Tag: Commandment

November 11: John 15:14

John 15:14

“You are my dear (friend)s, if you would do the (thing)s that I lay on you to complete.”

Here, Jesus picks up on the term fi/lo$ (“dear [one]”) from v. 13, introduced as a way of referring to the love that his disciples (believers) must show to one another. This love should follow the example given by Jesus himself, as demonstrated by his sacrificial death—viz., one must be willing to lay down one’s life for the sake of others (cf. the previous note). The noun fi/lo$ denotes a person for whom one has affection, i.e., who is held dear. It is often translated flatly as “friend”, but “loved one” would perhaps be more accurate; in most instances, I translate it as “dear (one)” or “dear (friend)”. The use of this noun (and the related verb file/w, synonymous in meaning with a)gapa/w) elsewhere in the Gospel was discussed in the prior note.

In verse 13, the implication was that the disciples should regard one another as fi/loi— “dear (one)s,” those who are held dear. Now, in v. 14, Jesus declares that the disciples are his “dear ones” (i.e., dear to him). This is an example of the Johannine themes of reciprocity and unity, in terms of the relationship between Jesus and believers:

    • Reciprocity—as Jesus shows love to his disciples (believers), so the disciples are to show love to him (spec. in the person of those he loves, i.e., other believers)
    • Unity—believers are united with one another, through love, with the unity also being demonstrated by this love; the unity of believers with the Son (Jesus) is also realized and demonstrated through love (see esp. the parallel “remain in me” / “remain in my love”, vv. 4ff, 9ff).

As the earlier directive regarding love in 13:34-35 makes clear, showing love to one another is a sign that believers are true disciples of Jesus. Here, the same duty (e)ntolh/) to show love is a sign that they are his “dear (friend)s”. In this regard, we may mention the role of the ‘beloved disciple’ as a figure-type in the Gospel, representing the ideal of the true disciple. The verbs a)gapa/w and file/w are used interchangeably in referring to this ideal disciple (cf. 20:2 [note also 11:3], in comparison with 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20); thus the true disciple is properly called a fi/lo$ of Jesus.

That the true fi/lo$ fulfills the duty (e)ntolh/) to show love (to other believers) is clear, both from the immediate context of verse 13 (and the prior vv. 9-12), and also by the use of the verb e)nte/llomai here. As I have discussed, the verb e)nte/llomai denotes laying a charge or duty on (e)n) a person, regarding something that he/she must complete (vb tele/w / teleio/w); the noun e)ntolh/ refers to that duty. Love is clearly defined as an e)ntolh/, both here in the exposition (v. 12), and earlier in 13:34. Elsewhere, here in verse 10, and in 14:15-21, it is stated that love is realized when the disciple fulfills the duties (plural, e)ntolai/) that are required. Love is one of those duties, so the logic expressed is somewhat elliptical; the specific duty to be fulfilled is showing love to one’s fellow believers, according to the example of Jesus himself.

The plural is used again here: “…if you do the (thing)s that [a%] I lay on you to complete”. The verb e)nte/llomai is thus used with regard to at least two duties (e)ntolai/). I would argue that, in the Johannine writings, the plural of e)ntolh/ has, in fact, two duties principally in mind. One of these, certainly, is the duty to show love to fellow believers. What is the other duty? In the Gospel, it is best understood as keeping/guarding the word (lo/go$) of Jesus (or words, lo/goi, par r(h/mata)—i.e., his teaching, message, and witness (regarding who he is). This is clearly the focus in 14:15-21 (vv. 23-24), and is an important theme throughout the Last Discourse (14:10; 15:3, 7, 20; 16:13-15; 17:6, 8, 14ff; cf. also 5:24, 38; 6:63; 8:31, 37, 51-52; 12:47-48).

The suggested identification of these two duties (e)ntolai/) would seem to be confirmed by the parallel between the idiom of “remaining” (vb me/nw) in the Son (Jesus) [15:4ff] and: (a) remaining in his word (lo/go$) [8:31, cp. 15:7], and (b) remaining in his love (a)ga/ph) [15:9]. I have illustrated this by the following diagram:

Thus, a person shows oneself to be a true disciple of Jesus (and one dear [fi/lo$] to him) by fulfilling the duties he has given—(1) keeping/guarding his words, and (2) showing love to other disciples/believers. As discussed in the previous notes on vv. 12-13, the love of the true disciple entails a willingness to give one’s own life for others, in a sacrificial manner, according to the example of Jesus.

In the next daily note (on verse 15), we will examine a bit further what it means to be a fi/lo$ of Jesus.

November 8: John 15:12

John 15:12-15

Verse 12

“This is my (charge) on (you) to complete: that you should love one another, just as I (have) loved you.”

Verses 12-15 reprise the thematic emphasis of vv. 9-11: the relationship between love (a)ga/ph, vb a)gapa/w) and taking care (to fulfill) the duties (e)ntolai/) given by Jesus to his disciples. As I discussed in the previous notes, love is one of these duties. This creates a somewhat elliptical line of argument in vv. 9-11 (as also in 14:15-21): love entails fulfilling the duties, and yet love is also one of the duties that the believer must fulfill. Here in vv. 12-15, this confusion is removed, with love being clearly treated as a duty (e)ntolh/) given by Jesus:

“This is my e)ntolh/…”

In the passage-quotations in prior notes, I left the noun e)ntolh/ (plur. e)ntolai/) untranslated. Now I am translating it, according to what I understand the fundamental meaning of the word to be—a charge or duty placed on someone that he/she is obligated to complete:

“This is my (duty laid) on (you) to complete…”
au%th e)stin h( e)ntolh\ h( e)mh/

The demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of the sentence (in emphatic position) makes clear that what follows is the duty which the disciples are obligated to complete (“This is…”). The duty is stated simply and briefly:

“that you should love one another”
i%na a)gapa=te a)llh/lou$

There is an obvious parallel with the directive to love given by Jesus in 13:34-35, in the opening section of the Last Discourse; indeed, the wording of the directive is identical:

“A new (duty) to complete [e)ntolh/] I give to you: that you should love one another [i%na a)gapa=te a)llh/lou$]”

The qualifying phrase that follows is also identical—

“just as I (have) loved you”
kaqw\$ h)ga/phsa u(ma=$

only in 13:34 this is given in an expanded form, emphasizing the twin motifs of reciprocity and following the example of Jesus:

“just as I (have) loved you, (so it is) that you should love one another”

The compound comparative conjunction kaqw/$ (“just as…”) was used twice before in the exposition, for a similar purpose—namely, to emphasize that the disciple is to follow the example of Jesus. This is significant because Jesus himself (the Son) also follows the example of his Father:

    • “Just as [kaqw/$] my Father (has) loved me, (so) I also (have) loved you” (v. 9a)
    • “If you would keep watch (over) my e)ntolai/, you will remain in my love, just as [kaqw/$] I have kept watch (over) the e)ntolai/ of my Father, and (so) I remain in His love.” (v. 10)

This chain of relationship is expressed in two directions:

    • The Father has loved the Son
      • the Son has loved Believers
    • Believers should fulfill the duties given by the Son
      (and so remain in the Son’s love)

      • the Son has fulfilled the duties given by the Father
        (and so remains in the Father’s love)

In verse 13, Jesus gives us the essence of what this love signifies and entails. We will explore this in the next daily note.

