Category: Exegetical Study Series

Articles on particular topics and areas of study, organized in parts or chapters, along with supplemental notes and special articles. Emphasis on exegesis and critical analysis of relevant Scripture passages.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: John: 1 Jn 2:18-27

1 John 2:18-27

In these articles, dealing with the spiritualism in the Johannine Writings, we now turn to the Letters of John, with special attention to the First Letter, the work known as 1 John. As virtually all commentators recognize, there is a close relationship between the Johannine Gospel and the Letters. The Gospel writer and the author of 1 John, if not the same person, share a similar literary style, mode of expression, thought-world, and theological vocabulary. The precise relationship between the Gospel and First Letter, in terms of the sequence and when each was composed, continues to be debated, with no consensus having yet been achieved. However, in my view, there is relatively strong evidence that at least a first edition of the Gospel had been completed and distributed (within the Johannine churches) prior to the writing of 1 John.

The closeness of thought and expression, between the Gospel and First Letter, means that there is methodological validity in turning to the Gospel for elucidation of passages in 1 John, and vice versa. Throughout these upcoming articles, I will be making frequent mention of the prior notes and studies on the Johannine Gospel. The discussion of spiritualism, and the role of the Spirit, in the Gospel is, in my view, entirely applicable to our study on 1 John.

The recent daily notes, covering significant portions of 1 John 1:1-2:17, are, in many ways, preliminary and supplemental to these articles. I will be referencing them at numerous points below. Our initial article here is focused upon 2:18-27, the first of the two “antichrist” passages. It is worth summarizing the structure of the Letter leading up to this passage:

    • Prologue (1:1-4)
    • First Section: Contrast of the Light of God vs. the Darkness of the World (1:5-2:17)
      • “Walking about” in light or in darkness: Sin and the Believer (1:5-2:2)
      • “Walking” in light/darkness defined in terms of the (two-fold) duty (e)ntolh/) believers are required to complete (2:3-11)
      • Believers have overcome the darkness of evil, and should not be drawn to the world (in its darkness) (2:12-17)

The dualistic light/darkness theme developed in 1:5-2:17 is used by the author as a way of contrasting the true believer with the false believer. The ‘opponents’ of 1 John are specifically characterized as false believers (cf. below).

It is generally considered by commentators that the author is referring to his opponents, alluding to their beliefs and positions, throughout 1:5-2:17. However, in the “antichrist” section of 2:18-27, he begins to discuss them more directly. He does so by placing the crisis, posed by these opponents, in an eschatological context:

“Little children, the last hour is (here), and, just as you (have) heard that (one) ‘against-the-Anointed’ [a)nti/xristo$] comes, (so) even now there have come to be many ‘against-the-Anointed’ [a)nti/xristoi], from which we know that the last hour is (here).” (v. 18)

The author clearly believes that he and his readers are living in the “last hour”, and that the end of the current Age is very near; cf. my earlier article on the imminent eschatology of first-century Christians. A basic premise of Jewish and early Christian eschatology was that, just before the end, things would get much worse in the world, with sin and evil becoming more prevalent and pervasive, including an intensive (and increasing) persecution of the righteous. This worldview is clearly reflected, for example, in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse of Jesus (Mark 13 par). The presence of false prophets and false Messiahs was one feature of this end-time period of distress (cf. Mk 13:5-6, 21-22 par); the false Messiahs (i.e., false Christs), in particular, could properly be referred to as “anti-Christ” (cp. 2 Thess 2:7-12).

The specific word a)nti/xristo$ (antíchristos) occurs only in the Letters of John (here, and also v. 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). It likely was coined by early Christians, patterned after the comparable a)nti/qeo$ (antítheos), when used in the (admittedly rare) sense of a rival God (qeo/$) or something imitating the Deity. The fundamental meaning of the preposition a)nti/ is “against”, but it can also mean “in place of”, and both of these aspects apply to the Antichrist Tradition as it was developed. And, indeed, the author does appear to be drawing upon an established eschatological tradition involving the use of a)nti/xristo$. He refers to an expectation that (one) “against the Anointed” (anti/xristo$, singular) will come in the “last hour”; whether this refers to an evil human leader or a spirit-being is not entirely clear, but probably the author has the latter in mind (cf. 4:3). For more on the background and development of the Antichrist Tradition, cf. my earlier three-part article (Part 1, 2, 3) on the subject.

Whatever tradition the author is referencing, he clearly interprets it in a new way, applying it specifically to the presence and activity of the ‘opponents’, considering them to be “many (who are) against the Anointed” (a)nti/xristoi polloi/). He continues in verse 19:

“Out of us they went out, but they were not out of us; for, if they were out of us, they would have remained with us; but (this happened so) that it might be made to shine forth [i.e. be made apparent] that they were not all out of us.”

The author plays with a dual-meaning of the preposition e)k (“out of”). In the opening phrase, it is used in the spatial sense of leaving, of going away from a group of people. However, in the remainder of the verse, it used in the sense of belonging to a group, being “of” a group of people. Thus, at one and the same time, the opponents are “out of” the Community, and also not “out of” it. Moreover, that they went “out of” it shows that they were never really “part of” it.

The author identifies himself (and his readers) with this Community, characterized as the Community of true believers. The opponents, having left the Community, show themselves to have been false believers. In all likelihood we are dealing with a genuine separatist movement, and a factional split within the Johannine churches. In this regard, the use of the preposition e)k and the verb e)ce/rxomai (“go/come out”) refers to a concrete division, and not simply a conceptual departure in terms of the opponents’ beliefs.

In verses 20-27, the author applies this crisis-situation to his readers, continuing the true-vs-false believer contrast established in 1:5-2:17. These verses may be divided into three subsections, each of which begins with an emphatic use of the pronoun u(mei=$ (“you [plur.]”)

    • Vv. 20-23: Kai\ u(mei=$… (“But you…”)
    • Vv. 24-26:  (Umei=$… (“[But as for] you…”)
    • Verse 27: Kai\ u(mei=$… (“And [as for] you…”)

In each unit, the author addresses his readers as true believers, to be distinguished from the opponents (false believers and “antichrists”), and fully able to recognize the truth of the matter. This is expressed thematically through a chiastic structure:

    • The anointing (xri=sma) which believers hold within them (vv. 20-23)
      • That which is “from the beginning” (a)p’ a)rxh=$) remains in them (vv. 24-26)
    • The anointing (xri=sma) remains in them (v. 27)

The discussion is thus framed by a pair of references to the “anointing” (xri=sma) which is present in believers; in between, we find the expression o^ a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“that which [is]…from [the] beginning”), with which the author began his work (in the prologue, 1:1; cf. also 2:7, 13-14). A clear sense of the author’s use of these keywords is vital for an understanding of his entire line of argument.

For my part, I have no real doubt that the noun xri=sma here refers to the presence of the Spirit. It is worth noting, however, that these three instances (in vv. 20, 27) are the only occurrences of xri=sma in the New Testament. It occurs 10 times in the LXX, primarily in the Pentateuch (Exod 29:7; 30:25; 35:12, 19, etc), where it refers to the oil used for the consecrated anointing of people and objects. Quite possibly, its use here in 1 John alludes to the practice of anointing with oil as part of the baptism ritual. However, we cannot be entirely certain of this practice in the first-century; the earliest attestation is found in Tertullian, On Baptism 7, cf. also Cyprian Epistle 70[69].2, and the Apostolic Constitutions 7:27.

Even so, it is likely that the oil/anointing symbolism was part of the ritual from very early times. Its association with the Spirit would follow naturally from the common idea that it was in connection with baptism that a believer first received the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:12-13ff; 9:17-18; 10:45-48; 19:5-6, etc). The association goes back to early Gospel tradition, in both the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:10 par) and the saying by the Baptist about Jesus (Mk 1:8 par). In Luke-Acts, this coming of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his baptism) is clearly understood as an anointing (Lk 4:18ff; Acts 10:38; cf. also the quotation of Ps 2:7 in Lk 3:22 v.l.). This is no mere Lukan invention, since the idea relates to the early application of Isa 61:1ff to Jesus as the Anointed One [Messiah] of God; on the similar idea of God placing his Spirit upon Jesus (as His chosen Servant), cf. Isa 11:2 and 42:1 (and the use of the latter in the Gospel tradition).

This Messianic concept of being anointed by the Spirit is part of a wider Prophetic tradition describing the activity of God’s Spirit in the New Age of Israel’s restoration. Of special significance is the motif of the Spirit being poured out, as liquid (water, oil, etc) upon God’s people—cf. Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28-29 [cited in Acts 2:17-18].

For all of these reasons, we may safely assume that xri=sma in 1 John 2:20, 27 is a more or less direct allusion to the presence of the Spirit in believers. Believers hold (vb e&xw) this anointing in them (v. 20), and it remains (vb me/nw) in them. Both of these verbs have special theological meaning in the Johannine writings, and refer here to the abiding presence of Jesus (the Son), along with God (the Father), through the Spirit.

What are the consequences of this abiding presence of the Spirit (the xri=sma) in believers? The author explains this, to some extent, in each portion of his discussion:

    • “…and you know all (thing)s. I did not write to you (in) that [i.e. because] you have not seen [i.e. known] the truth, but (in) that you have seen it, and (also) that every false (thing) is not out of [i.e. does come from] the truth.” (vv. 20b-21)
    • “…and you do not have need that any(one) should teach you, but, as His anointing teaches you about all (thing)s, and is true and not (something) false, and, just as it (has) taught you, you must remain in him.” (v. 27)

The anointing (i.e., the Spirit) teaches believers “all things”, and so there is no need for anyone (else) to teach them. This touches to the heart of the Johannine spiritualism. It reflects the promised role of the Spirit in the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus in the Last Discourse (14:26; 16:13ff; cf. also 15:26). Through the Spirit, Jesus will continue to be present with believers, and to teach them. It is this emphasis on the spiritual presence of Jesus which may have led to the opponents devaluing the earthly life and ministry of Jesus (including his death).

