Tag: Gospel Tradition

Priesthood of All Believers: John 2:19-21; Matthew 12:5-6

The Priesthood of All Believers

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition

If we examine the possible basis for the Reformation principle of the “Priesthood of All Believers” in the Gospels, the evidence is virtually limited to the relationship between Jesus and the Temple. It is clear that within the early Christian and Gospel Tradition there came to be marked tendency whereby Jesus himself was identified with the Temple. Insofar as Jesus is identified with the Temple, then his disciples, as his servants, function like the priests who were in service to the Temple (i.e., its maintenance and the ritual observance of its sacrificial and cultic apparatus). For the most part, in the Gospels this identification is expressed only in a seminal fashion, through the preservation and development of key historical traditions. From the standpoint of the three Synoptic Gospels (and the core Synoptic narrative), the chief points of development are three:

    • The Temple-action of Jesus which inaugurated his time in Jerusalem (much of which is spent in ministry, teaching and healing, in the Temple precincts)
    • The Temple-saying(s) of Jesus—viz., (1) the purported saying regarding the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple, and (2) the (eschatological) prediction of the Temple’s destruction
    • The “Sabbath controversy” episodes, in which it is indicated (in various ways and degrees) that the fulfillment of Jesus’ ministry takes precedence over the fulfillment of the Torah requirements and regulations
Temple-Action and Saying: The Jerusalem Period and the Death of Jesus

Since the historical and literary setting for the first two traditions is the short period of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, just prior to his death, it is natural both the Temple-action and Temple-saying(s) are closely tied, dramatically and thematically, to the event of Jesus’ death.

In the Markan Gospel, there is no direct reference to the Temple at all prior to the Jerusalem Period, with the first reference occurring at the very beginning of this period, following Jesus’ entry into the city (11:1-10). Upon arriving in Jerusalem, straightaway Jesus enters the Temple (v. 11), and the Temple action scene (vv. 15-19) is among the first episodes of the narrative (it is the very first episode in the Matthean and Lukan versions, which rework or omit the fig-tree scene). Two of the subsequent scenes are specifically set (through their narrative introductions, 11:27 and 12:35) in the Temple precincts; it is notable that these feature two key aspects, respectively, of Jesus’ ministry during the earlier Galilean Period: (i) controversy/conflict with the religious leaders (chief priests, scribes, elders), and (ii) his teaching (cf. 14:49), specifically in connection with his Messianic identity.

The prediction of the Temple’s destruction features prominently at the beginning (vv. 1-2) of the Eschatological Discourse in chap. 13; the destruction of the Temple (fulfilled during the Jewish War, 66-70 A.D.), is a key marker of the end-time period of distress (vv. 3ff). The other (related) Temple-saying is the purported statement by Jesus, adduced during his interrogation by the Sanhedrin, to the effect that Jesus himself would destroy and rebuild the Temple (14:58). The Synoptic narrative presents this statement as the product of false witness (v. 57 par), but the authenticity of it, in substance, is more or less confirmed by Jn 2:19ff (see below); cf. also 15:29 par and Acts 6:14. Finally, at the death of Jesus, it is related that the curtain in the Temple was torn in two (15:38 par), thus reaffirming the association between Jesus and the Temple that governs and frames the entire Jerusalem Period narrative.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both follow the core Synoptic/Markan narrative regarding the Jerusalem Period, though each develops and expands upon it in various ways. The Matthean Gospel holds closely to the Markan narrative of Jesus’ time in Jerusalem, but there are significantly more references to the Temple sprinkled throughout the narrative. Most notably, is the reference, immediately following the Temple-action (21:12-13), to the healing miracles performed by Jesus there in the Temple precincts (v. 14). The entirety of vv. 14-16 represents a Matthean expansion of the traditional pericope. Jesus’ identity as both the prophetic Messiah (viz., healings in the manner of Elijah, etc) and the royal/Davidic Messiah (v. 15) is confirmed by the actions that he performs in the Temple, much to the displeasure of the “chief priests and scribes”. The people come to the Temple to encounter Jesus the Messiah; his position in the Temple precincts in this regard represents a decided development of the Tradition, further identifying Jesus himself with the Temple. The same occurs with the Sabbath Controversy episode of Mk 2:23-28 (Matt 12:1-8), discussed below.

The Lukan narrative of the Jerusalem Period also emphasizes the ministry performed by Jesus while he is present in the Temple, only the focus is on his teaching (19:47; 20:1; 21:5, 37-38) rather than the performance of healing miracles. This is in accordance with the broader Lukan theme of the transformed purpose of the Temple—prayer, teaching, and the proclamation of the Gospel—in alignment with the symbolism of the early Christian mission. The Temple features prominently in both the Lukan Infancy narrative (1:9ff, 21-22; 2:27, 37, 46ff) and the early chapters of the book of Acts (2:46; 3:1-3ff; 4:1; 5:20-26, 42; cf. also Lk 24:53). The presence of the disciples preaching in the Temple (5:20ff) matches the earlier references to Jesus teaching in the Temple (Lk 2:46ff; 20:1ff), illustrating how the early Christian mission represents an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own Messianic ministry.

John 2:13-22

The Johannine Gospel combines the Temple-action and Temple-saying of Jesus, but situates them at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, rather than the end. In spite of this literary position of the episode, the emphasis on Jesus’ death clearly indicates the correct chronological position (viz., Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem shortly before his death). The two episodes of chapter 2, much like the visionary Son of Man saying in 1:51, serve to encompass and to epitomize the entirety of the incarnate Son’s earthly ministry—its beginning (Cana miracle, 2:1-12) and its end (Temple-action, 2:13-22).

The structure of the Johannine Temple-scene should first be noted, for it supplies the framework necessary for interpretation:

    • The Temple action (vv. 13-16)
      • Parenthesis (v. 17): “His disciples remembered…” —citation of Psalm 69:9
    • The Question (v. 18): “What sign do you show us…?”
    • The Temple saying (vv. 19-20[21])
      • Parenthesis (v. 21-22): “His disciples remembered…” —in between (1) interpretation of the saying, and (2) a statement of the disciples’ later belief

The Temple action (vv. 13-17). The account of the “cleansing” derives from the same historical tradition that underlies the Synoptic version. If the quotation of Isa 56:7/Jer 7:11 was part of the common tradition, the Gospel writer has omitted it—replacing it with different/historical words of Jesus, or, perhaps, ‘explaining’ the quotation. Another Scripture appears in the parenthesis, from Psalm 69:9: “The ‘zeal’ of [i.e. for] your house has eaten me (up)”. The word usually translated “zeal/jealousy” (ha*n+q!) has the basic sense of “(burning) red”, the Greek word zh=lo$ properly “heat/fervor”. The Septuagint (LXX) renders the Hebrew quite literally, and the quotation in John follows the LXX (B), reading the future tense (katefa/getai “will eat me down [i.e. devour me]”). The future form, of course, betters suited the verse as a prophecy related to Jesus; indeed, reflection on Psalm 69 helped shape the Gospel tradition of his Passion (as indicated in v. 17a), and is doubtless one of the key texts used to show that the Messiah must suffer and die (see especially Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). There is a slight ambiguity here in the Psalm: while the ‘zeal’ is generally understood of the protagonist (or Psalmist)—that he is consumed with (righteous) fervor—it could also be taken to mean, in the overall context of suffering, that his righteous zeal has caused him to be “eaten up” by his enemies. The citation in the Gospel could be interpreted, or made to apply, either way. Since it is associated with Jesus’ “cleansing” action, the image primarily would be the intense nature (all-consuming fire) of his ‘zeal’ for God’s house; but it is also possible that a bit of wordplay is involved—a foreshadowing of Jesus’ death that connects with the Temple saying in vv. 19-22.