November 4: John 15:10 (continued)

John 15:10, continued

In order to understand what it means for a disciple/believer to “keep watch over” (vb thre/w) the e)ntolai/ of Jesus, it is necessary to examine how the Gospel of John understands Jesus’ fulfilling of the duties (e)ntolai/) given to him by God the Father. The pattern in verse 10 (continuing from v. 9), as discussed in the previous note, establishes this as the basis for our study: the believer is to fulfill the duties given by the Son (Jesus), just as the Son has fulfilled the duties given to him by the Father.

The noun used to express this concept is e)ntolh/, which is typically translated as “command(ment)”, but this can be quite misleading, especially if one has in mind a set of written commands or regulations such as we find in the Torah. The term properly refers to a charge or duty that is placed upon a person, and which one is obligated to complete (vb e)nte/llomai). The verb does carry the sense of commanding (i.e., ordering) a person to do something.

The noun e)ntolh/ occurs 10 times in the Gospel of John, including three times here in the exposition of the Vine illustration (vv. 10, 12), while the verb e)nte/llomai occurs 4 times (and twice in the Vine exposition, vv. 14, 17); the noun also occurs 18 times in the Letters, including 14 in 1 John. Let us briefly examine the relevant occurrences in the Gospel prior to chapter 15.

10:17-18

“Through this, my Father loves me, (in) that I set (down) my soul, (so) that I might take it (up) again. No one takes it from me, but I set it (down) from myself. I hold (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to set it (down), and I hold authority to take it (up) again—this (is) the e)ntolh/ I received (from) alongside my Father.”

12:49-50

“I did not speak out of myself, but the (One hav)ing sent me, (the) Father, He has given me an e)ntolh/ (regarding) what I should say and what I should speak. And I have seen that His e)ntolh/ is (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]. Therefore, (with regard to) the (thing)s that I speak, just as the Father has said (it) to me, so I speak.”

In these two references, Jesus talks of receiving an e)ntolh/ from the Father. In the first instance (10:17-18), he has been given something to do—namely, to lay down his life, i.e., in a sacrificial death, so that he might “take it up” again (i.e., his resurrection). This is the mission (and duty) which the Father has given him to complete, and he has been given the authority/ability (by the Father) to complete it. At the moment of Jesus’ death, on the cross, he declares that the mission has been completed: “It has been completed [tete/lestai]” (19:30).

In the second instance (12:49-50), the mission or duty (e)ntolh/) regards things that he must say. The Father gives him the words to speak, much as He gives Jesus (the Son) the authority/ability (e)cousi/a) to lay down his life (and take it up again). This is an important Johannine theme, emphasizing that Jesus’ teaching, and the word that he speaks, comes from God. It is an evident witness of his identity as the Son of God that his words come from God, and not from himself. Like a dutiful Son, Jesus follows the example of his Father, doing what he sees his Father doing and saying what he hears his father saying.

It is significant that we have here two different e)ntolai/, and thus can use the plural of the noun. The duties placed on Jesus by the Father are: (1) to lay down his life and take it up again (death / resurrection), and (2) to speak the words of God that were given to him by the Father.

It is in this light that we must understand the use of the noun e)ntolh/ (and verb e)nte/llomai) in 14:15-21 and here in the Vine illustration. Both passages have the following emphases in common:

    • Fulfilling the duties (e)ntolh/) is closely connected with love (a)ga/ph, vb a)gapa/w)
    • The believer’s fulfilling of the duties follows the example/pattern of Jesus’ fulfilling of his duties; in so doing, there is a real sense that the believer shares in the love experienced (and possessed) by Jesus.
    • The pattern: the Son (Jesus) fulfills the duties given to him by the Father, and the believer fulfills the duties given by the Son.

If the duties of the believer are patterned after the Son’s duties, then we must look to the two examples, the two e)ntolai/, discussed above:

    • Action—laying down his life, indicating a willingness to endure death, for the sake of others
    • Speech—speaking the word(s) of God, given to him by the Father

How do these relate to the believer? The first e)ntolh/, that of a willingness to lay down one’s life, is best understood in terms of the ‘love command’ that Jesus gives to his disciples in the opening section of the Last Discourse:

“A new e)ntolh/ I give to you: that you shall love one another; just as I (have) loved you, so you shall love one another. In this, all (people) will know that you are my learners [i.e. disciples]—if you hold love among one another.” (13:34-35)

The duty for believers to love one another is based on the example provided by Jesus, of the love that he has shown. The narrative setting of chapter 13 clearly establishes this point (cf. the opening words in v. 1), associating Jesus’ love in the context of his impending death. The foot-washing (vv. 4-11, 12-17) is meant to symbolize and illustrate this sacrificial love, even to the point of death. If there were any doubt regarding the centrality of this thematic association, it is reinforced by the exchange between Jesus and Peter in vv. 36-38, and then is made explicit in 15:13 (to be discussed), at the heart of the Last Discourse, as Jesus instructs his disciples (and us as believers):

“Greater love than this no one holds: that one would set (down) his soul over [i.e. for the sake of] his dear (one)s.”

The language used to describe this willingness to lay down one’s life essentially matches what Jesus says of himself in 10:17-18 (cf. above).

Thus, one of the duties (e)ntolai/) of disciples/believers is to show sacrificial love to one another, following the example of Jesus himself, being willing to lay down one’s life for the sake of others.

What of the second duty? It should match the second duty for Jesus, as described in 12:49-50 (cf. above)—namely, to speak the word(s) given to him by God. The context of 14:15-21ff, prior to the Vine illustration, explains how the pattern applies to believers: the Son (Jesus) gives believers the word(s) (of God) to speak. The theme of fulfilling the duties (e)ntolai/), in this passage, is connected with the promise of the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete. There are two Paraclete-sayings by Jesus in this context:

    • Vv. 16-17—The Spirit (of truth) will be given to believers from the Father, and will be with/alongside them, and will remain (vb me/nw) in/among them.
    • Vv. 25-26—The Spirit will teach believers; this entails reminding them of the things Jesus said during his earthly ministry, but also that Jesus would continue to speak to them through the Spirit (cf. 15:26-27; 16:12-15).

The twin emphases of love (a)ga/ph) and the word (lo/go$/r(h=ma) serve as two distinct, but interrelated, strands that run through the passage, informing the meaning of the duty/mission (e)ntolh/) that believers must fulfill. The aspect of love is dominant in vv. 15-21, while the word is more prominent in vv. 23-24ff:

“If any (one) would love me, he will keep watch (over) my word [lo/go$], and my Father will love him, and we will come toward him, and will make our abode [monh/] alongside him. The (one) not loving me will not keep watch (over) my words [lo/goi]; and (indeed) the word [lo/go$] that you hear is not mine, but (is the) Father’s, the (One hav)ing sent me.”