This is particularly important, it seems, for the author’s rhetorical strategy here. On the one hand, he fully accepts and affirms the Johannine spiritualistic principle of the primacy of the Spirit—it is, indeed, the Spirit who teaches believers “all things,” and the true believer has no need to rely on any other human teacher. This apparently radical concept is actually inspired by the Prophetic tradition (cf. above) regarding the role of God’s Spirit among His people in the New Age. In this time of a New Covenant, the Spirit will lead all people to serve as prophets (Joel 2:28f), effectively fulfilling the wish expressed by Moses in Num 11:29; moreover, because God will write his Law upon the heart of each person, they will all know Him, without the need for anyone else to teach them (Jer 31:34). In this regard, the Johannine emphasis simply reflects an early Christian version of this Prophetic ideal, an eschatological hope for God’s people that is realized among believers in Christ.

The Spirit, being the Spirit of Truth (4:6; 5:6; Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), will always teach believers what is true, and will never say anything that is false. As a result, with the Spirit’s guidance, the true believer will be able to recognize any false teaching, including the false teaching of the opponents (v. 22, cf. below). If the Spirit teaches believers “all things,” with no need for anyone else to teach them, then why is the author bothering to give the instruction that he does? Even though the Spirit may be primary, there is still value in human instruction and exhortation. The guidance of the Spirit does not happen automatically, but requires a measure of faithfulness and cooperation by the believer. There is thus a place for human teaching and exhortation within the congregation, such as the kind that the author gives here. He expresses the contingency in two ways:

    • “I have written these (thing)s to you (warning you) about the (one)s leading you astray.” (v. 26)
    • “…just as he/it has taught you, you must remain in him” (v. 27)

The first point indicates the real danger, in the mind of the author, that the false teaching of the opponents could lead some believers astray (vb plana/w). How could this possibly happen to a believer? The concluding words in v. 27 make this clear: the believer must consciously and willingly remain in the Spirit, in order for the Spirit to continue guiding him/her in the truth.

The verb me/nw is a fundamental Johannine keyword, as I have noted above. The form used here, me/nete, could be read as an indicative or an imperative; in my view, the author intends an imperative, even as he does in the following v. 28. The Spirit teaching believers the truth depends upon the believer remaining in the Spirit. The actual phrase is “you must remain in him [e)n au)tw=|]”, and it is not entirely clear whether the pronoun (“him”) refers specifically to God the Father, Jesus, or the Spirit. In terms of the Johannine theology, the latter two—Jesus and the Spirit—would be principally in view, since a person remains in the Father through the Son (Jesus), and, in turn, remains in the Son through the Spirit. Much the same is expressed in the Last Discourse, cf. especially the illustration of the Vine (15:4-9).

The author tells us something about the false belief of the opponents in verse 22; I have discussed this at length in a set of three supplemental notes (1, 2, 3). The title o( xristo/$, as used in the Gospel of John, indicates that it refers specifically to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. Another possibility, however, is that it functions here as a shorthand for the fuller Christological statement in 4:2—viz., regarding Jesus Christ as having “come in the flesh,” usually understood specifically in terms of his earthly life. Either way, it seems likely that the opponents of 1 John, in some fashion, denied or devalued the importance of Jesus’ earthly life (and death). This may have extended to a denial of Jesus’ identity as the Jewish Messiah.

A devaluation of Jesus’ earthly life could be explained on the basis of both the Johannine Christology and its spiritualism. The high Christology of the Gospel, emphasizing Jesus’ identity as the eternal (and pre-existent) Son of God, could easily have led some Johannine Christians to question the importance of his earthly life and ministry. Moreover, if Jesus continues to be present with believers in the Spirit, continuing to teach “all things”, then of what value are the traditions of the things that Jesus said and did in the past?

In the prologue (1:1-4), the author clearly establishes the importance of the historical Gospel tradition—of the things Jesus said and did, preserved and transmitted to future generations by the first disciples (functioning as eye/ear-witnesses). It is no coincidence that the author essentially repeats the opening phrase—o^ h@n a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“that which was from [the] beginning”)—here in the central unit of his exposition (vv. 24-26). In between the two references to the teaching of the Spirit, he includes this reference to the Gospel tradition: “that which you heard from (the) beginning”.

In an earlier note on 1:1ff, I discussed how there are two aspects to the expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ in 1 John: (1) Christological, referring to Jesus as the one who was with God “from the beginning” (Jn 1:1, etc); and (2) Evangelistic, referring to the message about Jesus, which believers have heard “from the beginning”, i.e., from the time of the first disciples. The Christological aspect is primary, but it cannot be separated from the Gospel witness. This is essentially the message of the author of 1 John, and he states it again here in vv. 24ff:

“(As for) you, that which you (have) heard from (the) beginning, it must remain in you. If that which you heard from (the) beginning should remain in you, (then) indeed you will remain in the Son and in the Father.”

According to the Johannine mode of expression, the person of Jesus (“the one from the beginning”) must remain in the believer; but this is not possible if the truth of the message about Jesus does not also remain in the believer. Here is a key sign distinguishing the true and false believer, in the context of the crisis caused by the opponents. The true believer remains faithful to the authoritative Gospel tradition(s) about Jesus, preserved from the first disciples, while the false believer has forsaken or has distorted those traditions. Put another way, the internal teaching of the Spirit will (and must) conform to the Gospel tradition; and any such teaching which contradicts that tradition, and is thus false, cannot come from the Spirit.

This will be discussed further, along with a further examination of the nature and beliefs of the opponents of 1-2 John, in the upcoming study on the second “antichrist” section (4:1-6). However, first I will consider the spiritualism of 1 John as expressed in the central section (2:28-3:24), where the marks of the true believer are most clearly enunciated.

1 John 2:22 and the Opponents in 1 John (Pt 3)

1 John 2:22, concluded

In this final portion of the supplemental note on 1 John 2:22 (cf. parts 1 & 2), I will attempt to apply the results of our study on the Johannine use of xristo/$ (“anointed [one]”) to the author’s claim regarding the belief(s) of his opponents. In verse 22, the author identifies the opponents (mentioned in vv. 18-19) as false believers (“the false [one]”, o( yeusth/$), implying that they deny (vb a)rne/omai) that Jesus “is the Anointed (One) [o( Xristo/$]”. This makes them, not believers in Jesus at all, but “antichrists” (a)nti/xristoi, “[those] against the Anointed”, v. 18; cf. also 4:3; 2 John 7).

As discussed in part 2, the use of the title (with the definite article), o( xristo/$ (“the anointed [one]”), in the Gospel refers specifically to the Jewish Messiah (Heb j^yv!m*)—the Davidic royal Messiah (7:41-42), but possibly also the Messianic prophet figure-type[s] (cf. 1:20, 25). Thus, taken at face value, the author would be saying that the opponents deny that Jesus is the Messiah. As this would seem to be the most straightforward explanation, a number of commentators have posited that the opponents are Jewish Christians who have, indeed, rejected their faith in Jesus (as the Messiah), returning to the fold of non-Christian Judaism.

We may call this line of interpretation the Jewish theory. It has been argued for most strongly by Daniel R. Streett in his monograph They went out from us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John (De Gruyter: 2010). The proponents of the Jewish theory (like Streett) make some fine points, but I would disagree thoroughly with their proposal. If the crisis surrounding the opponents really did involve Christians abandoning their faith in Jesus, in favor of non-Christian Judaism, one would expect to find some real evidence of strong anti-Jewish, anti-synagogue rhetoric in 1 John, such as we see at various points in the Gospel, and in the Book of Revelation (2:9; 3:9). For my part, I do not see any indication of this in the Johannine letters.

A second option is that denying Jesus as the Christ serves as a shorthand for the Christology indicated in 4:2—viz., denying Jesus Christ as “having come in the flesh”. This has been explained as an early form of a docetic Christology (to be discussed further), though it could also be understood, through the lens of the author’s polemic, in terms of devaluing or denying the importance of Jesus’ earthly life (and death). According to this line of interpretation, the view of the opponents in 2:22 must be understood in relation to 4:2 (and also 5:6-10).

While I generally agree with this interpretation, it is not entirely satisfactory as an explanation of the author’s use of o( xristo/$ in 2:22 (and 5:1). The proponents of the ‘Jewish theory’ (cf. above) are correct, I think, in maintaining the Jewish significance of the title xristo/$, and in emphasizing the Jewish background of the Johannine Community (at least in its origins).

It may, however, be possible to preserve the Johannine usage of o( xristo/$ (as referring to the Jewish Messiah), without adopting the ‘Jewish theory’ regarding the opponents. I would propose, as a possible solution, that the opponents, while holding a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, denied his identification as the Jewish Messiah (o( xristo/$). This phenomenon, apparently unique among New Testament Christians, could be explained on the basis of two factors:

    • First, we have the “high” Christology of the Johannine Gospel, in which Jesus is identified as the eternal, pre-existent Son (and Word/Wisdom) of God. As the Divine Son, Jesus was sent to earth from heaven by God the Father, and then, following his death, returned to his heavenly origins. With this strong emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God, a Johannine Christian might well ask why it was important that Jesus should also be recognized as the Jewish Messiah.
    • Second, there is the historical background, evidenced at numerous points in the Gospel, of conflict between the (Johannine) Christians and Judaism, leading to their expulsion from the Synagogue (9:22; 12:42, etc). In light of this apparent legacy of opposition and hostility, still in evidence at the end of the first-century (e.g., Rev 2:9; 3:9), some Johannine Christians might well have refused to acknowledge that Jesus was the (Jewish) Messiah. In any case, why would this historical heritage (regarding Jesus as the Messiah) be important for believers in Jesus as the Son of God?