The Question (v. 18). The highlighting of this verse is based, in part, on the theory that the Gospel writer has joined together separate traditions. However, even looking at the narrative (2:13-22) as a whole, the question the “Jews” ask remains central. It is similar to the question asked by the religious authorities in Mark 11:28 par.— “By (what) such authority [e)cousi/a] are you doing these (things)?” —but the difference in wording here is especially significant:

“Therefore the Judeans {Jews} gave forth (a response) and said to him: ‘What sign [shmei=on] do you show [deiknu/ei$] that you (should) do these (things)?'”

The noun shmei=on and verb deiknu/w (which occur in sequence in the Greek of v. 18) are both important words in the Gospel of John, carrying theological-christological meaning. With regard to deiknu/w, the closely related (and more common) verb dei/knumi is used in reference to what the Father shows the Son, and, in turn, what the Son shows (the world) from the Father (Jn 5:20; 14:8-9; also note 10:32; 20:20). Shmei=on (pl. shmei=a) is used frequently in John—Jesus’ symbolic actions (particularly the miracles) are called “signs” (Jn 2:23; 3:2; 4:48; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30); on the basis of the references in Jn 2:11; 4:54, chapters 2-12, with their alternation of miracle and dialogue/discourse, are sometimes referred to as the “Book of Signs”. The use of shmei=on and deiknu/w here serve to transition from the traditional “cleansing” action to the deeper meaning of the Temple saying (in its Johannine context).

The Temple saying (vv. 19-22). What remains is to treat this powerful and provocative saying of Jesus (v. 19):

“Loose [i.e. dissolve] this shrine [nao/n] and in three days I will raise it (up again).”

There is a parallel structure between the two verses 18 and 19:

    • Introduction: “Therefore the Judeans gave forth (an answer) [a)pekri/qhsan] and said [ei@pan] to him”
      • Question: “What sign are you showing that you (should) do these (things)?” (v. 18)
    • Introduction: “Jesus gave forth (an answer) [a)pekri/qh] and said [ei@pen] to them”
      • Answer: “Loose this shrine and in three days I will raise it” (v. 19)

It is possible that saying in verse 19 was originally separate from the “cleansing” episode (Temple-action), and that the Gospel writer has joined the two traditions together. Whether or not this is the case, the parallelism indicated above demonstrates precise, careful handling of the material; one might extend the structure, by considering v. 18-19a as a chiasm introducing the saying:

      • The Judeans answered/responded and said
        • “What sign are you showing…?”
      • Jesus answered/responded and said…

The imperative lu/sate seems to put the challenge to the Judeans—i.e. “(Even) if you were to destroy/dissolve this Temple…” or perhaps “Go ahead and destroy this Temple…” —but there is some uncertainty that this represents the original form of the saying (see below).

One common element of the references to the Temple saying (with the possible exception of Mark 14:58) is that those who heard it assumed that Jesus meant he would destroy the actual (Herodian) Temple. The Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus, in fact, did predict its destruction (Mk 13:1-2 par). How people understood the second half of the saying is not as clear: the Markan version presented at the ‘trial’ indicates that Jesus would build a Temple “made without hands”, by which probably was meant a real (physical) building, but one produced miraculously (possibly coming down out of Heaven). In John, the Judeans naturally question how Jesus could rebuild something comparable to the Herodian Temple (which took “forty-six years to build”) in just three days. This is an example of the wordplay, and theme of misunderstanding, which appear frequently in the Fourth Gospel—Jesus’ audience takes his words at the (superficial) level of their apparent meaning, and miss their deeper (true, spiritual) significance. This is clear from the Johannine interpretation which follows in vv. 21-22.

These verses, by the Gospel writer, finally determine how one must interpret the saying in the text as it stands. This interpretation is summarized first in v. 21—

“But that one [i.e. Jesus] related/spoke about the shrine [nao/$] of his body”

and then is expounded (parallel with verse 17) in v. 22—

“Therefore, when he was raised [h)ge/rqh] out of [i.e. from] the dead, his learners [i.e. disciples] remembered that he had said this, and they trusted in the Writing and the account [i.e. word] which Yeshua had said.”

The Temple saying as recorded by the Synoptics (at the ‘trial’) also uses the word nao/$ (“shrine”), presumably for the Temple as a whole (also in v. 20 here), even though the word more properly applies to the inner Sanctuary (“Holy Place”). Similarly the term i(ero/n (“sacred-place”), though it also could be used for the entire Temple (precincts), in the “cleansing” episode almost certainly it refers to the outer court (i.e. of the Gentiles). By bringing these two traditions together, the Gospel writer here creates an important juxtaposition between i(ero/n and nao/$—the nao/$ Jesus was speaking of was the (inner) sanctuary/shrine of his body. In this regard, the significance in his use of e)gei/rw (“raise”) in v. 19 is obvious. 

This is all part of a wider Johannine theological theme of Jesus replacing, or fulfilling, the Old Testament religious types and symbols—the focus moves away from the physical Jerusalem Temple (both sacred-precincts and shrine) to the Person of Jesus. This theme recurs, in various forms, throughout chapters 3-12, as Jesus appears in Jerusalem during the various feasts and holy days (Sabbath, Passover [twice more], Sukkoth, and Dedication/Hanukkah). Ultimately, Jesus will be depicted as the sacrificial (Paschal) Lamb slain (on the cross) on the eve of Passover (Jn 19:14, 31-36).

This diminishing of the Temple’s importance, of priority given to the Spirit over the physical/material, is reflected elsewhere in the Gospel of John (see esp. Jn 4:21-24; 6:63). In the Johannine book of Revelation, the Heavenly Temple of God is mentioned (Rev 7:15; 11:19; 14:15-17; 16:1, 17), virtually to the exclusion of the earthly (11:1-2). In the final vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, it is stated that there is no Temple [nao/$] in it—for the Lord God Almighty is its Temple [nao/$], along with the Lamb (21:22).

The Sabbath Controversy Episodes (Matthew 12:1-8)

Outside of the Gospel of John (see above), the most significant Gospel reference identifying Jesus with the Temple is the saying in Matt 12:5-6—a Matthean addition to the core Synoptic episode of Mark 2:23-28 par (Matt 12:1-8). 

The structure of the scene (in its Synoptic/Markan form) is reasonably simple and straightforward:

    • The narrative setting and action—the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath (v. 23)
    • Reaction by certain Pharisees (v. 24)
    • Jesus’ answer to them—an example from Scripture (vv. 25-26)
    • Saying(s) of Jesus (vv. 27-28)

The saying (or pair of saying) in verses 27-28 provides the central significance of the scene and characterizes it as a pronouncement episode (the earlier scene in vv. 13-17 is another such episode). It may also be designated as one of several key “Sabbath Controversy” episodes in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. also Jn 5:9ff, 16ff; 9:14ff). In these episodes, Jesus takes action on the Sabbath that is view by some people (viz., religious leaders who are opposed to Jesus) as violations of the Sabbath restrictions. In this particular episode, it is Jesus’ disciples who perform the action, causing some Pharisees to react with disapproval. 
For the background to the Sabbath observance involved in this passage (cf. Exod 34:21, etc), consult my earlier discussion on the Sabbath controversy episodes in the series “Jesus and the Law”.