Jesus has instructed his disciples both to remain (vb me/nw) in his word (8:31, cf. 15:7) and in his love (15:9-10). This reflects both of the e)ntolai/ that believers are obligated to fulfill—or, we may say, both aspects of the two-fold e)ntolh/ (the singular and plural of this noun being interchangeable in John) that is required of all true disciples/believers. Remaining in Jesus’ word/love also represent twin aspects of what it means to remain in him—i.e., in the Son himself. In the previous note, I illustrated this by the following diagram:

In closing, it is also important to emphasize again that the fulfilling of these duties follows the pattern of Jesus (the Son) himself, in the way that he completed the duties given to him by the Father:

“…(so) that world may know that I love the Father, even as the Father laid (the duty/mission) on me to complete [e)netei/lato], so I do (it).” (14:31)

Love is demonstrated by the completing of the duty/mission (e)ntolh/) that is given; and, of course, love itself is part of that duty. When we, as believers, fulfill that duty, we share in the love that is shared between Father and Son. We will examine this theme a bit further in the next daily note, when we turn to verse 11.

November 3: John 15:10

John 15:10

“If you would keep watch (over) my e)ntolai/, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept watch (over) the e)ntolai/ of my Father, and (so) I remain in His love.”

In verse 10, Jesus begins to explain what it means to remain (vb me/nw) in his love (v. 9, cf. the previous note). There are two aspects of this explanation here, which correspond to the two parts of v. 10. The first aspect (in the first part) expounds the idea (of remaining in his love) as a conditional statement. The second aspect (in the second part) extends the pattern-comparison from v. 9, whereby the relationship between the believer and the Son (Jesus) is patterned after the relationship between the Son and the Father.

Let us begin with the first part:

“If [e)a/n] you would keep watch (over) my e)ntolai/, you will remain in my love”

The condition is established in the initial clause, using the conditional conjunction e)a/n (“if…”) along with a verbal subjunctive (of the verb thre/w, “[keep] watch”). The object of the verb—that is, what the disciple/believer should keep watch over—is the plural of the noun e)ntolh/. This noun is somewhat difficult to translate. It is typically rendered rather flatly as “command(ment)”, but this is a bit misleading, especially in the context of the Gospel of John. It properly refers to a duty or charge that a person is obligated (i.e., placed upon him/her) to complete (vb e)nte/llomai). The implication here is that the disciple takes good care (vb thre/w, “watch [over]”) to fulfill the obligation, or duty, that Jesus gives. The qualifying genitive mou (“of me, my”) can be understood as a possessive (i.e., the e)ntolai/ ultimately belong to Jesus), but it seems more accurate to view it as an ablative genitive of source (or origin)—i.e., the requirement (to fulfill the duties) comes from Jesus. The same applies to the genitival expression “of my Father” in the second part.

Two questions naturally arise: (1) what is the force of the condition in this statement, and (2) what are the duties (e)ntolai/) that the disciple should complete?

As to the first question, the condition can be understood two different ways. First, where the result is dependent upon fulfilling the condition. In other words, if (and only if) one “keeps watch over” the duties (i.e., to complete/fulfill them), will one “remain in” Jesus’ love. According to this line of interpretation, remaining in his love is dependent upon fulfilling the duties.

A second way of reading v. 10a is epexegetical, whereby the “then” clause (apodosis) explains or clarifies the conditional clause (protasis). If the disciple watches over the duties (to fulfill them), then he/she truly does remain in Jesus’ love—in other words, that is what it means to remain in his love.

Both approaches can be seen as valid, and both are supported in the prior section, dealing with love and the e)ntolai/, in 14:15-21. The idea that love is dependent on fulfilling the duties is suggested by Jesus’ words in verse 15:

“If you would love me, (then) you will keep watch over my e)ntolai/…”

Here we have a conditional statement that is similar to 15:10a, though it reverses the relationship between the condition of love and fulfilling the duties (e)ntolai/).

On the other hand, the epexegetical reading of 15:10a is supported by the wording of 14:21a:

“The (one) holding my e)ntolai/ and keeping watch (over) them, that (person) is the (one) loving me…”

In other words, love is defined by, rather then dependent on, taking care to fulfill the duties.

Let us now turn to the second part of the verse (10b):

“…just as I have kept watch (over) the e)ntolai/ of my Father, and (so) I remain in His love.”

This syntax resembles that of verse 9, utilizing the same comparative conjunction kaqw/$ (“just as…”); and, indeed, the sense of its use is the same, establishing the relationship between God the Father and the Son (Jesus) as the pattern (“just as…so [also]…”) for the relationship between the Son and believers. In verse 9, the Father’s love for the Son was the focus of the pattern; here, it is the Son watching over the duties (e)ntolai/) given to him by the Father, which, in its own way, reflects the Son’s love for the Father.

The parallelism is clear and straightforward:

    • The Son takes care to fulfill the duties given by the Father…
      • …and so “remains” in His love
    • The believer should take care to fulfill the duties given by the Son…
      • …and so “remain” in his love

Furthermore, it becomes quite clear, based on this parallel, that, in order to understand the duties (e)ntolai/) the Son requires of disciples/believers, we must examine the duties that God the Father has given to the Son. This we will do, in the next daily note, with a study on the use of the noun e)ntolai/ (and the verb e)nte/llomai) in other key passages of the Gospel.

May 29: 1 John 2:8-11

 1 John 2:8-11

The contrastive light-darkness theme in 1:5-2:2 is further developed in the next subsection (2:3-11). Again, the principal point of the contrast is to demonstrate the difference between true and false believers. Two points are made about the false believers in 1:5-2:2:

    • They claim to have union (lit. common-bond, koinwni/a) with God, and yet “walk about” in the darkness (of the world), rather than the light of God (1:6-7)
    • They claim to be without sin, failing to acknowledge the existence/reality of their sin, without which it cannot be removed/cleansed by the spiritual power of Jesus’ sacrificial death (i.e., his “blood”) (1:8-2:2)

In all probability, the author is aiming these comments specifically at the opponents he mentions in the “antichrist” passages of 2:18-27; 4:1-6. As discussed in the previous note, the ethical-religious orientation of the idiom of “walking about” (vb peripate/w) refers primarily to the great dual-commandment in 3:23-24. That is to say, whether one “walks about” in light or in darkness depends on whether one is obedient to the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that is placed upon believers. Here in 2:3-11 it becomes clear that this, indeed, is the author’s focus and point of reference.

As he states in verse 3, the true believer is one who keeps the e)ntolai/:

“And in this we know that we have known Him: if we keep/guard [vb thre/w] His e)ntolai.”

The noun e)ntolh/ is usually translated “command(ment)”, but more properly refers to a duty that is placed upon a person to complete. In the Johannine Gospel it refers specifically to the duty/mission which God the Father gave the Son (Jesus) to complete on earth (10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31; cf. 19:30). However, in the Last Discourse, the focus shifts to the duty which falls upon the disciples (believers), according to the instruction which the Son, in turn, gives to them (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12, 14, 17); principally, this refers to the duty to love one another, following the example of Jesus’ sacrificial love.

This Johannine usage informs completely the use of e)ntolh/ in 1 John, the only real difference being that there is an expanded emphasis that encompasses both components of the great dual-e)ntolh/ (as defined in 3:23-24): (a) trust in Jesus as the Son of God (according to the truth), and (b) love for one another, according to Jesus’ own example. In the Johannine writings, the noun can be used in the singular (e)ntolh/) or plural (e)ntolai/), interchangeably, with no apparent difference in meaning. This is, perhaps, best explained by the fact that the great two-fold duty (of trust and love) can be viewed as either one command or as two.