A third factor, I believe, is Johannine spiritualism, with the emphasis on Jesus’ abiding presence, in and among believers, through the Spirit. Such spiritualism could result in the tendency to downplay or devalue the details of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. Why should one focus on Jesus’ presence on earth in the historical past, when he has a continuing (and eternal) presence with believers now in the present (and in the future)? For more on verse 22 in the context of Johannine spiritualism, cf. the current article on 2:18-27 in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”.

If the theory I have outlined above is correct, then the opponents considered themselves as true believers in Jesus, recognizing him as the eternal and pre-existent Son of God, present now in believers through the Spirit, but they denied his identification as the Jewish Messiah—or, perhaps, simply refused to consider such an identification as having any importance. From the author’s standpoint, the two titles— “Anointed [One]” and “Son of God” —go together, and cannot be separated (cf. the confessional statements in Jn 11:27 and 20:31, discussed in part 2).

The true believer will affirm both titles of Jesus, while anyone who would refuse to acknowledge either title is shown to be a false believer. Ironically, from the author’s standpoint, the opponents, in denying Jesus as the Messiah, also are (without realizing it) denying him as the Son of God; and, as a result, effectively deny God as his Father. The opponents surely would reject such a line of reasoning, but it is very much the way the author of 1 John presents the matter:

“Who is the false (one), if not the (one) denying (by saying) that ‘Yeshua is not the Anointed’? This is the (one) against the Anointed, the (one) denying (both) the Father and the Son!”

1 John 2:22 and the Opponents in 1 John (Pt 2)

1 John 2:22, continued

As discussed in part 1 of this supplemental note, most commentators regard 2:22 as characterizing a group of ‘opponents,’ whom the author considers to be false believers. That activity of these persons, called by the author “antichrists” (a)nti/xristoi, “[those] against the Anointed”), had created a crisis, of sorts, within the Johannine churches, at least as the matter was viewed by the author. He warns his readers against these “antichrists” and their false belief in Jesus (see esp. 2 John 7-8ff).

However, if verse 22 is meant to encapsulate the opponents’ view of Jesus, this creates a problem of interpretation. For, how could any Christian claim that Jesus is not the Christ? There can be little doubt that the opponents considered themselves to be (true) believers; what, then, are to we make of the author’s claim? He describes the false believer (o( yeusth/$) as:

“the (one) denying (by saying) that
‘Yeshua is not the Anointed (One)’
[ )Ihsou=$ ou)k e&stin o( Xristo/$]”

In order to gain a clearer sense of what the author has in mind, it is necessary to examine carefully the use of the title xristo/$ (“anointed [one]”) in the Johannine writings.

The use of xristo/$

The noun xristo/$ occurs 30 times in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters)—19 times in the Gospel, 8 times in 1 John, and 3 times in 2 John. The word (as a title) is used two ways:

    1. Together with the name   )Ihsou=$ (Yeshua/Jesus) to form the double-name   )Ihsou=$ Xristo/$ (“Yeshua [the] Anointed,” i.e., Jesus Christ), following the common practice of early Christians.
    2. On its own, with the definite article—o( Xristo/$, “the Anointed (One),” the Christ.

Of the 19 occurrences of xristo/$ in the Gospel, the vast majority (17) are the arthrous title (2. above), o( Xristo/$; only twice is it used in the double name (1.). The first occurrence of the double-name is at the end of the Prologue (1:17); the second is in the Prayer-Discourse (17:3), where it is part of a fundamental Johannine theological declaration regarding Jesus’ identity as the Son of God.

Elsewhere, it is quite clear that the title o( Xristo/$ (“the Anointed [One]”) refers specifically to the Messiah (Heb j^yv!m*) of Jewish expectation; indeed, the Gospel writer makes this explicit in 1:41. Probably the Davidic royal Messiah is intended in most, if not all, instances (this is certainly the case in 7:41–42), though the figure-type of a Messianic prophet would be more appropriate in relation to John the Baptist (1:20, 25; 3:28; cf. also 7:31). The Messianic expectation of Jews (and also of Samaritans) is clearly in view in 4:25, 29; 7:26-27ff; 10:24; cf. also 9:22; 12:34.

Of special importance are the confessional statements in 11:27 and 20:31. The confession by Martha in 11:27 holds much the same place in the Gospel of John as Peter’s famous confession does in the Synoptics (Mark 8:29 par). The significance of the Martha-confession is seen clearly by its similarity with the statement in 20:31, at the very close of the (original) Gospel, where the author states his very purpose in writing:

    • “I have trusted that you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God, the (one) coming into the world” (11:27)
    • “I have written these (thing)s (so) that you might trust that Yeshua is the Anointed (One), the Son of God, and that, trusting, you might hold life in his name.” (20:31)

In both instances, the title “the Anointed (One)” (o( xristo/$) is combined with “the Son of God” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=). The two titles are set in apposition, implying that there is a certain equivalence between them. At the same time, the sequence suggests that the second title (“Son of God”) follows upon the first (“Anointed”/Messiah). In other words, Jesus is the Messiah, but he is also the eternal Son of God. From a Johannine theological standpoint, the true believer will affirm (and confess) both titles of Jesus.

With these results in mind, we may turn to the occurrences of xristo/$ in the Johannine Letters. In contrast with the Gospel, where the double-name occurs just twice (out of the 19 occurrences, cf. above), it is much more common in 1 John—of the 8 occurrences of xristo/$, 6 are in the double name. Based on the usage in the Gospel, this would suggest that the overriding idea of belief in Jesus as the Son of God is primarily in view (cf. above on 1:17; 17:3, especially in light of the confessional statements in 11:27; 20:31). The usage in 1 John tends to confirm this (1:3; 2:1; 3:23; 4:2 [2 John 7]; 5:6, 20; cf. also 2 John 3). Indeed, the double-name in 3:23 is unquestionably fundamental to the Johannine theology, and for what it means to be a true believer in Christ.

The analysis of the Gospel usage strongly suggests that the arthrous title o( xristo/$ (“the Anointed [One]”) refers specifically to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. Does this apply as well to the usage in 1 John? The use of o( xristo/$ in 2 John 9 might argue against this, since, in that reference, it seems simply to be another way of referring to the person of Jesus (i.e., “the teaching of the Anointed” = “the teaching of Jesus”). This would be a valid objection if tou= xristou= (“of the Anointed”) is understood as a subjective genitive, i.e. the teaching that Jesus gives. However, it is also possible to read tou= xristou= as an objective genitive (i.e., about the Anointed); if so, then one might understand the expression “the teaching of the Anointed” as a shorthand for “the teaching regarding Jesus’ identity as the Anointed”.

Apart from the statement in 2:22, the only other occurrence of o( xristo/$ in 1 John is at 5:1; however, the context in 5:1 is essentially identical with that of 2:22 (with o( xristo/$ used in an equivalent confessional formula), so the two occurrences must be judged together, as reflecting a single usage.

The Johannine usage of the noun xristo/$ (“anointed [one]”) leaves us with two plausible explanations for how the author of 1 John intends its use in 2:22/5:1:

    • The identification of Jesus as the Messiah of Jewish expectation, or
    • As a shorthand for the idea expressed in the confessional statements in Jn 11:27; 17:3; 20:31 (cf. above)—that Jesus the Messiah is also the Son of God

One might combine both of these options, based on the observation (made above) on the confessional statements in Jn 11:27 and 20:31. It may be summarized this way: the true believer will affirm (and confess) that Jesus is both the Messiah and the Son of God; anyone who would deny Jesus’ identification with either title is not a true believer.

With this conclusion in mind, let us return to the specific context of the author’s claim, regarding the distinction between true and false believers (i.e., the opponents) in 2:22. This we will do in part 3 of this supplemental note.

For a comparable study on the word xristo/$ in the Johannine writings, with additional insights to what I have provided above, cf. M. de Jonge, “The Use of the Word xristo/$ in the Johannine Epistles,” in Studies in John Presented to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster, Supplements to Novum Testamentum Vol. XXIV (Brill: 1970), pp. 66-74.

1 John 2:22 and the Opponents in 1 John (Pt 1)

1 John 2:22

“Who is the false (one), if not the (one) denying (by saying) that Yeshua is not the Anointed (One)? This is the (one who is) against the Anointed [a)nti/xristo$], the (one) denying the Father and the Son!”

This note is supplemental to the article on 1 John 2:18-27 in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”. The key references to the Spirit, in vv. 20-27, are framed within the context of the crisis that the author is at pains to address in his work. While he alluded to this crisis earlier (both in the prologue and first section), he tackles it more directly here. He refers to certain ‘opponents’, false believers who, in the author’s mind, were exerting an evil and harmful influence on the Johannine churches. The presence of these false believers has eschatological significance, indicating that the end of the Age is very near:

“Little children, (the) last hour is (here), and, just as you heard that (one) ‘against the Anointed’ [a)nti/xristo$] comes, even now there have come to be many (who are) ‘against the Anointed’ [a)nti/xristoi], from which we can know that the last hour is (here).” (v. 18)

For more on the “Antichrist” tradition that the author apparently references here, cf. my earlier 3-part article (part 1, 2, 3).

The author is taking literally the meaning of the term a)nti/xristo$, “against [a)nti/] the Anointed [xristo/$]”, implying that the opponents hold views and beliefs that are against Christ. How is this possible, if these people present themselves as (true) believers, and, almost certainly, regarded themselves as such? The author gives us a tantalizing glimpse of the substance of the conflict in verse 22. The false believer (yeu/sth$) is defined as “one denying that Yeshua is the Anointed [o( xristo/$]”. More literally, such people deny (vb a)rne/omai) the truth by saying “Yeshua is not the Anointed (One)”.