In response (vv. 25-26 / Matt 12:3-4), Jesus cites an example from Scripture, from the life of David (1 Sam 21:1-6). Even though, in the context of that passage, the Temple had not yet been built, and the sanctuary (at the time) was located at the site of Nob, it is referred to as the “house of God” (o( oi@ko$ tou= qeou=), which could be applied easily enough to the Jerusalem Temple, as we see from the expanded form of Matthew’s version (below). The basic message is clear enough: caring for human need (in this case, hunger) takes precedence over religious regulations (i.e. the Temple ritual, cf. Lev 24:5-9).

The episode culminates (vv. 27-28 / Matt 12:7-8) with a saying by Jesus (or, possibly, a pair of sayings). It is not entirely clear whether the Gospel here has joined together separate sayings by Jesus, or whether they entered into the tradition originally as a dual-saying (perhaps the latter is more likely). The saying in verse 27 is relatively straightforward, though commentators have not always grasped the full consequence of it. Jesus essentially reverses the original sense of the Sabbath Law (and tradition)—it was instituted to commemorate God ceasing (or “resting”) from His work of Creation (Exod 20:8-11, etc). Yet Jesus states that it was put in place “through [dia] man”—that is, on behalf of, for the purpose and benefit of, human beings. This, of course, is also part of the basic Sabbath Law (Exod 16:23-29, etc). But in this particular context—with the emphasis on the care and concern for the needs of human beings—the Sabbath regulation takes on a humanitarian, rather than ritual, purpose. Given the thrust of verse 27, it is possible that v. 28 is parallel to it. In the Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) idiom, the expression “son of man” is often synonymous with “man”, the two being set as parallel frequently in Hebrew poetry, i.e. “man…son of man…” (Num 23:19; Job 16:21; Psalm 8:4; Isa 51:12, et al). In such instances, it refers to humankind generally. If this is the sense in which Jesus uses it here, then the dual saying would be understood something like:

“The Sabbath was put in place for man, not man for the Sabbath
Even so, is man the lord of the Sabbath!”

In other sayings and situations, however, Jesus uses the expression “son of man” in a different sense—(1) in reference to himself, both as a human being, and/or as the Chosen One of God, and (2) specifically identifying himself as the divine/heavenly representative of God (“the Son of Man”) who will appear at the end-time Judgment. For more on this subject (and this particular saying), see my recent series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”. 

The Matthean and Lukan versions of this episode largely follow the Markan narrative, but with certain notable differences (discussed in an article in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”). For example, it is significant that neither Matthew nor Luke has the saying corresponding to Mk 2:27. The lack of any reference to the first saying (about man) effectively removes the possibility that the expression “son of man” is meant in the generic sense in the second saying (12:8; 6:5, cf. above). In Matthew and Luke, almost certainly, it is understood as a (self-)title of Jesus and should be translated so—i.e., “Son of Man”. The saying then takes on a different emphasis; Jesus is identifying himself as the “Lord of the Sabbath”. The implication of this is clear enough—as the Lord over the Sabbath, Jesus’ words and actions, his ministry and personal presence, take precedence over the Sabbath laws. Whether or not the Pharisees properly interpret the regulations ultimately is beside the point; the emphasis is on Jesus’ authority over the Sabbath.

If there were any doubt in this regard, Matthew’s version makes it abundantly clear, by way of the ‘additions’ which are found in verses 5-7. These are three-fold:

    1. A second example from Scripture involving the Priesthood (v. 5), which makes the point in a different manner—the priests who work in the Temple on the Sabbath day are not guilty of violating the Sabbath.
    2. A saying involving the Temple (v. 6): “(one) greater than the Temple is here”. Compare the form of similar sayings (from the so-called “Q” material) in Matt 11:11; 12:41-42 par. Jesus takes the point a step further by essentially declaring himself to be greater than the Temple. The implication, in light of the example in v. 5, is that those who work in his service (i.e. his disciples) on the Sabbath do not violate it. It is but a small step to extend this principle to the entire Temple ritual, and, indeed, the Law (Torah) as a whole. On this, see the detailed discussions in the series “Jesus and the Law“.
    3. A citation from Hosea 6:6—(in Greek) “I wish (for) mercy, not (ritual) slaughter [i.e. sacrifice]”. Jesus quotes this same verse earlier (Matt 9:13 par), part of the core Synoptic tradition. Here it is even more pointed, in relationship to observance of the Law—”If you had known what (this) is [i.e. what the Scripture means]…you would not have brought down ju(dgment) (on) the (one)s (who are) without cause (of guilt)!” I.e., human beings (and, especially, Jesus’ own followers) who care for ordinary needs through ‘work’ on the Sabbath (even if it technically violates the regulations) are not guilty of any such violation.

Verse 5 would be categorized as “M” material (i.e. a tradition found only in Matthew); most likely this is so for the sayings in v. 6 and 7 as well, but these are harder to judge, on critical grounds. Regardless of the source of these traditions, their presence in Matthew’s version evinces an unmistakable development of the tradition. His version of the episode goes beyond the Markan and Lukan accounts, giving it a Christological resonance lacking in the other versions. Not only is Jesus the Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath—but his authority is greater than even the Law and the Temple itself.

It is in this respect that the Matthean version of the grain-plucking episode establishes the conceptual template for viewing the disciples of Jesus—and, by extension, all believers—as priests. If Jesus is to be identified with the Temple (and even something greater than the Temple), then his disciples (who serve him) are akin to the priests who perform ritual service on behalf of the Temple. The example given in verse 5 altogether confirms this point of emphasis. 
Even though the comparative adjective mei=zon (functioning as a substantive, “[something/someone] greater than”) in v. 6 is neuter, it still should be understood as referring to the person of Jesus rather than as a more generalized or abstract reference (cf. Davies-Allison, p. 314). It has been suggested that the referent is to the Kingdom (of God); even if this were correct, though it would somewhat alter the theological-Christological point of emphasis in the passage, it would have little effect on the specific motif of believers as priests (in service to the Kingdom [and to Christ]). 

In our next study, we will examine the early Christian mission (as narrated in the early chapters of the book of Acts), along with specific consideration of the missionary work of Paul, as we continue to explore the historical and theological basis for the concept of the “priesthood of believers”.

    • References marked “Davies-Allison” are to W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark International: 2004).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 6)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 6: The World (Part 1)

This second arc of studies will focus on believers’ conflict with the World, and on the role of the Spirit in that conflict. The terminology of “the world” (o( kos/mo$) came to have a distinctive—and distinctly negative—meaning for early Christians. It is not easy to determine just how this particular Christian usage of the word ko/smo$ developed. There have been surprisingly few studies on the subject, and yet it is important to attempt to obtain at least some understanding of how, where, and why this distinctive concept of “the world”, with its strong negative (and dualistic) connotations, took root in early Christian thought.

“The World” (o( ko/smo$)

The basic meaning of the noun ko/smo$ (kósmos, the etymology and derivation of which remains rather uncertain) is “orderly arrangement”, or, more generally, “order”. Idiomatically, it was used frequently with the preposition kata/ (in the sense of “according to”)—kata\ ko/smon, “according to (good) order”, i.e., “orderly” (cf. Homer Iliad 2.214; 10.472; Odyssey 8.179, etc). Also common, and along these same lines, was the sense of ko/smo$ as a beautiful (i.e., well-ordered) decoration or adornment (such as of women, horses, etc, or figuratively of fine speech, and the like); the related verb kosme/w (kosméō) means “put in order, arrange, adorn, decorate”. The English word cosmetic is derived (by way of transliteration) from this Greek terminology.