The similarity of expression between verse 4 and the earlier declarations in 1:6 and 8 would seem to make clear that, for the author of 1 John, sin (= “walking in darkness”) is defined principally in terms of violating the great dual-e)ntolh/:

“The (one) saying that ‘I have known Him,’ and (yet) not keeping His e)ntolai/, is a liar [yeu/sth$], and the truth is not in him”

In other words, the one who does not fulfill the great two-fold duty (3:23-24), required of every believer, is not a true believer. Such a person, indeed, sins most egregiously, even if they would think themselves otherwise to be without sin (1:8-2:2). This is an understanding of sin (a(marti/a [vb a(marta/nw]) that is quite different from how the world typically understands it (cf. the earlier note on Jn 16:9).

True believers complete the duty (to love), demonstrating that they are truly united with God, and so God’s own love is completed [tetelei/wtai] in them (v. 5). And, in so doing, the believer is following (“walking about” according to) Jesus’ own example (v. 6; Jn 13:34; 15:12ff). The author makes clear that this duty is nothing new, but corresponds to what believers have held (as their duty) from the beginning (v. 7).

The use of the expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“from [the] beginning”), along with the noun lo/go$ (“word”), is a direct echo of the prologue (1:1). As I have previously discussed, there is a dual meaning to this wording. Primarily it is Christological, referring to Jesus as Son who was with God “in the beginning” (Jn 1:1ff); secondarily, it is evangelistic, referring to the message about Jesus, going back to the “beginning” —the time of first disciples and the earthly ministry of Jesus.

To say that true believers hold (vb e&xw) this lo/go$ “from the beginning” (a)p’ a)rxh=$) has a similar two-fold meaning: (1) they have the living Word abiding in them (through the Spirit), and (2) they receive and accept the historical Gospel Tradition about the Word, preserved and transmitted from the first disciples.

The only way that one can speak of this duty for believers as being “new” is in the eschatological context of the light-darkness contrast (v. 8). The mission of Jesus (the Son), culminating in his exaltation and return to the Father, marks the beginning of a New Age. This is a view held by virtually all first-century Christians. The coming of the Spirit is the fulfillment of the eschatological expectation, implementing a “new covenant” for God’s people (believers). The Johannine writings evince a particularly strong sense of ‘realized’ eschatology—meaning that, for believers, the future events of the end-time are realized in the present, through the Spirit. This sense is expressed here in verse 8:

“…the darkness has led (itself) along [i.e. has passed along], and the true light already shines”

Though the world remains under the dominion of darkness and evil, this is not so for believers, who already experience the reality of Jesus’ victory over the world (Jn 16:33).

The general ethical language of 1:6-7 is now made more precise, with the idiom of “walking about” in the darkness defined specifically in terms of a false believer who hates (vb mise/w) his “brother” (i.e., another believer):

“The (one) counting (himself) to be in the light, and (yet) hating his brother, is (actually) in the darkness until now.” (v. 9)

This clearly refers to a false believer (cf. the use of yeu/sth$ in v. 4), who considers him/herself to be “in the light” and yet is actually “in the darkness” (and has been so all this time “until now”). The author further explains that “hate” really means a lack of love, a failure to show love; this is the opposite of what characterizes the true believer:

“The (one) loving his brother remains [me/nei] in the light, and there is not (any thing) in him tripping (him up);” (v. 10)

As throughout the Johannine writings, the verb me/nw (“remain”) has special theological (and Christological) significance. It refers to the abiding presence of God the Father (and the Son) in the believer, and of the believer in the Father (and Son); this abiding union is spiritual, being realized through the presence of the Spirit. In contrast, there is no such abiding for the false believer; rather, he/she is simply lost in the darkness, wandering about blindly:

“but the (one) hating his brother is in the darkness, and walks about [peripatei=] in the darkness, and has not seen where he leads (himself), (in) that the darkness (has) blinded his eyes.” (v. 11)

The language and imagery in this verse echoes the words of Jesus in Jn 12:35 (cf. the discussion in the prior note). The motif of blindness is a natural extension of the Johannine sight/seeing theme, and also features prominently in the Gospel (chap. 9), drawing upon historical tradition(s) regarding Jesus’ healing miracles (cf. Mk 8:22-23; 10:46ff pars; Matt 11:5 par; 12:22; 15:30-31; Lk 4:18).

The false believer is thus one who fails to show proper love to other believers; in this way, he/she may be said to “hate” them. This way of framing the matter is crucial to the author’s rhetorical purpose and strategy, especially when he comes to deal with the ‘opponents,’ and the crisis (within the Community) which he feels compelled to address. However, it is noteworthy that, here in the opening section (1:5-2:17), he couches his introduction to the crisis within a more general ethical-religious instruction. In the next daily note, I will explore this aspect a bit further, looking at his instruction to believers, regarding the world (o( ko/smo$), vv. 15-17.

 

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 3:24

1 John 3:24

The section 3:11-24 (cf. the previous note on vv. 14-15) concludes with a declaration in verse 23 which is the clearest and most explicit definition on what the author means by the word e)ntolh/ (usually translated “commandment”), and it is quite different from what we typically think of by “commandment”. Consider the final statement in verse 24 (temporarily translating e)ntolh/ as “commandment”), along with the earlier one in v. 22:

“…whatever we might ask (for) we receive from Him, (in) that [i.e. because] we keep His commandments and we do the (thing)s acceptable in His sight.” (v. 22)

“And the (one) keeping His commandments remains in Him and He in him…” (v. 24)

Taking these statements out of context, one might think that the author is referring either to the directives, etc, from the Old Testament Law (Torah), or to teaching of Jesus such as that brought together in the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, as I have argued in other notes and articles, a careful study of both the Gospel and the Letters shows that neither of these conventional views is correct. Indeed, here, in the intervening verse 23, we see definitively what the author (and Johannine theology) understands by the word e)ntolh/:

“And this is His e)ntolh/: that
—we should trust in the name of his Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, and
—we should love (each) other”

In a technical sense, there is only one “commandment”—a two-fold command—for believers. All religious and ethical behavior stems entirely from these. It is both God the Father’s command, and Jesus’ own command; this is indicated by the structure of the verse:

    • This is His [i.e. God the Father’s] e)ntolh/
      —trust in the name of his Son…
      —love one another
    • even as he [i.e. Jesus] gave (the) en)tolh/ to us

Literally, the word e)ntolh/ refers to something (i.e. a charge/duty/mission) placed on someone to complete. In the case of Jesus himself, the e)ntolh/ he was given by the Father (i.e. the mission/duty to complete) involved his entire ministry on earth, including everything he said and did, culminating in his sacrificial death. This is made clear at a number of points in the Gospel, including his dying word on the cross (Jn 19:30): tete/lestai (“It has been completed”). For believers, the e)ntolh/ similarly involves completing the mission, etc, which Jesus gives, following his own example. This also culminates in an act (or in acts) of sacrificial love—we must be willing to lay down our own life, just as Jesus did. The reciprocal and imitative nature of this mission is indicated by Jesus’ words to his disciples after the resurrection:

“Even as the Father has se(n)t me forth, I also send you.” (20:21)

This charge, or duty, is summarized here in 1 John 3:23: (1) trust in Jesus, and (2) love for one another. The author has already discussed true love in chapters 2-3, and will begin to deal more extensively with the question of true faith/trust in chapter 4, as we shall see. Then, as now, to say that one trusts or believes in Jesus can connote many different things. Johannine theology—or, we might say, Christology—in both the Gospel and Letters begins to define trust in Jesus rather more sharply than we find elsewhere in the New Testament. Many commentators would see this development as the beginnings of early Christian orthodoxy (or proto-orthodoxy).