On the surface, it seems most unlikely that any Christian would claim that Jesus is not the Christ. How are we to understand the author’s presentation of the opponents’ view? There are a number of possible answers to this question; but, first, it is worth pointing out the similar Christological statement in the second “antichrist” section (4:1-6), as it almost certainly relates the statement here in 2:22:

“every spirit that acknowledges Yeshua (the) Anointed (as) having come in (the) flesh is out of [i.e. from] God” (4:2)

This is phrased as a confession by a true believer, inspired by God’s own Spirit; however, by implication, a false believer will hold the opposite view—viz., that Jesus did not come in the flesh (as the Anointed [One]).

With this in mind, let us consider the possible ways for explaining the statement in 2:22.

1. The opponents deny that Jesus is the Messiah, as expected by Israelites and Jews of the first centuries B.C./A.D. This line of interpretation gives full weight to the meaning of the term xristo/$ as corresponding to Hebrew j^yv!m*, “anointed (one)”. On the Messianic background of early Christian belief, and on Jesus’ relationship to the various Messianic figure-types, cf. my earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed”. Most commentators who follow this interpretation would identify the ‘opponents’ of 1 John as Jewish Christians who have abandoned their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and have returned to the fold of non-Christian Judaism.

2. The statement in 2:22 is a shorthand for the more specific belief in 4:2 (cf. above). According to this interpretation, to deny that “Jesus is the Christ” means denying that “Jesus is the Christ having come in the flesh”. In this view, the statement in 2:22 must be understood in terms of the statement in 4:2. The emphasis is thus not on Jesus as the Christ, but on being the Christ in the flesh. The most common view among commentators has been that 4:2 is meant to combat a docetic Christology—viz., Jesus did not come to earth as a real flesh-and-blood human being, but only seemed to be a physical human. An alternate interpretation, following the same line of thought, is that the opponents downplayed or devalued the humanity of Jesus.

3. Xristo/$ is another way of referring to Jesus as the Son of God, and the opponents’ false Christology, in some way, denies that Jesus is God’s Son. Some commentators would suggest that the opponents held a separationist Christology, meaning that the man Jesus and the Divine Christ were two separate entities, who became joined at the incarnation (or the baptism), and then separated at the moment of death. Such a separationist Christology was associated (in early tradition) with the arch-heretic Cerinthus (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.26). In at least one colorful anecdote (Against Heresies III.3.4), Cerinthus is presented as a personal adversary of the apostle John; Irenaeus further states that John wrote his Gospel specifically to combat Cerinthus’ views (III.11.1).

4. Xristo/$ (“Anointed”) should be understood in connection with the references to the xri=sma (“anointing”) in vv. 20, 27. I mention this in light of the interesting (but somewhat peculiar) theory of U. C. von Wahlde, in his commentary on 1 John (The Gospel and Letters of John, Vol. 3 [Eerdmans: 2010], pp. 84f, 89-99). According to this theory, the opponents held that every believer should be considered an “anointed one” (xristo/$), and that this title should not be reserved for Jesus. It is the abiding presence of the Spirit, the “anointing” (xri=sma) by God, that makes believers to be God’s xristoi/ (“anointed ones”). By contrast (according to this theory), the author means to emphasis the uniqueness of Jesus as the “Anointed One”, and that his authoritative teaching and work cannot be replaced entirely by the internal activity of the Spirit.

In the following note, I will offer an exegetical analysis of verse 22, comparing the results with the various theories and approaches outlined above.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: John: The Paraclete (4)

(The first Paraclete-saying [14:16-17] was discussed in the part 1 of this article; the second saying [14:25-26] in part 2.; the third [15:26-27] in part 3.)

Saying 4-5: John 16:7-15

The final Paraclete-saying(s) are found in the third (and final) discourse-division of the Last Discourse; on which, cf. again my outline:

    • 3:31-38—Introduction to the Discourse (cf. above)
    • 14:1-31—Discourse/division 1—Jesus’ departure
      • The relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14)
      • Jesus’ Words for His Disciples (vv. 15-31)
    • 15:1-16:4a—Discourse/division 2—The Disciples in the World
      • Illustration of the Vine and Branches: Jesus and the Disciples (vv. 1-17)
      • Instruction and Exhortation: The Disciples and the World (15:18-16:4a)
    • 16:4b-28—Discourse/division 3—Jesus’ departure (farewell)
      • The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15)
      • Jesus’ Departure and Return (vv. 16-24)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 25-28)
    • 16:29-33—Conclusion to the Discourse

The theme of the third discourse, as I define it, is the departure of Jesus and his farewell to his disciples. In many ways, this has been the theme of the Last Discourse as a whole, but is especially emphasized here. In the central section of the discourse (vv. 16-24), Jesus discusses his departure and return. The context of the preceding vv.4b-15, which contain the Paraclete-saying(s), makes clear that he is referring to his ultimate departure (back to the Father) and subsequent (eschatological) return. During this period, he will be present with the disciples (and all other believers) through the Spirit.

Some commentators would demarcate two distinct sayings in vv. 7-15 (in which case, these would be sayings # 4 and 5); however, in my view, it is better to treat vv. 7-15 here as a single unit—treating it as a more complex and expansive single Paraclete-saying. Even so, structurally, we may divine this section of the discourse into three parts:

    • The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15)
      • Initial statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 4b-7a)
      • The Coming of the Spirit (vv. 7b-11)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 12-15)

The Paraclete-saying covers the final two parts, anchored by the central reference (vv. 7b-11) to the coming of the Spirit (Paraclete). These verses have proven to be the most difficult to interpret of all the Paraclete-sayings, and among the most difficult portions of the Last Discourse as a whole. For this reason, I discuss vv. 7b-11 in detail through a set of supplemental (exegetical) daily notes.

As noted above, the Paraclete-saying must be understood in the immediate context of Jesus’ impending departure (back to the Father), vv. 4b-6. Because Jesus will no longer be physically present with the disciples, his continued presence must be spiritual—realized through the Spirit. In this regard, Jesus declares in v. 7 that it is actually beneficial for the disciples that he leaves them (physically):

“But I relate to you the truth: it bears together (well) for you that I should go away; for, if I should not go away, (then) the (one) called alongside [para/klhto$] will not come toward you…”

The verb sumfe/rw literally means “bear together”; in English idiom, we might say, things “come together” for a person’s advantage, suggesting a convergence of beneficial circumstances. Jesus will be able to minister to believers, in perpetuity, through the Spirit, in ways that he simply could not do within the limited scope of his earthly ministry. And, indeed, his departure (back to the Father) is required for the coming of the Spirit:

“…but if I (do) travel (off), I will send him toward you.”

The Spirit comes from God the Father, and Jesus (the Son) must request and receive the Spirit from the Father so as to be able to send it along to the disciples (and other believers). Verse 7 here continues the progression of the prior sayings in this regard (note the shift of focus from the Father to the Son):

    • The Father gives the Spirit, at Jesus’ request (14:16)
      • The Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name (14:26)
        • Jesus sends the Spirit from the Father (15:26)
          • Jesus (the Son) sends the Spirit (16:7b)

Elsewhere in the Gospel, it is clearly indicated (or alluded to) that Jesus gives the Spirit to believers (1:33; 7:37-39, cp. 4:10-15; 6:51, 63; 19:30, [34]; 20:22), even though the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit (cf. 3:34-35; 4:24; 6:32; 17:8ff).

As in the first and third Paraclete-sayings, the “one called alongside” (para/klhto$) is referred to by the title “the Spirit of truth”. In discussing the third saying (cf. Part 3), I mentioned that here “truth” (a)lh/qeia) refers principally, and most specifically, to the truth about who Jesus is. This Christological emphasis continues here in the final saying. However, the emphasis is expressed in a curious way, especially in comparison to the rather straightforward reference in 15:26 to the Spirit as a witness about (peri/) Jesus (“about me [peri\ e)mou]”). Here is how the matter is stated in v. 8:

“and, (hav)ing come, that (one) will show the world (to be wrong), about a(marti/a, and about dikaiosu/nh, and about kri/si$.”

I have discussed this verse in a recent note, which I would recommend reading before continuing with this article.

The verb e)le/gxw has the basic meaning of “expose, show (to be wrong)”. The Spirit will show the world (o ( ko/smo$)—that is, the current world-order, dominated by sin and darkness—to be wrong about (peri/) three things in particular:

    • a(marti/a (“sin”) [v. 9, note]
    • dikaiosu/nh (“right[eous]ness”) [v. 10, note]
    • kri/si$ (“judgment”) [v. 11, note]

As the parallel with 15:26 suggests, the Spirit’s witness “about” (peri/) these things is fundamentally Christological—that is, it relates to, and is defined by, the witness about Jesus (“about me”). This is expounded in vv. 9-11, where the Spirit’s role in relation to each of the three terms of the triad in v. 8 is explained. I have discussed these verses in detail in the supplemental notes (cf. the links above), so I will be giving only a summary of that analysis here.

    • a(marti/a (“sin”)—Sin is defined, not as the world understands it, in a conventional ethical-religious sense, but principally in terms of trust (pi/sti$) in Jesus. From the Johannine theological standpoint, the great (and unforgivable) sin, of which the “world” is guilty, is an unwillingness to trust in Jesus as the Son of God.
    • dikaiosu/nh (“right[eous]ness”)—Again, true righteousness is not as the world understands or realizes it, but defined entirely by the righteousness of God (the Father) Himself, which is shared by, and manifest in, the person of the Son (Jesus). This righteousness follows the Son, in his exaltation and return to the Father, being otherwise invisible and hidden to the world. Only through the Spirit is this righteousness (of Father and Son) manifest, to believers.
    • kri/si$ (“judgment”)—The world also fails to understand the true nature of God’s judgment, in two main respects: (1) it is not limited to a future time, but is realized in the present; and (2) one experiences judgment based on whether one trusts and accepts the witness of who Jesus is. Those who trust in Jesus have already passed through the Judgment, while those who do not trust have, in a sense, already been judged (and condemned). Jesus may seem himself to have been judged by the world, under its authority, through his suffering and death; however, in reality, it is the world and its “Chief” (the Devil) that have been judged.