Key to the Christian usage of the noun is found in its application to the universe and the natural world as a whole. Such usage, which still informs our inherited use of ko/smo$ in English (transliterated as cosmos), is attested as early as the 6th-century pre-Socratic philosophers—see Anaximenes fragment 2, Heraclitus fragment 30 (cited by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V.104.1), and the reference in Diogenes Laertius [Lives of the Philosophers] 8.48 regarding the teaching of Pythagoras and/or Parmenides. In this regard, ko/smo$ denotes the “ordered universe” —that is, in specific contrast to the chaos and unformed dis-order (or lack of order) of the primeval universe (cf. Gen 1:2). Generally speaking, “world order” —viz., the arrangement of the ordered universe—serves as a solid translation for ko/smo$, according to this aspect of meaning.

Subsequently, in later Greek, ko/smo$ came to refer specifically to the inhabited world—that is, the world of human beings—very similar in meaning to the noun oi)koume/nh. This could be understood in a spatial sense (i.e., the place where humans dwell), or in a more figurative sense for human society/civilization as a whole. This association with human beings on earth sets up a natural contrast with heaven (and God, or the gods). These are the semantic aspects which, for the most part, govern the early Christian usage of ko/smo$.

In the LXX, ko/smo$ frequently is used to translate Hebrew terms signifying beauty and adornment, etc. In the New Testament, ko/smo$ in this sense occurs just once (1 Pet 3:3). Curiously, the LXX occasionally uses ko/smo$ for ab*x*, as a reference to the “armies” (i.e., “host”) of heaven (Gen 2:1; Deut 4:19; 17:3; Isa 24:21; 40:26), probably intended to convey the idea of the beauty and ordered arrangement of the heavenly bodies. Only occasionally does ko/smo$ serve in the LXX to designate the universe (“heaven and earth”) as a whole (Ps 8:6; Eccl 3:1; Isa 44:24; and cf. Symmachus’ version of Job 38:4). The situation changes however in writings influenced by Hellenistic Judaism—the Book of Wisdom (9:3, 9; 11:17, 22; 13:2-3; 16:17, etc), the books of Maccabees (4 Macc 16:18, etc), and the works of Philo of Alexandria (cf. also Josephus). In these writings, ko/smo$ is regularly used in the Greek philosophical sense (see above) for the universe as a whole, as also for the inhabited world of human beings.

The New Testament use of ko/smo$ largely derives from a common vocabulary and modes of expression shared with these Hellenistic Jewish writings.

The Negative Connotations of ko/smo$

How did ko/smo$ come to possess the strong negative and dualistic connotations we find throughout the New Testament (especially in the Pauline and Johannine writings)? As I see it, there are three lines of explanation that are particularly relevant.

First, there is the influence of (neo-)Platonic dualism, with its contrast between the ideal world (viz., the invisible world of Ideas) and the ordinary visible/physical world (“this world”, ko/smo$ ou!to$). Such a dualistic contrast had the natural effect of deprecating the visible/physical world in favor of the ideal world.

Second, there is the understanding of the world—specifically in the inhabited domain of human beings—as having been corrupted by sin and evil. Such a worldview was inherited by early Christians from Scriptural and Jewish tradition.

Third, there is the eschatological frame of reference contrasting “this Age” —i.e., the current state of the world in the present Age—with the “Age to come”. In this regard, the meaning of ko/smo$ overlaps with that of ai)w/n (“age”) and carries a temporal as well as spatial aspect; in later Jewish writings, the noun <l*ou (Aramaic am*l=u*) had a similar dual (spatial/temporal) meaning and could be translated in Greek by ko/smo$. This eschatological contrast is pervasive throughout the New Testament and is perhaps best summarized by the statement in 1 John 2:17: “…the world [ko/smo$] and its impulses go along [i.e., pass away], but the (one) doing the will of God remains into the Age”.

These last two aspects were particularly prominent in Jewish eschatological and apocalyptic thought during the first centuries B.C./A.D. An eschatological dualism, similar in mode and emphasis to that of early Christians, characterized the Community of the Qumran texts. The Community believed that they were living in the end-time, at the end of the current Age (i.e., “this world”), and that the new Age was about to be ushered in. During this present Age, “the world”, already corrupted by sin and evil, was thought to become increasingly dominated by wickedness. Obviously, this referred primarily to human wickedness, but the activity of angelic/demonic powers and spiritual forces of evil was also seen as pervasive in the world. Of the many references to this concept of “the world” (and “this Age”) in the apocalyptic writings, note Jubilees 10:1ff; 1 Enoch 48:7; 2/4 Esdras 4:26.

As we examine the New Testament references, we will see some of the ways in which this traditional dualistic-eschatological usage was developed among early Christians.

New Testament use of ko/smo$ (outside of Paul and John)

Of the 186 occurrences of the word ko/smo$ in the New Testament, more than half (102) are in the Johannine writings (the number is even higher [105] if we include the book of Revelation). Even more striking are the number of occurrences in the Gospel of John (78) compared with just 14 in the Synoptic Gospels combined. This distribution demonstrates how important ko/smo$ is to the Johannine writings. The word is similarly prominent in Paul’s letters (occurring 47 times). Outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings, ko/smo$ does not carry quite so forceful a negative and contrastive emphasis—viz., “the world” as a domain of sin and evil that is fundamentally opposed to God. To gain a better sense of how this negative aspect of meaning developed and came to prevail in early Christian thought, it will be helpful to examine the occurrences of ko/smo$ outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings.

If we include the book of Revelation among the Johannine writings, then there are 33 occurrences of the noun ko/smo$ (out of 186) in the non-Pauline and non-Johannine writings: 14 in the Synoptic Gospels, 1 in Acts, 5 in Hebrews, 5 in James, 3 in 1 Peter, and 5 in 2 Peter. As noted above, 1 Pet 3:3 contains the only NT occurrence of ko/smo$ in the general sense of “(well-)ordered arrangement”, in accord with the use of the related verb kosme/w (“put in order, arrange, adorn, decorate”)—Matt 12:44; 23:29; 25:7; Lk 11:25; 21:5; 1 Tim 2:9; Tit 2:10; 1 Pet 3:5; Rev 21:2, 19. In all the 32 other occurrences, ko/smo$ refers to the universe and/or to the inhabited world of human beings.

The Synoptic Gospels

The word ko/smo$ is quite rare in the Synoptic Gospels, especially when one considers the core Synoptic Tradition as represented by the Gospel of Mark. It occurs just three times in Mark, and one of these occurrences is in the textually questionable ‘long ending’ (16:15) of the Gospel. It appears in a proverbial saying of Jesus (8:36; par Matt 16:26; Lk 9:25) where the word carries its customary comprehensive sense (i.e., the entire world). In 14:9 par (followed by the occurrence in [16:15]), it is used in the context of the early Christian mission— “the world” understood primarily in a spatial sense, designating the inhabited world of human beings.

There are two additional occurrences of ko/smo$ in the Gospel of Luke. The first of these (11:50) refers, in traditional terms, to the creation of the universe (‘heaven and earth’); the eschatological (Judgment) context of Jesus’ saying is noteworthy. In 12:30, ko/smo$ has a rather clear negative connotation, with its reference to “the nations of the world”, set implicitly in contrast to the righteous people of God (cf. the parallel in Matt 6:32f).