With this understanding of the word e)ntolh/ in mind, let us return to the closing statement in verse 24:

“And the (one) keeping/guarding His e)ntolai/ remains in Him, and He in him; and in this we know that we remain in Him—out of the Spirit which He gave to us.”

I have capitalized the ‘divine’ pronoun (He/His/Him) to distinguish it from the pronoun referring to the believer. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this pronoun refers to Jesus or God the Father, or both. Almost certainly, the latter is intended, in light of the statement by Jesus in John 14:23-24—Jesus (the Son) and God (the Father) both come to abide in the believer, through the presence of the Spirit (vv. 16-17, etc). It is hard to imagine the author of the Letter holding a different view. That the dwelling of Father and Son is through the Spirit is clear from the final words of 1 John 3:24—”…the Spirit which He gave to us”. The preposition e)k (“out of, from”) is frequently used in the Gospel and Letter to indicate source—i.e., that which comes out of God. The Spirit represents the Divine presence—both Father and Son together—and the Life which we possess as a result of this union in us.

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 2:25

1 John 2:25

In the previous note on 1 John 1:1-2, we examined the use of the expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“from the beginning”) in the opening words, noting the parallels with the Prologue to the Gospel (John 1:1ff). I pointed out that the “word” (lo/go$) in the first verse of the Letter (the expression “the Word of Life” [o( lo/go$ th=$ zwh=$]) is to be understood and carrying a dual meaning:

    1. the Living Word of God (identified with Jesus), and
    2. the word/account of Jesus (i.e. the Gospel message).

It so happens that there is a similar double-meaning to the expression “from the beginning [a)p’ a)rxh=$]”, which occurs seven more times in the letter (2:7, 13-14, 24 [twice]; 3:8, 11), and twice more in 2 John 5-6. The word a)rxh/ (“beginning, first, leading”) does not appear in the Johannine letters apart from this expression.

In 2:7, which begins a section of exhortation and instruction (vv. 7-17), the author says:

“Loved (one)s, (it is) not (about something) new laid on (you) to complete (that) I write to you, but (about something) old laid on (you) to complete, which you hold from the beginning [a)p’ a)rxh=$]—th(is) ‘old’ (charge) laid on (you) to complete is the word [lo/go$] which you heard.”

He goes on to write:

“(But) again, I (do) write to you (about) a new (charge) laid on (you) to complete—which is true in him and in you—(in) that the darkness is leading [i.e. passing] along and the true Light already shines.” (v. 8)

I have translated the word e)ntolh/ here in an excessively literal manner, according to its fundamental meaning, rather than with the customary “command(ment)”, which can be quite misleading in the context of the Johannine writings. We are not dealing with a specific set of religious or ethical “commands”—certainly not of the Old Testament Law (Torah), nor even a collection of Jesus’ teaching such as we find in the Sermon on the Mount. A careful reading of both the Gospel and the Letters makes clear that there are really only two commands as such: (1) trust in Jesus as the Anointed One and divine Son sent by God, and (2) love for one another, following Jesus’ example. The author states this specifically in 3:23-24.

Moreover, it is clear from vv. 9ff, that the new ‘command’ in 2:8 is the command to love one another, which Jesus gave to his disciples in Jn 13:34-35. What, then, is the old ‘command’? As the author identifies this in v. 7 with “that which you hold/held from the beginning”, we must conclude that it is essentially equivalent to the first ‘command’ in 3:23—namely, trust in Jesus Christ as God’s Son. Both of these ‘commands’—trust in Jesus and love for fellow believers—are the tests by which the author (and, we must assume, the communities/churches he represents) defines one’s identity as a true Christian. The emphasis in 2:7ff suggests that there may have been Christians in the Johannine churches, or known to them, who demonstrated a true faith in Christ but were perhaps not exhibiting true love. At any rate, this is the thrust of the exhortation (and warning) in 2:9-11.

We see, then, that in 2:7ff, the expression “from the beginning” refers not to eternity and the beginning of Creation (as in John 1:1), but rather to the beginning of believers’ trust in Jesus, and subsequent new/spiritual “birth” as children of God. In particular, the context is of the word (lo/go$) heard from the beginning, which I take to mean primarily the Gospel message (i.e. truth about Jesus), but also the presence and work of the Spirit which teaches believers the truth, and continues Jesus’ own work. In 2:13-14, this is defined in terms of knowledge of God the Father (and Jesus the Son):

“…you have known the (one) from the beginning…

This is probably best understood as “the (one who is) from the beginning”, returning to the context of John 1:1ff and 1 John 1:1-2. It is also likely that there is some wordplay involved; at least the syntax here is slightly ambiguous. What is clear, however, from the remainder of the letter, is that true knowledge is more or less synonymous with proper/correct belief in Jesus (cf. John 17:3, etc)—i.e. just what is meant in saying that he is the Anointed One (Messiah) and Son of God.

When we turn to 2:24-25, we find the author once again reflecting the language and thought of the discourses of Jesus from the Gospel (note esp. the use of the verb me/nw, “remain, abide”):

“(That) which you heard from the beginning, you must (let/have) it remain [mene/tw] in you. If (that) which you heard from the beginning should remain [mei/nh|] in you, (then) you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.” (v. 24)

The exact reference of “that which you heard from the beginning” is again somewhat ambiguous. Primarily, it refers to the Gospel message (i.e. the truth) about Jesus; yet, the use of me/nw indicates something deeper as well—the abiding presence of Jesus (the Living Word), both through the Spirit and also the love which fills and works in the believer. The association with the Spirit (as the abiding presence of Christ) is confirmed by what follows in vv. 26-27, referring to the “anointing” (xri/sma) which remains/abides in the true believer.

The author concludes the thought from v. 24 in verse 25:

“And this is the message which he presented as a message [i.e. announced] to us: the Life of the Age.”

The noun e)paggeli/a is rather difficult to translate literally in English. The fundamental meaning of the verb a)gge/llw is “give a message, report, declare”. The prefixed preposition e)pi/ is an intensive, emphasizing a message/report about something or upon a subject, etc. Used in the sense of a declaration, it can refer specifically to something one offers or promises to do. The latter connotation typically applies to the noun e)paggeli/a in the New Testament, and is often translated as “promise”. Again, it is wise to translate as literally as possible, preserving the fundamental meaning, recognizing that it can be understood here on two levels: (1) the message of the Gospel (about Jesus) given to us, and (2) what God has declared or promised to us. With regard to the latter, it is important to note that the noun e)paggeli/a (with the verb e)page/llw) is specifically associated with the Spirit in a number of passages, including Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33ff; Gal 3:14ff; Eph 1:13; cf. also Rom 9:8; Gal 4:23ff.