This witness by the Spirit, though it shows the world to be wrong, is directed primarily to the disciples (and other believers). This is clear from what follows in verses 12-15 (cf. the recent note). The theme of the Spirit’s teaching role is brought back into focus, from the earlier saying in 14:25-26 (cf. Part 2). The Spirit will continue Jesus’ role as teacher, continuing to teach believers (v. 12). The title “Spirit of truth [a)lh/qeia]” is particularly significant here, as Jesus declares that the Spirit with lead believers on the way [vb o(dhge/w] “in all the truth” (e)n th=| a)lhqei/a| pa/sh|). This association between the Spirit and truth reflects an important Johannine theme; indeed, the author of 1 John goes so far as to declare that “the Spirit is the truth” (5:6).

On the one hand, the Spirit becomes an additional link in the chain of relation: Father-Son-Believers. The Father gives to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives to believers. He gives the Spirit to believers, and then, through the Spirit, he continues to give to believers. Thus, he gives the Spirit the words to speak, and the Spirit speaks, in Jesus’ name and on his behalf, to believers. This continues an important Johannine theme regarding the Son speaking the words of the Father (cf. the references in the supplemental note on vv. 12-15). The Son speaks only the words which he hears, and is given, by the Father. Jesus responds as a dutiful son, following his father’s example—he says (and does) what he hears (and sees) the Father saying (and doing).

At the same time, the Son (Jesus) is personally present with (and within) believers through the Spirit. It is truly he who speaks in and among believers. In this way, Jesus is able to continue teaching believers, as he still has “many (thing)s” to speak. Some commentators would limit this dynamic, applying it only to the original disciples. However, in my view, such a restriction distorts the message of the Last Discourse as a whole, and would contradict the thrust of the Johannine theology. In 1 John 2:20, 27, for example, which will be discussed in the next article of this series, it is rather clearly expressed that the Spirit continues to teach believers. This is an important aspect of Johannine spiritualism, and it will be explored further, and in considerable detail, in the studies on 1 John.

In verses 14-15, the Paraclete-sayings reach their theological (and Christological) conclusion, restating several fundamental Johannine themes. First, there is the contextual theme (in v. 14) relating to the exaltation of Jesus, utilizing the key-verb doca/zw (“show/give honor”). The “lifting up” and honoring of Jesus begins with his Passion (12:23, 28; 13:31-32; 17:1) and concludes with his receiving of the Spirit to give/send to believers. This entire process of exaltation, as expressed in the Johannine Gospel narrative, is characterized by the verb doca/zw (cf. 7:39; 12:16).

Second, the exaltation of Jesus is part of a more fundamental (and essential) dynamic relationship between Father and Son (on the use of doca/zw in this context, cf. 8:54; 14:13; 15:8; 17:1, 4-5). As noted above, the Spirit now becomes part of the fundamental chain of relation: the Father gives to the Son, who then gives to the Spirit, and the Spirit, in turn, now gives to believers.

Finally, the climactic verse 15 summarizes the core Johannine theological-Christological message (cf. especially 13:34-35; 17:7ff). As the Son sent to earth by God the Father, Jesus receives “all things” from the Father, so that he is able to give them, in turn, to believers. The Spirit is the foremost of what the Father gives to the Son, and which also the Son gives to believers. Through the Spirit, the Son will continue to give to believers. The focus is principally on Jesus’ words, his teaching, that he gives to believers; however, the theological formulation of the statement in v. 15 is more comprehensive than that. The Spirit receives from that which belongs to the Son—from the “all things” that the Father gives to the Son.

As a last point, the thematic emphasis of the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17 is also foreshadowed here, with an allusion to the unity between Father and Son: “all (thing)s, as (many) as the Father holds, are mine…”. In the Father’s giving to the Son, the Son shares in what belongs to the Father. Similarly, there is an allusion to believers’ unity with the Son (and the Father), since, through the Spirit, we (as believers) come to share in the things that belong to the Son. We must, however, emphasize again here that the communication of this to us takes place through the idiom of speaking and witnessing. The Spirit receives from what belongs to the Son and gives it forth as a message (vb a)nagge/llw) to us. The verbal aspect of this spiritual witness remains prominent throughout the Johannine writings, and is central to the Johannine spiritualism.

In the next article of this series, we shall begin to examine how the Johannine beliefs regarding the Spirit, as expressed in the Gospel, were realized in the wider Community. For this, we turn to the Johannine Letters, especially the work known as 1 John.

May 18: John 16:12ff

John 16:12-15

The Paraclete-saying in vv. 8-11 (discussed in the previous notes) continues in verses 12-15. Some commentators would treat these as two distinct units, however I prefer to consider vv. 7b-15 as a single Paraclete-unit. The main reason is that, in the prior three sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27), the statement on the coming of the “one called alongside” (para/klhto$) is followed by a reference to the parákl¢tos as “the Spirit of truth” (or “the holy Spirit”). Here, the parákl¢tos is called the “Spirit of truth” in verse 12, which strongly indicates that vv. 12-15 represents a continuation of the saying in vv. 7b-11, and that vv. 7b-15 constitutes a single saying, albeit expanded and more complex, according to the pattern in the Last Discourse.

The Spirit’s role and function was described in vv. 8-11: he will expose the world (o( ko/smo$), showing it to be wrong; this is fundamental meaning of the verb e)le/gxw, as previously discussed. The Spirit will show the world to be wrong on three points, each of which was discussed in some detail in the prior notes: (1) about “sin” (a(marti/a, note), (2) about “right[eous]ness” (dikaiosu/nh, note), and (3) about “judgment” (kri/si$, note). That the Spirit’s witness is aimed primarily at the disciples (believers), rather than directed at the world, is indicated by what follows in vv. 12-15. The world’s understanding of sin, righteous, and judgment is shown to be wrong, mainly for the benefit of believers. At the same time, believers (esp. the disciples) give witness toward the world, and the Spirit’s witness enables and guides them in this mission (cp. the Synoptic tradition in Mark 13:9-13 par, and throughout the book of Acts).

Thus it is that in vv. 12-15 the focus shifts back to the teaching function of the Spirit, emphasized in the second Paraclete-saying (14:25-26), an emphasis that is also reflected in the third saying (15:26f). In the articles on those sayings, I brought out the important point that the Spirit continues the mission of Jesus with his disciples (and future believers), and that Jesus is present, in and among believers, through the Spirit, continuing to speak and teach. This aspect of the Paraclete’s role is made particularly clear here in vv. 12ff, where Jesus begins:

“I have yet many (thing)s to relate to you, but you are not able to bear (them) now”

The verb he uses is basta/zw, which has the basic meaning of lifting something up and holding/supporting it. The disciples’ inability to “bear” Jesus’ teaching means that they are not yet ready to hear and understand what he has to say. The failure of the disciples to understand during the Last Discourse (e.g., 14:5, 8, 22) is part of a wider misunderstanding-motif that features throughout the Johannine Discourses. Jesus’ hearers are unable to understand the true and deeper meaning of his words. Only after the disciples have received the Spirit, will they be able to understand. Jesus still has “many (thing)s” to tell them, and he will communicate this further teaching through the Spirit:

“…but when that (one) should come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you on the way in all truth; for he will not speak from himself, but (rather), as many (thing)s as he hears, he will speak, and the(se) coming (thing)s he will give forth as a message to you.” (v. 13)

The statement that the Spirit will guide believers “in all truth” corresponds to the claim  that the Spirit will teach them “all things”. In this regard, the identification of the Spirit-Paraclete by the title “the Spirit of truth” is particularly significant. The author of 1 John would take the connection a step further, declaring that the Spirit is the truth (5:6). For more on the expression “Spirit of truth,” cf. the article on the first Paraclete-saying.

Some commentators would limit these Paraclete-sayings in application to the original disciples, but such a restriction runs counter to the overall thrust of the Last Discourse, as well as to the Johannine theological-spiritual understanding. The Spirit continues to teach believers “all things”, as is clear from 1 Jn 2:20, 27 (to be discussed in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”). The focus in the narrative is, however, primarily upon the original disciples of Jesus, who are the first believers to receive the Spirit and to continue Jesus’ mission on earth.

The (correlative) neuter plural pronoun o%sa (“as many [thing]s as”) relates back to the neuter plural adjective polla/ (“many [thing]s”) in v. 12. The Spirit will hear the “many (thing)s” that Jesus has to say to believers, and will then speak them, on Jesus’ behalf; effectively, Jesus will be speaking through the Spirit, even as he will be present alongside believers through the Spirit. Interestingly, the statement in v. 12 (cf. above) seems, on the surface, to contradict what Jesus said in 14:30; note the formal similarity in expression:

    • “not yet [ou)ke/ti] many (thing)s [polla/] will I speak [lalh/sw] with/to you” (14:30)
    • “yet [e&ti] many (thing)s [polla/] I have to say [le/gein] to you” (16:12)

This is another example of double-meaning in the Johannine discourses—where Jesus’ words can be understood on two different levels, or in two different ways. On the one hand, Jesus will not yet speak “many things” to his disciples, since he will not be present with them (on earth) much longer; but, on the other hand, he will yet say “many things” to them through the Spirit.