One can detect similar contrastive emphases in the more extensive use of ko/smo$ in the Gospel of Matthew. There is also a more pronounced eschatological aspect to the usage (by Jesus) in the Matthean Gospel. Note, for example, the occurrences of the word in the chapter 13 parables (v. 35, and especially v. 38), along with those in the expanded Matthean version of the Eschatological Discourse (chaps. 24-25—24:21; 25:34). These represent Matthean ‘additions’ which do not occur in the core Synoptic version of the material (cp. Mark 4, 13). Another Matthean detail is the reference to “the kingdoms of the world” in the Temptation narrative (4:8; cp. the Lukan version); implicitly, “the world” (with all of its riches and power) is associated with the tempting activity of the Satan/Devil (cf. the previous arc of studies [1-5] in this series). Similarly, there is an allusive connection between “the world” and sin in the woe-declaration by Jesus in 18:7. By contrast, the use of ko/smo$ in 5:14 suggests the early Christian mission, with “the world” as the inhabited domain of human beings—the place where the mission-work occurs, but also indicating a realm, corrupted by sin and evil, that is in need of salvation. The specific expression “the light of the world” is otherwise familiar from its occurrences in the Gospel of John (“I am” sayings of Jesus, 9:5; 11:9; cf. also 12:46).

The New Testament Letters (James, 1-2 Peter, Hebrews)

In the New Testament letters, ko/smo$ takes on a more decidedly negative significance; in this regard, one may detect a certain development in thought from the (earlier) Gospel Tradition. On the other hand, the shift in emphasis may reflect the nature of the material—a strong ethical orientation, which, in an eschatological context (see above), highlights the contrastive nature of “the world” (i.e., during the current wicked Age). Believers in Christ are to conduct themselves in a holy and right(eous) manner, in contrast to the way most people in “the world” tend to behave.

All of the occurrences of ko/smo$ in the letter of James, for example, bring out this ethical emphasis. In 1:27, “the world” is described as a place where believers can become ‘polluted’, and it is thus important to “keep watch” over oneself, so as to remain “without spot” (a&spilo$), i.e., unstained by the world. In 2:5, drawing rather clearly upon traditional teaching by Jesus, the author contrasts riches and poverty as they are constituted “in the eyes of the world” with how they truly are understood in the kingdom of God. The expression “the world of unrighteousness [lit., lack of what is right, a)diki/a]” in 3:6 suggests a close connection between sin/evil and “the world”, while the teaching of 4:4 is even more forceful in declaring that “fondness of [i.e., for] the world” means hostility toward God, since “the world” is fundamentally opposed to God.

The two occurrences of ko/smo$ in 1 Peter (apart from 3:3) generally follow the usage in Luke-Acts (cf. above), by combining (i) a reference to the creation of the universe (in an eschatological context, 1:20; cf. Acts 17:24) with (ii) an understanding of “the world” (i.e., the inhabited domain of human beings) as the mission-field for the early Christian mission (5:9). The latter reference affirms the close conceptual connection between “the world” (v. 9) and “the Devil” (v. 8, cf. the discussion in Study 2). The corruption of “the world” is emphasized in 2 Peter, in the context of a pointedly eschatological exhortation to believers. Two different terms—fqora/ (“decay”, 1:4) and mi/asma (plur., “defilement, pollution”, 2:20)—are used to express this. Comparison is made with the corrupt world of humankind in the time of Noah (2:5), when the world was judged (and destroyed) by God—the great Flood serving as a figure-type for the end-time Judgment (3:6).

In Hebrews, a traditional reference to the creation of the universe (see above) is again utilized, in an eschatological context, to emphasize the corrupt nature of “the world” and to remind/warn believers of the impending Judgment (4:3). To this is added a distinctive Christological emphasis, similar in certain respects to what we find in the Pauline and Johannine writings, focusing on the mission of Christ “in the world” (9:26; 10:5), with the implication that his mission had the purpose of dealing (by sacrificial means) with the pervasive sin extant (among human beings) in the world. This basic contrast, between believers (i.e., the righteous ones) and the wickedness of the world, is presented in chapter 11 (see the use of ko/smo$ in vv. 7, 38), drawing upon the righteous/faithful figures of Israel’s past history as precursors (and type-figures) of believers in Christ.

Conclusion

This survey allows us to glimpse something of how the meaning and usage of the term ko/smo$ developed among Christians during the first century. Several points of emphasis may be noted:

    • Reference to the creation (i.e., beginning) of the universe, in an eschatological context that alludes to (and foretells) the end of the cosmos.
    • The Creation traditions (esp. Gen 3) also affirm the corrupted nature of “the world”, especially as the terminology relates to the inhabited world of human beings.
    • This traditional belief (viz., regarding the sinful and evil condition of the world) is greatly enhanced by its eschatological orientation—the understanding and expectation that the world (inhabited by humans) will become increasingly more wicked and corrupt as the end of the Age draws near.
    • The eschatological dualism (regarding “the world”) thus also has a strong ethical aspect—viz., the contrast between the present Age and the Age to come is mirrored by the ethical contrast between the righteous and the wicked. The kingdoms and nations of the world tend to symbolize the domain of wickedness, in contrast to the righteous people of God (i.e., believers in Christ).
    • At the same time, “the world” —that is, the realm (on earth) inhabited by human beings—is also the space (i.e., the field) for the Christian mission. The presence of the believer “in the world” matches Christ’s own presence (“in the world”) during his mission on earth. The proclamation of the Gospel, during the time that remains before the end of the Age, offers the hope of salvation and renewal to human beings otherwise lost and trapped in the midst of the current corrupted world.

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the Pauline letters, examining in some detail how Paul adapted and developed the key themes outlined above.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 10)

Study 10: The Spirit and the Resurrection of Jesus—the sending of the Spirit

As part of our discussion of the resurrection-chapter of 1 Corinthians (chap. 15) in the previous study (Study 9), it was mentioned how Paul’s exposition was fundamentally rooted in the early exaltation-Christology. An important and vital component of this Christology involves the sending of the Spirit to believers in Christ. The basic outline of this feature may be summarized as follows:

As the result of his resurrection, Jesus was exalted to a Divine/heavenly position at the “right hand” of God the Father. From this position, where, as God’s Son, the exalted Christ rules with Divine authority (at God’s right hand), he has access to the Spirit of God, with the ability to communicate (and send) this Spirit to others (i.e., believers).

It is interesting that, despite the prominence of this Christological belief, it is only rarely referenced in the New Testament; yet the references which exist certainly testify to its importance. In this study, we will examine the evidence from four standpoints:

    1. The Spirit-baptism tradition (in Mark 1:8 par.)
    2. The early Gospel preaching (kerygma) [prim. Acts 2:33]
    3. The Lukan Theology (Luke-Acts)
    4. The Johannine Narrative (esp. the Paraclete-sayings)

In conclusion, we will consider again, further, Paul’s explication of the Tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 (esp. verses  44-46).

1. The Spirit-baptism tradition (Mk 1:8 par)

All of the Gospels record (with some slight variation) the prophetic saying by John the Baptist:

“I dunked [i.e., baptized] you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit.” (Mk 1:8)

The Matthean and Lukan version(s) [“Q” material] present this saying somewhat differently, in relation to the earlier saying in v. 7, but it is substantially the same:

“(On the one hand,) I dunk you in water unto a change-of-mind…but (on the other,) he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit and fire!” (Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16)

The main differences (additions) are indicated in gray. The Johannine Gospel breaks apart the two components of the saying (1:26 [and 31], 33), a narrative method which serves to reinforce the contrast between the Baptist (baptizing in water) and Jesus (baptizing in/with the Spirit).