On the one hand, according to the traditional background of the expression “Life of the Age”, verse 25 simply asserts the (eschatological) promise of eternal life for the believer. However, as we have seen in the earlier notes in this series, the discourses of Jesus (and the Gospel as a whole), reflect a “realized” eschatology—believers experience the reality of the divine/eternal Life already in the present, through trust in Jesus and the presence of the Spirit. The author of the Letter certainly shares this basic outlook, and expresses it in his use of “Life” and “Life of the Age” elsewhere in the letter, such as in 3:14-15, the passage we will examine in the next note.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 12:50 (continued)

John 12:50, continued

In the previous note, I discussed the context of Jn 12:50, the concluding verse (and statement by Jesus) in chapters 2-12 of the Gospel. Today I wish to examine the verse more closely, especially the statement in the first half:

“And I have seen [i.e. known] that his e)ntolh/ is (the) Life of the Age.”

There are three components to this statement, which will be discussed in turn.

kai oi@da o%ti (“and I have seen that”)

Throughout the Gospel of John the motif of seeing has been of great importance. It plays on the dual-meaning, especially, of the verb ei&dw (“see”), which can also mean “know”—i.e., seeing in the sense of being aware, perceiving, recognizing, etc. It generally carries this meaning in the perfect tense, as here (oi@da, “I have seen/known”). Given the theological (and Christological) importance of seeing in the Gospel of John, Jesus is almost certainly referring here to something more than general understanding or awareness. Rather, it relates to his identity as the Son, who has a close, intimate relationship to the Father, and who, as a faithful son, watches and listens carefully to his father. Repeatedly in the Johannine discourses, Jesus states that he says and does only what he has heard and seen from the Father (cf. 3:32; 5:19, 30; 6:46; 8:26, 38; 14:24; 15:15). Similarly, the one who sees/hears Jesus (the Son), also sees/hears the Father (5:37; 14:7, 9, etc)—just as Jesus gives to the believer what he has received from the Father (3:35; 5:26, etc). In the Gospel of John, seeing Jesus is essentially the same as trusting him (9:37ff; 12:45; 14:17), and this differs entirely from ordinary sight or perception (6:36). The conjunctive particle o%ti (“that”) indicates specifically what it is that Jesus has seen.

h( e)ntolh/ au)tou= (“his [charge laid] on [me] to complete”)

The noun e)ntolh/ is a relatively popular Johannine word. In addition to 11 occurrences in the Gospel, it is found 18 times in the Letters; and, if we include two others in the (Johannine) book of Revelation, that makes 31 total—nearly half of all occurrences (68) in the New Testament. The word is often translated “commandment”, but that can be somewhat misleading; I discussed the fundamental meaning of the noun in the previous note. Despite Paul’s frequent reference to the Old Testament Law (Torah, Gk. no/mo$), he does not often use the noun e)ntolh/; it occurs only 9 times in the undisputed letters (6 of which are in Rom 7:8-13; also 1 Cor 7:19; 14:37). In these passages, Paul seems to be using it in a somewhat broader sense (i.e. “the Law of God”, “the e)ntolh/ of God”), rather than restricting it to the specific (written) commands of the Torah as such, though the latter is certainly included in the usage. The semantic range of the word in the (Synoptic) sayings of Jesus is similar (note the expression “the e)ntolh/ of God” in Mk 7:8-9 par).

The Johannine use of the word is complicated by two factors—it can be used either:

In none of these references does e)ntolh/ refer to the commands of the Torah as such, though there is less certainty on this point when we examine the occurrences in the Letters (esp. 1 John). Let us consider the second factor mentioned above.

1. Between God the Father and Jesus (the Son)—This is the context of the usage in 10:18 and here in 12:49-50, and in both instances it is the singular form. As I discussed in the previous note, e)ntolh/ here should not be understood in the traditional sense of a religious or ethical “commandment”, but as a duty or mission given to Jesus (by the Father) to accomplish. In 10:18, this clearly refers to his sacrificial death (and resurrection), confirmed by Jesus’ final words on the cross in 19:30 (“it has been completed [tete/lestai]”, cf. also v. 28). The emphasis in 12:49-50 is on the words Jesus has been given by the Father to speak (i.e. what he is to say). In 14:31, the related verb e)nte/llomai is used of Jesus’ mission in a comprehensive sense, as a reflection of the love between Father and Son.

2. Between Jesus and Believers—Here we find both the singular and plural of e)ntolh/, apparently used interchangeably (as also in 1 John). This should caution us against identifying e)ntolh/ with any specific “commandment” given by Jesus, as though the e)ntolai/ represented a collection of commands similar to the Old Testament written Law (Torah). I believe there are three ways e)ntolh/ should be understood in this context:

    • as synonymous with Jesus’ word—i.e., whatever he says/speaks
    • as representative of all that he teaches believers, who would follow his example (just as Jesus follows that of the Father)
    • as epitomized by the command for believers to love one another (i.e. the so-called “Love-command”)

Even in the case of the “Love-command” (13:34-35, etc), the closest we come to a specific “commandment” (i.e., “you should love [each] other”), this should be understood not so much as an ethical injunction, but as a sign that believers are following the example of Jesus (“all will know that you are my disciples”).

zwh/ ai)w/nio$ e)stin (“is [the] Life of the Age”)

I have discussed the expression “Life of the Age” (i.e. eternal life) at length in prior notes, and will not go over that again here, except to mention that, in the context of the Johannine discourses, the reference is to the Life (zwh/) which God possesses and of which He is the source. What does it mean to say that the e)ntolh/ of God the Father is [e)stin] Life? There are a number of possibilities, but they are reduced considerably if we remember that here e)ntolh/ means specifically the charge [i.e. mission] given to Jesus to complete.

    • Qualitative—it describes the nature and character of Jesus’ mission from the Father
    • Significative—Jesus’ mission means or signifies Life
    • Resultative—Jesus’ mission results in Life for believers

All three are valid ways of interpreting the statement, and perhaps are best seen as three aspects of a single truth.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 12:50

John 12:50

Today’s note involves the final, concluding verse to the first half of the Gospel of John (1:19-12:50). It belongs to the last discourse of Jesus in this section. The discourse, properly speaking, spans verses 20-36a of chapter 12. Verses 36b-43 serve as the narrative conclusion, both to the discourse-scene of chap. 12, as well as chapters 2-12 as a whole. In verse 36 it is stated that Jesus “…going away, hid (himself) from them”. In the narrative context, this means that Jesus has left the public scene in Jerusalem, away from the people. Though some did come to believe in him, the majority did not, as vv. 37-43 make clear. With Jesus having thus departed, the words in vv. 44-50 are lacking any definite historical-narrative setting. They are detached, and function in the narrative as a climactic statement (and summary) of Jesus’ teaching, with a number of themes and motifs from the earlier discourses (chaps. 3-10) being reprised and restated. Verses 44-50 may be divided into two portions, which I outline here as a chiasm:

    • Trusting in Jesus = trusting the One who sent him (v. 44)
      —Seeing Jesus, who is the Light (vv. 45-46)
      —Hearing Jesus’ words, which brings salvation from Judgment (vv. 47-48)
    • God the Father sent Jesus—trusting in him is Life (vv. 49-50)

The motifs of seeing and hearing, both frequent in the Gospel, serve as two different ways of expressing the idea of trusting in Jesus. In reference to hearing Jesus—that is, hearing his words or voice—the noun e)ntolh/ is introduced in verse 49. This word is often translated as “commandment”, which can be somewhat misleading. However, it does preserve the basic association with the Old Testament Law (Torah). The language Jesus uses relates back to the covenantal language of the Torah, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g., 31:19ff; 32:46-47)—”If any (one) should hear my utterances [i.e. words] and would not guard/keep them…” (v. 47a). The failure to keep/guard Jesus’ words is effectively the same as failure (by Israel) to keep the commands and precepts of the Torah, thus violating the covenant (agreement) with God. Such failure is presented as evidence against the person in the time of Judgment:

“The one setting me aside [i.e. rejecting me] and not receiving my utterances [i.e. words] has the one judging him: the word/account [lo/go$] which I have spoken—that will judge him in the last day.” (v. 48)

This brings us to verse 49, where Jesus gives us more detail about the word[s] which he speaks:

“(For it is) that I did not speak out of myself, but the (one) sending me, the Father, he has given me an e)ntolh/—what I should say and what I should speak.”