This chain of relation, between the Son (Jesus) and the Spirit, is given in verse 14, expressed very much in the Johannine theological idiom:

“That (one) will show me honor, (in) that he will receive out of th(at which is) mine and will give (it) forth as a message to you.”

The Spirit receives the words from Jesus, and gives them along to believers. This corresponds to the relationship between Father and Son, whereby the Son (Jesus) receives from the Father, and then gives it, in turn, to believers. The Spirit represents, in one sense, a further link in this chain; at the same time, Jesus himself is manifest in the Spirit, just as the Father is personally manifest in him (the Son). An important emphasis throughout the Gospel is how Jesus speaks the words he receives from the Father; in this regard, he is functioning as a dutiful son learning from his father and following the father’s example—i.e., the Son says (and does) what he hears (and sees) the Father saying (and doing). On this important theme, see esp. 3:31-34; 5:19ff, 30ff; 7:17-18; 8:26, 28, 38ff; 12:49f; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8, 14.

The Son speaks only what he hears from the Father; similarly, the Spirit speaks only what he hears from the Son. The precise expression is that he will receive “out [i.e. from] of th(at which is) mine” (e)k tou= e)mou=). Since the Father has given “all things” to the Son (3:35; 17:7, etc), the words of God which the Spirit receives come from the Son, and belong to him. In my view, the neuter plural participle (verbal noun) ta\ e)rxo/mena (“the coming [thing]s”) in v. 13 refers, not to news of future events, but simply to the words/teachings that are “coming” to the Spirit from the Son (the verb e&rxomai tends to have this Christological focus in the Gospel of John). The neuter plural has a general and comprehensive meaning, corresponding to the plural adjective poll/a (“all things”) in v. 12 (cf. above).

The disciples’ receiving of the Spirit marks the final stage of Jesus’ exaltation. The process of the Son being honored (vb doca/zw), which began with his Passion (cf. 12:23, 28), culminates in his receiving the Spirit from the Father to give to believers. The entire narrative of exaltation, from Jesus’ earthly suffering to communicating the Spirit from heaven, is characterized by the verb doca/zw (cf. 7:39; 12:16, etc).

“All (thing)s [pa/nta], as many as [o%sa] the Father holds, are mine; through this [i.e. for this reason] I said that he receives out of th(at which is) mine and will give (it) forth as a message to you.” (v. 15)

Verse 15 summarizes the theological message of the passage, stating quite clearly the key points of the Johannine theology which I have noted above. The neuter plural adjective pa/nta (“all [thing]s”) corresponds to the polla/ (“many [thing]s”) in v. 12, and the (correlative) neuter plural pronoun o%sa (“as many [thing]s as”) is repeated from v. 13. The adjective pa=$ (“all, every”) plays an important theological role in the Gospel; special attention should be given to other occurrences of the neuter (“every [thing], all [thing]s”)—cf. 1:3; 3:31, 35; 5:20; 6:37, 39; 10:4; 14:26; 16:30; 17:2, 7, 10; 18:4; 19:28.

May 15: John 16:11

John 16:11

In verse 11, we have the third (and final) item of the triad in the Paraclete-saying of v. 8:

“that (one) will show the world (to be wrong)…about judgment [kri/si$]”

In the previous notes on v. 9 and 10, two key points were established: (1) the Spirit will show the world to be wrong in its understanding (of sin and righteousness), and that (2) the true nature of sin and righteousness is to be understood in Christological terms—that is, in relation to Jesus’ identity as the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father. The same two points apply to the final statement regarding judgment (kri/si$).

The noun kri/si$ fundamentally refers to a separation, often in the sense of discerning or making a decision about something. It is typically translated “judgment”, either in this general sense, or within the specific legal-judicial context of a decision rendered in a court of law (by a judge). For the most part, in the Gospel of John, as throughout the New Testament, kri/si$ specifically refers to the coming end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world, punishing humankind for its wickedness.

The noun occurs 11 times in the Gospel (out of 47 NT occurrences), and once in 1 John (4:17); the related verb (kri/nw) occurs 19 times in the Gospel, but not in the Letters. Occasionally, the more general sense of judgment is intended (cf. 7:24), or kri/si$/kri/nw is used in an ordinary legal-judicial context (7:51; 18:31); however, as noted above, primarily the reference is to the coming end-time Judgment (see esp. 5:29-30; 12:31, 48; 1 Jn 4:17).

Even though the eschatological context is primary, this is presented in a very distinctive way in the Gospel Discourses. At several points, we find signs of what is called “realized” eschatology—that is, the idea that end-time events, such as the resurrection and the Last Judgment, are understood as having, in a sense, already occurred, being realized in the present. This does not mean that the Gospel writer (or Jesus as the speaker) denies a future fulfillment, but only affirms that it is also fulfilled in the present. This is seen most clearly in the chapter 5 Discourse, where the resurrection is defined, not simply as a future event, but as realized in the present, through the presence of the Son of God (Jesus)—vv. 25ff; cp. 11:25-26. In terms of salvation from the coming Judgment, this is realized for believers (in the present), through their/our trust in Jesus:

“the (one) hearing my word, and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me, holds (the) life of the ages [i.e. eternal life], and does not come into judgment, but has stepped over, out of death, (and) into life.” (5:24)

If believers are saved from judgment in the present, through trust, then unbelievers correspondingly come under God’s judgment, having the judgment (already) passed against them (in the present), through their lack of trust. The key passage alluding to this is 3:19-21; cf. also 9:41; 15:22-24. In the wider Gospel tradition, the end-time period of distress, seen as the beginnings of the Judgment, commences with the suffering and death of Jesus (see, e.g., Mark 14:38-41 par, and the context of the “Eschatological Discourse” [chap. 13 par]). The Johannine tradition evinces the same basic eschatological view, and this is confirmed by Jesus’ declaration in 12:31, and is strongly implied throughout the Last Discourse.

The explanation of the Paraclete-saying in v. 8 concludes with the words of Jesus in v. 11:

“…and about judgment, (in) that the Chief of this world has been judged”

The perfect tense of the verb kri/nw (ke/kritai, passive, “he has been judged”) indicates a past event, the effect of which continues in the present. The implication is that the “chief of this world” has already been judged, just as believers have already passed through [perfect form of the vb metabai/nw] the Judgment (5:24, cf. above).

The expression “the chief of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou=tou) occurred earlier the 12:31 declaration:

“Now is (the) judgment of this world, now the Chief of this world shall be cast out!”

The idea expressed is very close to that here in v. 11: “shall be cast out” (future tense) is parallel with “has been judged” (perfect tense). Essentially the same expression was used earlier in the Last Discourse, at the close of the first discourse (14:30f):

“Not much more shall I speak with you, for the Chief of the world comes, and he does not hold anything on me, but (this is so) that the world would know that I love the Father, and, just as He laid on me (a duty) to complete, so I do (it).”

This is a rather complicated way for Jesus to refer to his impending suffering (and death). The approach of the “Chief of the world” signifies the world’s role, under the dominion of its “Chief”, in putting Jesus to death. The point is strongly made that this does not mean that the world (or its Chief) has any power over Jesus, or has anything incriminating on him (deserving of death)—cf. Jesus’ words to Pilate in 19:11, and note the emphasis in 10:18. In his own way, Pilate is one of the world’s “chiefs”, though ultimately subservient to the dominion/control of its main Chief (the Devil). Jesus’ suffering and death will happen so that everyone (“the world,” in a more generic sense) will know of the love between Father and Son, and that the Son (Jesus) is simply fulfilling the duty and mission given to him by the Father.

In speaking of the “coming” of the world’s Chief, coinciding with the onset of Jesus’ Passion, one is reminded of the Synoptic Garden scene, when Jesus announces to his close disciples that “the hour (has) come [h@lqen h( w%ra]” (Mark 14:41 par; cp. Jn 12:23, 27 in connection with v. 31). In the Lukan version (22:53), this declaration is given more vivid and personal form:

“…but this is your hour, and the authority [e)cousi/a] of darkness”

In many ways, this language approaches the Johannine theme of the world’s opposition to Jesus; the plural “you” essentially refers to those people, hostile to Jesus, who belong to the current world-order (ko/smo$) of darkness and evil. Functionally, they are servants of the Devil, the “Chief” of the world.

According to the world’s view of things, Jesus was judged and punished by the world’s authority; yet this view of judgment (kri/si$) is decidedly wrong. Jesus’ suffering and death actually marks the beginning of his exaltation—of his being “lifted up” (as the Son of God) in glory. While it might appear as though Jesus was judged, it was actually the world (and its Chief) that underwent judgment. This is the true nature of judgment that the Spirit will bring to light, exposing the false understanding of the world. Jesus himself declared the true situation at the close of the Last Discourse (16:33):

“…in the world you have distress, but you must take courage, (for) I have been victorious (over) the world!”

Again a perfect tense form (neni/khka, “I have been victorious”) shows how the future (eschatological) event of the Judgment is realized in the present. That Jesus’ victory over the world includes the “Chief of the world” —something already alluded to in 12:31—is confirmed by the author of 1 John:

“Unto this [i.e. for this purpose] the Son of God was made to shine forth [i.e. appear on earth], that he should dissolve [i.e. destroy] the works of the {Devil}.” (3:8)

The mission of the Son on earth, culminating in his death, had the purpose (and effect) of destroying the ‘works’ (implying dominion/control) of the Devil. This is another way of stating that, with the death of Jesus, the “Chief of the world” has been judged.