It seems quite clear that early Christians understood the prophecy as a reference to the coming of the Spirit upon believers; certainly, this is how the  saying is presented as being fulfilled in the book of Acts (1:5, in the context of vv. 8ff and 2:1-4ff). And yet, there is some thought that originally, in terms of the historical tradition and the earliest Gospel Tradition, the saying may have referred to the earthly ministry of Jesus. At the historical level, the Baptist himself would surely have understood the matter generally in terms of a Messianic fulfillment of the symbolic type-pattern present in his own baptizing activity. The “he” (au)to/$) who will “dunk you in/with (the) holy Spirit” is a Messianic Prophet-figure (“one coming”) who is depicted as ushering in the eschatological New Age promised by God for His people. The Messianic (and eschatological) character of this expected figure is quite clear, both from the context of the core tradition (esp. Mk 1:7-8 par, cf. my earlier article on “The One Coming” in the series Yeshua the Anointed), along with the “Q” saying in Matt 3:12 par, as well as the narrative setting established in the Lukan (3:15) and Johannine (1:19-25ff) Gospels.

The background for such a belief comes principally from the Scriptures—especially a number of key passages in the Prophets of the Exilic period which promise that, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration, God will “pour out” His Spirit upon His people (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28-29). The use of Joel 2:28-29 in the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter in Acts 2 (vv. 16-21ff) demonstrates that early Christians understood the coming of the Spirit (upon believers) as the fulfillment of these prophecies, and that it is the exalted Jesus who will bring this about— effectively “pouring out” the Spirit upon them (cf. on verse 33, below). This language of “pouring out” is certainly applicable to the idea of baptism, and is particularly appropriate if the ritual act involved a partial immersion—that is, the person is standing (or kneeling) in the water, and water is then scooped up and poured upon his/her head.

Interestingly, where the Spirit-baptism saying occurs in the book of Acts (1:5; 11:16, cp. with Lk 3:16), Jesus is not specified as the one who does the ‘baptizing’; rather, the verb is given in the passive (baptisqh/sesqe, “you will be dunked”), suggesting that these are instances of the so-called “Divine passive” (passivum divinum) in which God (the Father) is the implied actor. The fact that it is Jesus who elsewhere (in 2:33, etc, cf. below) is clearly indicated as the one who ‘baptizes’ with the Spirit further suggests that he (i.e., the exalted Christ) is fulfilling a role which properly belongs to God (YHWH).

2. The early Gospel preaching (kerygma)

The early exaltation-Christology (cf. the summary above) is well-established within the Gospel proclamation (kerygma) of early (first-century) believers. We can glimpse this, for example, from the various references (often formulaic in nature) to Jesus’ place in heaven at the “right hand” of God the Father—Mk 12:36; 14:62 pars; Acts 2:33f; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Eph 1:20; 1 Pet 3:22; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2. I have already addressed Romans 1:4, and the likelihood that vv. 3-4 represent an early (pre/non-Pauline) confessional formula, in recent articles. Numerous other references (e.g., 1 Thess 1:10) could be cited as evidence for the widespread establishment of this basic exaltation-Christology within early Christian thought.

In spite of this, as noted above, there are few references to the specific idea of the exalted Christ’s access to the Spirit, and his ability to communicate (and send) it to believers. In at least one instance, however, the idea features prominently in the apostolic kerygma—namely, in Acts 2:33, which comes at a key (and climactic) point in the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter (2:14-36), following the narrative of the initial coming of the Spirit upon the first believers in Jerusalem (vv. 1-4ff, cf. on the citation of Joel 2:28-29 [vv. 16-21ff] above). A kerygmatic presentation of the early exaltation-Christology is clearly indicated from the context in vv. 24ff, 31-32. The statement that God raised Jesus from the dead (v. 32) is followed by the declaration in verse 33:

“therefore, (hav)ing been lifted high [i.e., exalted] to the right (hand) of God, and (hav)ing received the e)paggeli/a of the holy Spirit (from) alongside the Father, he poured out this, which you [indeed] (now) see and hear (of).”

Jesus’ role in the fulfillment of the Joel 2:28-29 prophecy (cf. above) is shown by the use of the verb e)kxe/w (“pour out”); this also establishes the fulfillment of the Baptism-prophecy (Mk 1:8 par), with the idea of Jesus ‘baptizing’ people in/with the Spirit (cf. the discussion above). The key statement is the central clause: “(hav)ing received the e)paggeli/a of the holy Spirit (from) alongside the Father”. The sequence is clear: resurrection (v. 32)—exaltation (v. 33a)—receiving the Spirit from the Father [at His right hand] (v. 33b)— “pouring out” the Spirit (vv. 33c). The noun e)paggeli/a denotes a message a person gives forth, regarding a specific issue, often indicating (in a legal sense) an official announcement as to what he/she intends to do; there is often a strong promisory connotation to the term, and the noun is regularly translated as “promise”. Here the “promise” refers to the Prophetic passages, cited above, to which certain other Scriptures may be added, as well as the Baptism-prophecy (Mk 1:8 par). The noun e)paggeli/a is similarly used in Lk 24:49 and Acts 1:4 (cf. 2:39); and note also the Pauline usage in Gal 3:14-22ff.

3. The Lukan Theology (Luke-Acts)

As can be seen from the discussion above (in sections 1. and 2.), this emphasis on the Spirit within the exaltation-Christology is particularly prominent in Luke-Acts. It thus reflects a distinctive Lukan theological emphasis. The traditional nature of the Christology can be seen from the importance of the “right hand” exaltation-motif. The Lukan author adopts this motif (from the Tradition) at the end of the Gospel (20:42; 22:69) and continues it through the Gospel-preaching in the early chapters of Acts (2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56). The implication would seem to be that, being present at the “right hand” of God, the exalted Christ (the Son) now rules alongside God the Father. It is from this Divine and exalted position that Christ receives the Spirit “from alongside” (para/) the Father (Acts 2:33, cf. above). If he rules alongside God, then it follows that Christ also possesses the ruling authority of the Father—that is, he can act as God the Father does, acting as His royal representative, with the same authority. This means, specifically, that the exalted Christ can fulfill what God Himself promised—namely, that He would “pour out” His Spirit upon His people in the New Age of restoration. As Acts 2:33 makes clear, Jesus Christ is the one who “pours out” the Spirit, acting on the Father’s behalf.

There are several other Lukan references where this role of Jesus, in relation to the Spirit, is indicated. The most obvious occurs at the close of the Gospel (24:49), where, before his departure to heaven, Jesus tells his disciples:

“And [see—] I will send forth the e)paggeli/a of my Father upon you”

The noun e)paggeli/a (usually translated as “promise”) is unquestionably a reference to the Spirit, as the usage in Acts 1:4 and 2:33 makes clear (cf. above); but the identification is also confirmed by the wording that follows:

“but you must sit (here) in the city [i.e., Jerusalem] until the (moment) when you are clothed in power out of (the) height(s).”

The essential identification of “power” (du/nami$) with the Spirit is confirmed by the parallel in 1:35, as well as by the overall Lukan usage (4:14; Acts 1:8, etc). What is most important to note here in 24:49 is that Jesus is the one who “sends forth” (vb a)poste/llw) the Spirit, in a role that would normally be reserved for God the Father (cf. Gal 4:6, etc).