The closing words in verse 50 repeat this statement: “Therefore the (thing)s which I spoke, even as the Father has said to me, so I spoke”. It is important to consider the syntax and context here carefully, to avoid misunderstanding about the meaning and significance of the word e)ntolh/. Jesus says, “the Father…has given me an e)ntolh/—what I should say and what I should speak”. The Greek noun e)ntolh/ (entol¢¡) is derived from the verb e)nte/llomai (entéllomai), and fundamentally refers to something (a duty, etc) given (placed on) a person to complete, sometimes in the technical sense of a “commission”. When we use the word commandment this tends to be understood as a religious or ethical injunction, but that is not really the meaning here; rather, we should render e)ntolh/ in its basic meaning: “the Father has given me a (charge/duty) laid on (me) to complete…”. This relates to the mission and purpose for which Jesus was sent (into the world) by the Father. As the Son, Jesus imitates and repeats what he sees and hears the Father saying and doing—a theme which runs throughout the Johannine discourses. Ultimately the task given by Jesus to accomplish is his sacrificial death, as is strikingly clear in his final words on the cross: “it has been completed [tete/lestai]” (19:30, cf. also v. 28).

Here in 12:47-50, however, the emphasis is on Jesus’ words—using both the plural r(h/mata (“utterances”, i.e. spoken words, vv. 47-48) and the singular lo/go$ (“account”, i.e. his gathered words, v. 48b). Both terms appear frequently (and more or less interchangeably) in the Gospel. Jesus himself is identified with the Living and eternal Word (Lo/go$) of God in the Prologue (vv. 1-4ff), and we must always keep this theological/Christological aspect in mind when reading about Jesus’ “words” elsewhere in the Gospel. A person’s response to Jesus’ words is essentially a response to Jesus himself (and to God the Father who sent him). This is expressed two ways in vv. 47-48, as we have seen:

    • hearing (vb. a)kou/w) him and keeping/guarding (vb. fula/ssw) his words (v. 47)
    • receiving (lamba/nwn) his words (v. 48)

The motifs of hearing and receiving are essentially parallel:

    • hearing—i.e. both listening and responding (obeying/accepting)
      —keeping (watch) over / guarding
    • receiving—i.e. taking in and accepting

This does not refer simply to obeying something Jesus tells his disciples to do, but involves the broader (and deeper) sense of accepting who Jesus is and what he says. I mentioned the allusions to the book of Deuteronomy in 12:44-50, and this includes the famous passage in 18:15-19, which relates to a coming Prophet (cf. Jn 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40) who will essentially fill Moses’ role. The words of this Prophet hold the same authority and weight as the Instruction (Torah) given by God through Moses (vv. 18-19). It is said that God will raise up this Prophet, and early Christians saw Jesus as filling the divinely appointed (and anointed, i.e. Messianic) role (Acts 3:22-23). This also reflects the fundamental meaning of the word e)ntolh/, as I discussed above.

Finally, we must consider Jesus’ statement in verse 50a:

“And I have seen [i.e. known] that His e)ntolh/ is (the) Life of the Age.”

The precise meaning of this statement requires special examination, which I will do in the next note.

Jesus and the Law, Part 9: The Gospel of John (continued)

The outline for this article is:

    1. The Festal Setting of the Discourses and related Narratives
    2. The Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word
    3. The Farewell Discourses and the “Love Command”

The first heading was discussed in Part 8 of this series; here I will continue with the second and third sections.

2. The Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word

Since the Law and Torah (as Scripture) is sometimes identified as the “Word of God” it is worth exploring the distinctive manner in which “word” (lo/go$, and/or r(h=ma) is associated with Jesus in the Gospel of John—both the Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word. I will start with the second of these concepts.

(a) Jesus as the Word

[This section draws especially on the fine summary by R. E. Brown in his classic commentary on John (Anchor Bible vol. 29), Appendix II, pp. 519-24.]

This is found primarily in the Prologue to the Gospel (Jn 1:1-18), where Jesus is identified with the (divine) lo/go$ in verses 1 (3 times) and 14. There is no single satisfactory English translation for lo/go$—”word” being as good as any. From the standpoint of creation (vv. 3, 10), it could also be understood: (i) in the sense of the underlying creative principle giving order to things (already used this way by Heraclitus, 6th-early 5th cent. B.C.), or (ii) as reason, reflecting the (ordered) thought and mind of God (cf. the typical Stoic usage). Philo of Alexandria, representing Hellenistic (and Alexandrian) Judaism at the time of the New Testament, blends the Greek philosophical use of lo/go$ with Old Testament concepts, resulting in the idea of the Logos as a divine intermediary, used by God in creation and serving as a pattern for the human mind/soul. In recent decades, scholars have looked closer at the Jewish background to the Logos-concept in John in at least three respects—(i) the “word of YHWH” as a distinct hypostasis, (ii) the personification of (divine) Wisdom, and (iii) the pre-existence of the Torah.

(i) The “word of YHWH” (hw`hy+Árb^D=) in the Old Testament does not simply reflect a statement or utterance received (by the Prophets, etc), but represents a dynamic (revelatory) manifestation of God to human beings, especially in the formula “the word of YHWH came to {so-and-so}…” (Gen 15:1, 4; 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4; 24:11; 1 Kings 6:11, etc; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1, et al). According to Genesis 1:1ff, the universe (the heavens and the earth) was created by the word of God (by his speaking), and continues to be sustained/renewed by his word—cf. Psalm 33:6; 147:15ff; Isa 55:11; also Wisd 9:1, etc. Over time, and with an interest in safeguarding the idea of God’s transcendence, the “word of God” came to be used as a kind of substitute (or periphrasis) for God Himself, which would speak and act (toward human beings)—effectively becoming a distinct hypostasis (divine manifestation). In Aramaic, this term for “the word” of God was ar*m=ym@ (m¢mrâ).