Another way that the world is wrong about judgment relates to the future expectation of the end-time (Last) Judgment. The conventional religious view was that only at the end time, in the future (however immediate or far off), would God judge the world—judging human beings for their ethical and religious behavior. In two respects, the Gospel of John presents a very different perspective on the great Judgment: (1) the Judgment is effectively realized in the present, based on whether or not one trusts in Jesus (as the Son of God), and (2) people are judged ultimately, and principally, on their response to the witness regarding Jesus identity (as the Son). This ‘realized’ eschatological emphasis in the Johannine writings (esp. the Gospel) was discussed above, but it is worth mentioning again here. Point (2) has already been addressed in the prior notes (on v. 9 and 10), but, in this regard, the Christological emphasis of the Paraclete-saying cannot be overstated.

In the next daily note, our analysis of vv. 8-11 will be summarized, along with some exegetical comments on the following vv. 12-15.

May 13: John 16:10

John 16:10

Verse 10 highlights the second noun of the triad in v. 8 (cf. the prior note)—dikaiosu/nh:

“and that (one) will show the world (to be wrong)…about dikaiosu/nh…”

On the contextual meaning of the verb e)le/gxw, here translated as “show (to be wrong)”, cf. the prior note.

The Spirit will show the world to be wrong about dikaiosu/nh. This noun literally means “right-ness”, the closest approximation for which in English is “righteousness”, though in certain instances “justice” is perhaps a more appropriate translation. The noun is relatively rare in the Johannine writings; it occurs only here (vv. 8, 10) in the Gospel, and three times in 1 John.

The usage in 1 John may help to elucidate the meaning of the word in the Gospel. The context within the statements of 2:29, 3:7 and 10 is very similar:

“If you have seen that He is right(eous) [di/kaio$], (the) you know also that every (one) doing right(eous)ness [dikaiosu/nh] has come to be born out of Him.” [2:29]
“(Dear) offspring, let no one lead you astray: the (one) doing right(eous)ness is right(eous), just as that (One) is right(eous).” [3:7]
“In this is made to shine forth the offspring of God and the offspring of the {Devil}: every (one) not doing right(eous)ness is not out of God…” [3:10]

Righteousness is clearly related to the characteristic of God the Father as righteous (di/kaio$), an attribute that is also shared by the Son (Jesus), cf. 1:9; 2:1. Believers who are united with the Son (and thus also the Father) through the Spirit, likewise share this characteristic. And so, they will do what is right, following the example of Jesus (and of God the Father). In so doing, they will demonstrate that they have been ‘born’ of God.

This strong theological usage, within the Johannine idiom, informs the use of dikaiosu/nh here in the Paraclete saying (16:8): “that (one) [i.e. the Spirit] will show the world (to be wrong) about right(eous)ness [peri\ dikaiosu/nh$]”. Jesus expounds what is meant by this in verse 10:

“…and about right(eous)ness, (in) that I lead (myself) under toward the Father and not any (more) do you look at me”

On the surface, Jesus simply re-states what he has been saying throughout the Last Discourse—that he will soon be going away, back to the Father. This is most frequently expressed by the verb u(pa/gw, which literally means something like “lead (oneself) under,” i.e., going ‘undercover,’ disappearing, often used in the more general sense of “go away, go back”. It occurs quite often in the Gospel of John (32 times out of 79 NT occurrences), where it typically is used, by Jesus, to refer to his departure back to the Father. Properly construed, this ‘going away’ is part of the process of Jesus’ exaltation, of his being “lifted up” —a process that begins with his death, and ends with his return to the Father. The references to Jesus’ departure have a dual-meaning in the Last Discourse, referring to both ends of that spectrum.

The verb qewre/w, one of several key verbs in the Gospel expressing the idea of seeing, also has a double-meaning. It denotes “looking (closely) at” something (or someone), and occurs 24 times in the Gospel (out of 58 NT occurrences). Theologically it can signify seeing Jesus, in the sense of recognizing his true identity (as the Son sent by the Father), cf. 12:45, etc; yet, it also can refer to simple (physical) sight. Throughout the Last Discourse, there is conceptual wordplay between both of these meanings, and, not coincidentally, the references relate contextually to the Paraclete-sayings—14:17, 19; 16:16-17, 19. Here, qewre/w refers principally to the idea that Jesus will no longer be visible to the disciples, because he will no longer be physically present with them.

The context of the Spirit’s witness against the world here makes the similar language in 14:19 quite relevant:

“Yet a little (longer), and the world will not look at [qewrei=] me any (more); but you will look at [qewrei=te] me, (and in) that I live, you also shall live.”

Jesus seems to be alluding to his resurrection (and return to the disciples) after his death, when people will (for a time) not see him. However, the theological meaning of qewre/w is also prevalent—i.e., the “world” will not see Jesus (especially in his death) for who he truly is, the Son of God; but the disciples will recognize and trust in him.

This brings us to the statement in 16:10, which has always been something of a puzzle. Commentators have found difficulty in explaining how Jesus’ explanation relates to the Paraclete saying. How does the Spirit show the world to be wrong about righteousness specifically because (o%ti) Jesus departs to the Father (and the disciples can no longer see him)?

In the previous note (on v. 9), I mentioned how the Spirit’s role in exposing (vb e)le/gxw) the world “about sin”, refers, not only to the world’s actual sin (of unbelief), but to its understanding of the nature of sin. As I have discussed, in the Johannine writings sin refers principally to the great sin of failing/refusing to trust in Jesus, of not recognizing his identity as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father. I would argue that the nature of righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) has a similarly Christological orientation in the Johannine writings.

This would seem to be confirmed by the references in 1 John, discussed above. Jesus (the Son) is righteous (di/kaio$), just as the Father is righteous—he shares the same attribute with the Father. True righteousness, thus, is not as the world understands it—in conventional ethical and religious terms—but, rather, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Son, who manifests and embodies the truth of the Father. Thus, the emphasis here in v. 10—as, indeed, it is throughout the Last Discourse—is on Jesus’ return to the Father. His return, to his heavenly/eternal place of origin, provides the ultimate confirmation of his identity as the Son (and Righteous One) of God.

It is also possible that there is an allusion here to a ‘false’ righteousness possessed (and valued) by the world, which corresponds precisely with their great sin (of unbelief). In this regard, it is worth noting several instances in the LXX and NT, where dikaiosu/nh is used in a negative sense, or where such is implied—Isa 64:6; Dan 9:18; Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6-9; one may also mention the implicit contrast between the righteousness of the “scribes and Pharisees” and that of Jesus’ faithful disciples (Matt 5:20). Cf. the article by D. A. Carson, “The Function of the Paraclete in John 16.7-11”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 98 (1979), pp. 547-66 [esp. 558-60].

It is fair to say that the Spirit will both prove the world to be wrong in its understanding of true righteousness, and will expose the false righteousness that it holds. The connection with the disciples not being able to see Jesus—meaning Jesus will no longer be present alongside them physically—may be intended, in a subtle way, to emphasize the invisible nature of true righteousness. It is hidden to the world, and to people at large, since it is manifest principally through the Spirit. Only true believers can participate in this righteousness, through spiritual union with the Son (Jesus) and the Father. The effect and evidence of righteousness may be visible to all (cp. the saying in 3:8), but its true nature is invisible, being spiritual in nature, just as God Himself is Spirit (4:23).

May 12: John 16:9

John 16:9

As discussed in the previous note, verse 8 describes the role of the Spirit (the para/klhto$) as that of exposing/showing (vb e)le/gxw) the world (ko/smo$) to be wrong. He will show the world to be wrong about (peri/) three things in particular, expressed by a triad of nouns:

    • about a(marti/a (v. 9)
    • about dikaiosu/nh (v. 10)
    • about kri/si$ (v. 11)

Of these three, the meaning of the first (a(marti/a) is most straightforward, being understood (and translated) generally as “sin”. Thus the statement in verse 8 reads: “and that (one) will show the world (to be wrong) about sin [peri\ a(marti/a$]…”.

However, sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw) has a very distinct meaning and significance in the Johannine writings. While not ignoring or denying the conventional ethical-religious meaning (cf. 5:14; 9:2-3ff; 20:23), the word (and concept) is very much defined in Christological terms, informed by its use in the Johannine theological context. We can see this most particularly by the explanation given (by Jesus) in verse 9:

“about sin, (on the one hand,) (in) that they do not trust in me“

The exposition in vv. 9-11 is governed syntactically by a me\n…de/… construction (“on the one hand…on the other…”). Here the particle me/n indicates the first item of the triad—three parts of a witness the Spirit gives against the world.

Sin is clearly identified here with a failure to trust (vb pisteu/w) in Jesus. People (i.e., those belonging to “the world”) are unwilling or unable to recognize the truth about who Jesus is, and thus do not trust in him. The main section in the Gospel dealing with the question of sin is section 8:21-30 of the great Sukkot Discourse-complex in chapters 7-8. In verse 21, Jesus first states the matter in a rather puzzling way:

“I go away, and you will seek me, and (yet) in your sin you will die off—for, (to the place) where I go away, you are not able to come.”

Throughout this discourse, as in the Last Discourse, Jesus plays on a double-meaning of the idea that he is “going away” (vb u(pa/gw). At the level of the world (that is, his hostile audience in the Sukkot Discourse), the reference is simply to Jesus having gone off somewhere (to another geographical location, cf. 7:35-36). However, according to the true meaning of Jesus’ words, he is returning back to the Father, indicating his Divine/heavenly origin as the Son of God. The world cannot find him, because he will not have gone away to another physical place, but to a spiritual place (4:23)—back to the Father.

On the surface, Jesus’ statement that unbelievers will die in their sin suggests that here a(marti/a is being used in its ethical-religious sense. By rejecting Jesus, they will not find forgiveness for their moral and religious failings and wicked behavior. Certainly, the Gospel does indicate that Jesus’ earthly mission, and his sacrificial death, was intended to “take away” the world’s sins (1:29). The author of 1 John makes clear that, by our participation in the death of Jesus, the cleansing power of his “blood”, communicated through the Spirit (cf. Jn 6:51-58, 63), does ‘take away’ our sin (1 Jn 1:7ff, discussed in a recent note).