While the Spirit is upon Jesus during his Messianic ministry (on earth) and filling him (3:22; 4:1, 18), guiding and empowering him (4:14; 10:21; 11:20 [cf. par Matt 12:28]), it is only after his resurrection and exaltation that he, in turn, acts to send the Spirit upon believers. This post-resurrection role of the exalted Jesus is indicated by the saying in 12:12, in comparison with the corresponding (Synoptic) reference in the Eschatological Discourse (21:15 par). In that reference, Jesus indicates that he will give the disciples the words to speak (“I will give to you a mouth and wisdom…”), while earlier in 12:12 (cf. Matt 10:19-20) it is the Holy Spirit that fulfills this role (as also in the Markan version of the Eschatological Discourse, 13:11). The exalted Jesus and the Spirit are thus described as fulfilling the same role, and thus are performing the same basic action. This identification of the exalted Christ with the Spirit is similarly indicated by the parallel wording in Acts 16:6 (“holy Spirit”) and 7 (“Spirit of Yeshua”), suggesting that the expressions are interchangeable; the expression “Spirit of the Lord” (in 8:39) is ambiguous, but may also be a reference to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (since the “the Lord” could refer to God the Father or to the exalted Christ [the Son]).

4. The Johannine Narrative

The Christological points and features noted in the previous sections are attested in the Gospel of John as well, but presented within the context of the distinctive Johannine theology.

The Johannine Gospel does preserve the contours of the early exaltation-Christology. In particular, we find the idea that the exalted Jesus will fulfill the Messianic (and eschatological) role prophesied by the Baptist (1:33). The fulfillment is narrated at the close of the Gospel, in 20:22, a brief notice that corresponds generally to the Pentecost-event in Luke-Acts (Acts 2:1-4ff). Before this giving of the Spirit, following his resurrection Jesus ascends (in an exalted manner) to heaven to be in the Father’s presence (20:17), where, it may be inferred, he receives the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:33). As to the specific motif of ‘baptizing’ in/with the Spirit, one may note the important association of the Spirit with water in 3:5-8 and 4:10-15 (based on the context of vv. 23-24 and 7:37-39); in 7:39, the author explicitly interprets the motif of “living water” (given by Jesus) in terms of the giving of the Spirit to the disciples/believers.

At the same time, the Johannine theology, with its emphasis on the Divine pre-existence of the Son, has altered the traditional pattern of the exaltation-Christology. What previously was posited regarding the exalted Christ can now be stated in more general terms of the Son’s relation to the Father. The key passage is 3:31-36, which marks the close of the thematic contrast between Jesus and John the Baptist (and of the two kinds of baptism—Spirit / water) that encompasses chapters 1-3. God the Father gives “all things” to the Son (v. 35), and this includes, first and foremost, the Spirit (v. 34). Elsewhere, this relationship is expressed according to a clear sequence: the Father gives to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives to believers. An important expression of this paradigm occurs in 6:57, at the close of the Bread of Life Discourse; the “life” referenced there unquestionably serves as an allusive reference to the Spirit (see v. 63, and note the “living bread” / “living water” parallel [4:10-15ff; 7:37-39]).

When we turn to the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus in the Last (or Farewell) Discourse (13:31-16:33), the paradigm is filled out with specific reference to the Spirit—viz., the Father gives the Spirit to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives the Spirit to believers. This sequence provides the theological backdrop for the sayings (note the Father-Son relational interchange throughout the Discourse). At first glance, the actual wording in the sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15) can be confusing, as Jesus refers to the sending of the Spirit in varying ways:

    • The Father will send the Spirit (at the Son’s request), 14:16
    • The Father will send the Spirit (in Jesus’ name), 14:26
    • The Son will send the Spirit (from the Father), 15:26
    • The Son will send the Spirit (just as the Father sent the Son), 16:7

A range of Johannine theological concepts and thematic emphases are covered by these formulations. The two central formulations (14:26; 15:26) perhaps best capture the relational paradigm presented above: the Father gives the Spirit to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives it to believers.

And yet, another key Johannine theological emphasis is that Spirit also represents the Son (Jesus), and it is through the Spirit that Jesus continues his ministry in and among believers. The Paraclete-sayings make this quite clear. Moreover, it is through the presence of the Spirit that believers are united with the Son, and (in turn), through the Son, also with the Father. For the Johannine author(s), as well as for Paul, to be “in Christ” is to be “in the Spirit” (and vice versa). The language of union/unity that pervades chapter 17 (the Discourse-Prayer) of the Gospel also runs through much of First John, where the unifying role (and effect) of the Spirit’s abiding presence is more keenly emphasized (see esp. 3:24; 4:2ff, 13; 5:6ff).

The Pauline Explication of the Tradition in 1 Corinthians 15

In light of the above discussion, we may return briefly to Paul’s development and exposition of the exaltation-Christology in the resurrection-chapter (1 Cor 15). Focusing, in particular, on the climactic verses 44-46ff, we may note (again) Paul’s very distinctive contribution to this Christology. One might be inclined to ask how or in what way the exalted Christ received the Spirit from alongside the Father (Acts 2:33, cf. above). Paul seems to describe this in terms of the nature of the exaltation itself, by stating that the resurrected (i.e., exalted) Jesus became (vb gi/nomai) a “life-making Spirit” (v. 45). The verbal adjective (participle) would more comfortably be rendered “life-giving” in English, but the verb (zwopoie/w) properly means “make (a)live”. This is a fundamental characteristic and ability of God—to “make (persons/things) alive” —whether in the original creation, or in the resurrection (and new creation). For this use of zwopoie/w, see Jn 5:21, and also 6:63 where it is the Spirit that “makes alive”. So also, in Romans 4:17 Paul states that God “makes alive”, while in 8:11 this role is effectively performed by the Spirit. The Spirit is also the subject of the verb in 2 Cor 3:6 (on the contrast between the Spirit and the Law, cf. Gal 3:21) and, elsewhere, in 1 Peter 3:18.

Paul alone, among New Testament authors, goes so far as to declare that the exalted Jesus became this “life-making” (i.e., life-giving) Spirit. It would probably be off the mark to envision a transformation of Jesus into the Spirit. Rather, a better indication of what Paul has in mind would seem to be found in the maxim given earlier in 6:17: “Now, the (one) being joined [lit. glued] to the Lord is one Spirit (with him)”. In the immediate context of 6:17, this statement refers to the union of the believer with Christ (“the Lord”); however, it would also seem to apply to the relationship between the exalted Christ and God the Father (“the Lord”). If this line of interpretation is correct, then the phrase in 15:45 can be explained in terms of the union of the exalted Christ with God the Father. It is a spiritual union, a union in the Spirit, which involves a sharing of the same Spirit. This way of understanding the matter would help to explain and unite together several different Christological concepts, discussed above:

    • The exalted Christ possesses the Spirit, having ‘received’ it from his place “alongside” the Father (Acts 2:33, cp. Jn 1:14; 6:46; 8:38, 40, etc)
    • The exalted Christ is able personally to communicate the Spirit to believers
    • The “Spirit of Christ” and the “Spirit of God” can essentially be identified with each other, with both referring to the same Holy Spirit, the expressions themselves being interchangeable (cf. Rom 8:9; Acts 16:6-7)
    • The exalted Christ and God the Father can perform the same essential action; similarly, Christ and the Spirit can perform the same role.