(ii) Similarly, the Wisdom of God could be personified or treated as a distinct hypostasis (manifestation); originally, this personification need have been nothing more than a poetic representation in ancient Wisdom Literature, used for dramatic and didactic effect (cf. Prov 1:20-33; 9:1-12, etc). However, the practical usage came to take on added theological dimension, as we see already in the famous passage of Proverbs 8—especially vv. 23-31 which depict Wisdom as existing at the beginning with God and participating in the work of Creation. There is indeed a close parallel between the Wisdom and (personified) Word of God in Jewish tradition—both are involved in the process of creation, being with God in the beginning, reflecting His glory, and coming forth from (the mouth of) God (cf. Sir 1:1; 24:3ff; Wisd 7:22, 25–8:1; 9:1-2). The parallels with the Johannine prologue are strong enough to suggest a Wisdom background, possibly even involving the influence or adaptation of a hymn in praise of (divine) Wisdom. There are a number of passages which refer to Wisdom coming (from heaven) to dwell among human beings, or wishing to (Prov 8:31; Wisd 9:10; Sir 24:8ff), but with some doubt as to whether she will be welcome (Baruch 3:9ff, etc); in the book of Enoch (1 Enoch) chapter 42, we find an especially close parallel to the idea in John 1:10-11, 14—Wisdom wishes to make her dwelling among the children of men, but sadly can find no dwelling-place and must return to heaven.

(iii) In later Rabbinic and mystical tradition, this personification (or hypostasis) of the Word of God was extended specifically to the Torah, conceived of as God’s offspring (or daughter, as with Wisdom) and existing prior to the creation of the universe. This was a natural identification, since Scripture (and particularly the Torah) was regularly understood as the “Word of God”. Already in Wisdom literature, the Law (Torah) is specifically identified with personified (divine) Wisdom (cf. especially Baruch 4:1 and Sirach 24:23ff). There is a long history as well of referring to the the Law (Torah) as light, which serves to illuminate human beings with God’s own (holy and revelatory) light (Jn 1:4-5, 9)—cf. Psalm 119:105; Baruch 4:2; Wisd 18:4; Testament of Levi 14:4.

(b) The Word(s) of Jesus

As a theme and motif, the word (or words) of Jesus plays a key role in the Gospel of John, occurring frequently (more than 40 times). These can be categorized as follows (note that lo/go$ [“word, account”] and r(h=ma [“word, utterance”] appear to be used interchangeably, with little difference in meaning):

So we see evidence in the Gospel of John that: (a) according to the Prologue (1:1-18), Jesus is the incarnation of the eternal and pre-existent Word of God, which encompasses the idea of the Wisdom and Law (Torah) of God, and (b) Jesus’ words are to be treated and regarded as God’s own Word, including everything typically associated with the commands and ordinances of the Torah.

3. The Farewell Discourses and the “Love Command”

When discussing the sayings of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20 (especially verse 19) in an earlier note, I brought up the important question as to the relationship between the command(ment)s of Jesus and those of the Torah. We find the same issue here in the Gospel of John (and will see it again when addressing 1 John). There are a dozen or so references to: (a) commandments Jesus received from God the Father, and (b) Jesus’ (own) commandments to his followers; conceptually these two are closely related, if not synonymous. The passages are:

(a) Commandments Jesus received from God the Father—Jn 10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31; 15:10

(b) Commandments given by Jesus (to his disciples)—Jn 13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12, 14, 17

All of these instances involve the noun e)ntolh/ (or the related verb e)nte/llomai), which fundamentally refers to something “laid on (a person) to complete”, and is usually translated “command(ment)” or sometimes “charge, order,” and the like. In a Jewish religious context, of course, e)ntolh/ refers to the commands of the Law (Torah), the corresponding term in Hebrew being primarily hw`x=m! (from the verb hw`x*). Yet, here in the Gospel of John, it is not clear to what extent (if at all) the “commandments” are related to the Torah commands. Let us look briefly at the context of these passages:

(a) Commandments Jesus received from God the Father:

    • Jn 10:18—here the command (or charge) has to with the power/authority Jesus has to (willingly) lay down his life and then take it up again (his death and resurrection)
    • Jn 12:49-50—the emphasis is on what the Father (“the One who sent me”) has given Jesus to speak; again this indicates the divine source (and authority) of Jesus’ own words
    • Jn 14:31—the sense is much the same: that Jesus does just as (and only as) the Father has commanded him
    • Jn 15:10—here Jesus states that he has kept the Father’s commandments, and abides/remains in His love

(b) Commandments given by Jesus (to his disciples):

    • Jn 13:34—Jesus gives his disciples a “new” commandment, the “love command” (see below)
    • Jn 14:15, 21—In these two verses Jesus states that those who love him will keep his commandments (and vice versa); it is a general statement, with no specific indication what those commandments are
    • Jn 15:10—draws a parallel between keeping Jesus’ commandments and abiding/remaining in his love, just as Jesus does for the Father
    • Jn 15:12, 14, 17—verse 12 restates the “love command” (13:34), verse 14 generally restates 14:15, 21, and verse 17 brings both of these together into a single teaching

Of all the references above, only 15:10a could conceivably relate to the Torah commands specifically, but even that is highly uncertain; in light of the other passages in category (a), it is better to see 15:10a in terms of Jesus’ mission—what he is directed to say and do. The Torah commands are clearly referenced as such only in Jn 8:5, which is part of the passage on the woman caught in adultery (generally recognized as an interpolation, and likely not part of the original Gospel).

Many of these references come from the so-called Farewell Discourse (chapters 13-17), a cluster of discourses probably built up out of (separate) smaller blocks of teaching, in which Jesus gives definitive instruction (and exhortation) to his disciples. There are many sayings and teachings of Jesus—both in John and throughout the Synoptic Gospels—which may be regarded as commands; but the only command clearly identified and emphasized as such in the Farewell Discourse(s) is the so-called “love command” in 13:34; 15:12. In Jn 13:34 the command is:

“that you should love one another—even as I have loved you, (I say) that you should love one another”
(the aorist subjunctive forms of the verb having the force of imperatives)

Clearly this is related in some way to the “Great Commandment” (Mk 12:29-31 par)—complete love for God and one’s neighbor—the second half of which, in particular, would become central in Jesus’ teaching as preserved in the early Church (Rom 13:9-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Love for God—demonstrated by loving Jesus (whom God sent)—is effectively treated as a command elsewhere in John, particularly in terms of abiding/remaining in Christ (Jn 15:4, 9, etc); but it is love for one’s fellow (believer) that is stressed in Jn 13:34; 15:12ff, and specifically referred to as a commandment. Indeed, it is called a “new” (kaino/$) commandment in 13:34, though the precise meaning and force of this distinction remains uncertain. These and other related questions will be dealt with in more detail in an article on “The Commandments of Christ” later on in this series; for now, it will suffice to conclude with the following observations:

  1. Jesus’ commandments come directly from God the Father (stressing Jesus’ unique role and nature as Son of God)
  2. They relate primarily to his mission on earth—what he is to say (teaching and proclamation, etc) and do (miracles, his willing and sacrificial death [and resurrection], etc)
  3. By word and example, he transmits these commandments to his disciples, best exemplified in the Farewell Discourse(s)
  4. The primary and leading command is two-fold: (i) to love one another, and (ii) to abide/remain in Christ (and his love)

The Old Testament Law (Torah) as such does not appear to be an essential part of this, except insofar as it provides the religious and ethical background to the “love command” and other teachings of Jesus. In this respect, the Gospel of John differs somewhat from the Synoptic Gospels, which depict Jesus dealing more directly (and regularly) with questions derived from (and related to) the Law of Moses.