should take them out of the world, but (rather) that you would keep watch (over) them out of [i.e. protect them from] the evil.”

Here we find a third sense of the expression “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou)—the concrete sense of a person being taken (removed) from out of the world itself. This is significant on two levels: (a) the ordinary human condition (i.e. living on earth), and, more importantly, (b) in relation to the wickedness and evil present in the world, dominating the current world-order. This is the thrust of the second half of verse 15: “…but that you would keep watch (over) [i.e. protect] them out of [i.e. from] the evil”. Commentators debate the precise meaning of the substantive adjective (“the evil”, o( ponhro/$), much as in the similar petition of the Lord’s Prayer (cf. below). It may be understood three ways:

    • Evil generally, with the definite article perhaps in the sense of “that which is evil”
    • “the Evil (One)”, i.e. the Satan or ‘Devil’
    • “the evil (of the world)”, i.e. the evil that is in the world and which dominates it

Many commentators prefer the second interpretation, often taking it for granted; however, I do not agree with that position. In my view the context overwhelming favors the third sense above. Two factors, I believe, confirm this rather decisively:

    1. The clear parallel, both thematic and syntactical, between “the world” and “the evil”. The contrast in the verse only makes sense if “the evil” means the evil in the world, or the evil nature/character of the world, etc.:
      “I do not ask that you take them out of the world (itself), but (only) that you keep them out of the evil (that is in it)”
    2. The exact parallel of expression which reinforces this meaning:
      “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou)
      | “out of the evil” (e)k tou= ponhrou=)

This is not to deny the prominent role that the Satan/Devil has in the current world-order (ko/smo$). It is entirely valid, and certainly so from the New Testament and early Christian standpoint, to see evil personified (and/or as a person) this way. The most relevant passage in the Gospel of John is found in the Last Discourse—Jesus’ declaration in 14:30 (note certainly similarities of thought and wording with 17:12-15ff):

“No longer [ou)ke/ti] will I speak with you (about) many (thing)s, for the chief/ruler of the world comes, and he holds nothing in/on me…”

Consult also the lengthy Sukkoth Discourse sequence in 8:12-59, in which Jesus more or less equates the world and the Devil, and sets them in marked contrast with God the Father. In this regard, there is an obvious parallel between the petition in 17:15 and that which concludes the Lord’s Prayer, in the Matthean (and longer Lukan) version:

“and may you not bring us into testing, but (rather) rescue us from the evil” (Matt 6:13)

As I argue in the earlier study on this verse, in the Lord’s Prayer, the substantive expression “the evil” is best understood in an eschatological sense—i.e. the evil that is coming—which had at least a partial fulfillment in the suffering and death of Jesus (cp. Mark 14:33-38, 41 par; Lk 22:53), and which, in turn, ushered in a period of suffering and persecution for believers (Mk 13:5-13; 14:27, 41 par; Lk 22:36-37; Rev 3:10, etc). In the Gospel of John, traditional eschatological motifs and ideas are presented in a ‘realized’ form—i.e. as a present reality for believers, and for the world (in terms of Judgment, etc). In this regard, the emphasis in 17:15 is not on the evil that is coming (beginning with Jesus’ Passion, cp. 13:30; 14:30), but on the evil that is ever-present in the world, and which believers must face daily. This prayer for protection from the evil that governs the world finds a most striking parallel in the First Letter of John, at the conclusion (5:18-19), a passage which further explains 17:9-15 from the standpoint of Johannine theology:

“We see [i.e. know] that every (one) having come to be (born) out of [e)k] God does not sin, but (rather) the (one) coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch [threi=] (over) him, and the evil [o( ponhro/$] does not attach (itself to) him. We see that we are out of [e)k] God, and (that) the whole world [ko/smo$] is stretched (out) in the evil [e)n tw=| ponhrw=|].”

This declaration virtually contains a fulfillment of what Jesus requests of the Father in chapter 17. We can also determine, based on the evidence from both the Gospel and Letter, how it is that the believer is protected from the evil that dominates the world. It is the living presence of Christ (the one born out of God) in the believer (like Jesus, born out of God), and it is through the Spirit that He is present. For more on this, please consult the series “…Spirit and Life” [Jn 6:63] soon to be posted here on this site.

In next week’s study, we will move on to explore verses 16-19, and, in particular, the newly formulated petition in v. 17, which gives greater clarity to the protection God the Father will provide for Jesus’ disciples. It will confirm the relation of this protection to the promise of the Spirit/Paraclete found at key points in the Last Discourse and elsewhere in the Gospel.