However, the expression “in your sin”, lit. “in the sin of you” (e)n th=| a(marti/a| u(mw=n), can be understood another way—viz., as referring to the great sin of unbelief. Jesus’ opponents will die in this sin. Verses 23-24 demonstrate, indeed, how the expression is to be understood, within the Johannine theological idiom:

“You are out of [i.e. from] the (place) below [ka/tw], I am out of [i.e. from] the (place) above [a&nw]; you are out of [i.e. from] this world, I am not out of [i.e. from] this world. So I said to you that you will die off in your sins; for, if you would not trust that I am [e)gw\ ei)mi], you will die off in your sins.”

The expression “in your sins [plur.]” here is defined in terms of “in your sin [sing.]”. All other sins are secondary to, and ultimately relate back to, the great sin of unbelief. The essential predicative expression “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) is fundamental to the Johannine theology, occurring repeatedly throughout the Gospel. The reason why Jesus’ opponents will die ‘in their sins’ is because they are ‘in the (great) sin’ of unbelief; that is, they refuse to trust in Jesus, recognizing and accepting his identity as the Divine Son (with the attribute of “I Am”) sent by the Father.

The Spirit will expose the true nature of the world’s sin. Showing the world to be wrong “about sin” can be understood on two levels. First, the world’s understanding about the nature of sin (in general) is shown to be wrong. According to the world’s standards, a person may appear to be living in a moral and upright manner—like, to be sure, many of the religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus—and yet still commit the great sin of rejecting God’s Son.

When people encounter the witness as to who Jesus is, their own true identity is exposed and made known. If they belong to God, they will be drawn to the light, and will trust in Jesus; if they belong to the world (which is opposed to God), they will be shown to be hostile to the light, lovers of darkness, and will not trust in him. This witness (of the Spirit) exposes and reveals the world’s sin, and brings it under judgment; Jesus’ own witness, during his earthly ministry, did the same thing (cf. 3:19-21; 15:22ff [cp. 9:41]), and now the Spirit is continuing his work of bearing witness.

Thus, the second meaning of “about sin” relates to the world’s sin. This is the great sin of unbelief—refusing to trust in Jesus—and it shows that those who belong to the world, being lovers of darkness, are steeped in various kinds of sin, which cannot (and will not) be forgiven, because of their unbelief. The cleansing power of Jesus’ blood (1 Jn 1:7, cf. above) is only communicated to believers, those who belong to God, through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the second item of the triad— “about rightness” (peri\ dikaiosu/nh$)—and how this is explained in verse 10.

*    *    *    *    *

As an interesting side note, the idea of a person’s true nature, and of the sinfulness of their heart, being exposed by the Spirit is also found in the Jewish Testament of Judah (part of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”), chapter 20. It utilizes the same expression, “Spirit of truth”, as the Johannine Paraclete-sayings. As previously noted, the same expression occurs in the Qumran Community Rule text (1QS 3:18-29; 4:21), and the contextual usage in the Testament of Judah is very similar:

“The things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man, each one of whom the Lord knows. There is no moment in which man’s works can be concealed, because they are written on the heart in the Lord’s sight. And the spirit of truth testifies to all things and brings all accusations. He who has sinned is consumed in his heart and cannot raise his head to face the judge.” (20:3-5, translation by H. C. Kee, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Charlesworth ed. [Anchor Bible Reference Library]).

May 11: John 16:8 (continued)

John 16:8, continued

Continuing the discussion from the previous note, there are two points related to verse 8 that need to be addressed:

    1. The use of the word ko/smo$ (“world”), specifically in regard to the special Johannine theological usage of the term, and
    2. The parallelism between the prepositional triad (“about sin…”) and the earlier “about me” (i.e., about Jesus, the Son) in the third Paraclete-saying.
1. Use of the word ko/smo$

The noun ko/smo$ is very much a Johannine keyword. It occurs 78 times in the Gospel, 23 times in 1 John, and once in 2 John (as well as 3 in the book of Revelation)—more than half of all New Testament occurrences (186). Beyond this, the word is used in a very distinctive way in the Johannine writings. While ko/smo$ is sometimes used in the ordinary geographic sense—of earth as the place (and plane of existence) where human beings reside—more often it has a pointed ethical-religious meaning. The “world” represents the domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. This decidedly negative sense of the word is part of a pronounced dualism in the Johannine writings—light vs. darkness, above vs. below, etc.

In actuality, the two aspects of meaning—geographic (neutral) and ethical-religious (negative)—are closely related. At some points in the Gospel, the two aspects are blended together (e.g., 1:9-10), or the author/speaker makes use of wordplay, shifting between the two meanings (e.g., 3:16-17, 19; 17:13-14ff). The noun ko/smo$ is especially prominent in the Last Discourse, where it occurs 19 times, and the chapter 17 Prayer-discourse where it occurs nearly as often (18 times).

The negative meaning dominates the Last Discourse, especially in 15:18-19 (prior to the third Paraclete-saying [vv. 26-27]), where the emphasis is on the world’s hatred of the disciples (believers), because they represent Jesus, speaking and acting in his name. The Last Discourse assumes an eschatological worldview, anticipating a persecution of believers that is part of the end-time period of distress (cp. Mk 13:9-11 par, and note the reference to the Spirit in v. 11).

The noun ko/smo$ is usually translated “world”, but would perhaps be more accurately rendered “world-order.” The fundamental denotation of ko/smo$ refers to the order and arrangement of the created world. In terms of the negative, dualistic meaning of ko/smo$ in the Johannine writings, this can be understood as referring to the current arrangement of things—the way they function and operate—in a domain and mode of existence dominated by sin and darkness, led by the world’s Chief, the Devil (14:30; 16:11).

This “world” was referenced in the first Paraclete-saying (cf. Part 1), in 14:17, where the point was made that the world cannot see (that is, know and recognize) the Spirit, which means that it also cannot see Jesus—that is, cannot recognize the truth of who he is. There is a bit of conceptual wordplay by Jesus in verse 19. He states that, very soon, the world will no longer see him. This refers, on one level, to his impending death and departure (to the Father); but, on a deeper level, it alludes to the fact that the world cannot recognize and accept his identity as the Son of God. This is why the world also cannot recognize or accept the Spirit. Believers, by contrast, both “see” Jesus and the Spirit; in the latter case, they/we also can recognize the continuing presence and activity of Jesus through the indwelling Spirit.

2. The peri/-prepositional triad in verse 8

In the third Paraclete-saying (15:26f, Part 3), the function of the Spirit is to give witness about (peri/) Jesus. Here, in the final saying, there is a similar (parallel) prepositional expression serving as the indirect object of the verb:

    • “about me” (peri\ e)mou=)
    • “about [peri/] a(marti/a and
      about [peri/] dikaiosu/nh and
      about [peri/] kri/si$“

The parallelism strongly indicates that this triad must be understood in terms of the Spirit’s witness about Jesus—that is, the truth about who he is.

The relation between the second and third Paraclete-sayings makes clear that the Spirit’s witness about Jesus is directed to the disciples (believers); and, yet, in a secondary way, it is also directed at the world, since the Spirit’s witness enables believers also to give witness (to the world) regarding the truth of who Jesus is. This shift of focus to the world is expressed here in the final saying, where the Spirit’s function of exposing darkness/evil and showing (people) to be in the wrong, is directed at the world (ko/smo$). This meaning of the verb e)le/gxw was discussed in the previous note.

I have left the three terms of the triad untranslated above. The first noun, a(marti/a, has a straightforward meaning (“sin”); and yet, the Johannine writings present a very distinctive emphasis regarding the true nature and primary significance of sin (a(marti/a). This will be discussed in the next daily note, on verse 9.

The second noun, dikaiosu/nh, is more difficult to translate. Fundamentally, it means something like “right-ness”, but is usually rendered in English as “righteousness”. This is certainly the translation when the noun is used in a religious-ethical context; however, when a social or judicial context is being emphasized, then the translation “justice” is preferred. This creates a problem for translators, since “righteousness” and “justice” have very different significance and points of reference in English. In the note on verse 10, I will discuss how dikaiosu/nh should be understood (and translated) here.

Interestingly, dikaiosu/nh is something of a rare word in the Johannine writings. It occurs only here (vv. 8 and 10) in the Gospel, and just 3 times in the Letters (1 Jn 2:29; 3:7, 10).

The final noun is kri/si$, which is usually translated “judgment”. The fundamental meaning is of a separation that is made, usually in the sense of a person discerning or making a decision (cf. 7:24). It is frequently used in a judicial context, of judging a case and rendering judgment. In the Gospel of John, as in the rest of the New Testament, kri/si$ refers primarily to the end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world. This is certainly the focus in 5:22-30, where kri/si$ occurs 5 times, as also in 12:31. However, the Johannine writings (including the Gospel Discourses) demonstrate a pronounced ‘realized’ eschatology. By this is meant a tendency to view the end-time events as having (in a sense) already taken place for believers, being realized for them now, in the present, through the Spirit. This does not negate the idea of a future fulfillment (cp. 5:24 with vv. 29-30); it only affirms a spiritual fulfillment in the present.

At several points in the Discourses, Jesus alludes to the idea that the Judgment (kri/si$) takes place in the present—believers in Christ have already passed through the Judgment (5:24), while those who are unwilling/unable to believe have, in a sense, already been judged by their unbelief (3:19; cf. 12:31, 48). This Johannine use of the judgment-motif is important for understanding the significance of kri/si$ here in the Paraclete-saying. This will be discussed further in the note on verse 11.