In our next study (Study 11), we will turn again to the role of the Spirit in relation of the death of Jesus, considering the subject from the standpoint of the union of believers with Christ. In particular, we will focus on the idea that the power and effect of Christ’s death is communicated to believers through the Spirit. This is a thematic emphasis that is found in both the Pauline letters and the Johannine writings; we will begin with the letters of Paul.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 6)

Study 6: The Spirit and the Death of Jesus in the Gospels

As we focus now on the relation of the Spirit to the death of Jesus, it is interesting to note that there is not a single definite reference to the Spirit in the Passion narratives of the Gospels. The word pneu=ma (“spirit”) occurs in Mk 14:38 / Matt 26:41, but in reference to the ‘spirit’ (in the general sense of will, intention, etc) of the disciples. The only other occurrence of the pneu=ma is in the description of the moment of Jesus’ death, as represented by three different versions of the core Gospel Tradition—in the Matthean, Lukan, and Johannine Gospels, respectively.

There are two traditions connected with the moment of Jesus’ death which are particularly relevant: (1) the final words by Jesus, quoting the Psalms (Mk 15:34 par); and (2) the narrative description of his death (Mk 15:37 par). The presentation of these traditions, and the interpretation of them, by early Christians leads to significant theological and Christological questions which must be addressed. Some of these involve the role of the Spirit, and its relation to the death of Jesus.

1. Jesus’ final words in Mk 15:34 par (Ps 22:2[1])

If we begin with the overall portrait of Jesus’ Messianic ministry, preserved in the Gospel Tradition (and esp. the Synoptic Narrative), as discussed in the preceding studies, it is clear that: (a) the Spirit came upon Jesus at the beginning of his public ministry (the Baptism), and (b) it guiding and empowered him (esp. for the performance of healing/exorcism miracles) throughout the time of his ministry (esp. during the Galilean Period). The Lukan narrative particularly emphasizes the role of the Spirit, in this regard.

The implication is that the Spirit remained in/on Jesus throughout his ministry, presumably all the way up to the moment of his death. This is indicated only in the Gospel of John, in the Johannine version of the Baptism scene (vv. 32-33), narrated indirectly through the witness of John the Baptist:

(God speaking to John:)
“Upon whomever you should see the Spirit stepping [i.e., coming] down, and remaining [me/non] upon him…” (v. 33)
(John speaking:)
“I have looked at the Spirit stepping [i.e., coming] down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained [e&meinen] upon him” (v. 32)

The verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) has special theological (and Christological) significance in the Johannine writings. Even so, its use here in the Baptism narrative could reflect a basic early Christian understanding of the relation of the Spirit to the (Messianic) ministry of Jesus—viz., that the Spirit remained with him throughout.

But what happened at the moment of Jesus’ death? Did the Spirit continue to remain with him, or did it depart from him? The latter must be considered a real possibility, given the (Synoptic) tradition recorded in Mark 15:34 (par Matt 27:46). In the Synoptic narrative, the quotation by Jesus of Psalm 22:2[1] represents his only words on the cross, and come just before the moment of his death (Mk 15:37 par). Though differing slightly in detail, Mark and Matthew agree in presenting Jesus’ words as a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic (or mixed Hebrew-Aramaic) quotation, followed by an explanatory translation in Greek.

The initial couplet of the Psalm in Hebrew may be translated as follows:

“My Mighty (One), my Mighty (One), for what [i.e. why] have you left me,
(be)ing far removed from my (cry for) help, (the) words of my groaning?”

This establishes the Psalm as a lament, in which the protagonist cries to God in the midst of his suffering. It is an example of synthetic parallelism, with the second line building upon the first. The verb bz~u* (“leave, [set] loose, abandon”) in line 1 is picked up by qojr* in line 2, which I parse as a verbal noun (from qj^r*, “be far [removed], distant”). Not only does the Psalmist feel that God has left him, but He has gone far away. The parallel suffixed nouns yt!u*Wvy+ (“my [cry for] help”) and yt!g`a&v^ (“my groaning”) in the second line further add to the intensity of the scene. The root ga^v* more properly denotes roaring—i.e., a roaring cry of suffering and distress.
For more detail on the Psalm, and the early Christian use of it, see my earlier article in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms, and also the article in the series “The Old Testament and the Gospel Tradition”.

The first line is the portion quoted by Jesus:

My Mighty (One), my Mighty (One), for what [i.e. why] have you left me…?
yn]T*b=z~u& hm*l* yl!a@ yl!a@
°E~lî, °E~lî, l¹mâ ±¦za»t¹nî…;

The Greek translation in Mark and Matthew is somewhat simpler than that of the LXX; but, in all three citations, the verb e)gkatalei/pw is used to render the Hebrew bz~u*. This compound Greek verb is more precise than the corresponding Hebrew. It means “leave behind in (a certain place or condition)”, and thus fittingly emphasizes the condition of Jesus at the moment of his death—left to die an agonizing and humiliating death on the cross, alone and in darkness.

The protagonist of the Psalm certainly feels as though God has abandoned him, and does not hesitate to express this. Such tone and language is altogether typical of the lament-Psalms, and should not be taken to mean that the protagonist has lost all hope, or that he/she no longer trusts in YHWH. Indeed, in such Psalms, feelings of trust and despair regularly go together, as characteristic of the suffering experienced by the righteous. Jesus’ quotation applies the lament of the Psalm in a similar manner. It is a most vivid and strikingly dramatic moment in the Passion narrative, as Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, reaches the culmination of his identification with the human condition (“son of man”), in all of its weakness, mortality, and suffering.

But, is it possible that God did truly abandon Jesus at the moment of his death? Did the Spirit, which has remained with Jesus since his Baptism (cf. above), depart from him? Some early Christians (in the 1st-2nd century) seem to have understood the tradition of Mk 15:34 par in this way. For example, in the extra-canonical Gospel of Peter (§19), Jesus’ words are presented as follows:

“My power, (my) power, you have left me behind!”
h( du/nami/$ mou, h( du/nami$, kate/leiya/$ me.

It is possible that the expression h( du/nami$ mou (“my power”) is the product of an extremely literal rendering of Hebrew yl!a@ (“My Mighty [One]”, i.e., “My God”); cf. my translation of Ps 22:2[1] above. Along these lines, one should note the Greek version of Aquila, which uses i)sxure/ (voc. “O strong [one]”). In commenting on this translation, Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstration of the Gospel 10.8.30) actually recommends adapting i)sxure/ mou (“O my strong [one]”) to i)sxu/$ mou (“[O] my strength”), which is quite close to what we find in the Gospel of Peter. Cf. Brown, p. 1058.

However, if we take the words of Jesus in Gos Pet 19 at face value, it suggests that his power—that is, his Divine power (i.e., the Spirit) by which he was empowered to fulfill his Messianic ministry—has left him at the moment of his death. Some scholars have, at least in the past, interpreted this detail in the Gospel of Peter as evidence for a separationist Christology, such as is attributed to Cerinthus (cf. Irenaeus, Against All Heresies 1.26.1) and other so-called Gnostics. According to such Christologies, the Divine Christ and the man Jesus were separate entities, who were joined together (at the Baptism), and then who separated at the moment of death. The Divine Christ (i.e., the Spirit) came down upon Jesus, abiding in/on him, just as in the common Baptism tradition.

It is equally possible to approach the matter from an entirely orthodox Christological standpoint, but according to a kenosis-theology (cf. the Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:6-11). When the pre-existent Son of God ’emptied’ himself (vb keno/w), and became a human being, it was necessary for the Spirit to come upon him and remain with him throughout the time of his human life and ministry. At the moment of his death, with the mission having been accomplished (cf. below on John 19:30), the Spirit could depart again, back to heaven. With the resurrection, the Son himself would return back to his Divine/heavenly position.

This is a reasonable line of interpretation, which is generally in accord with both the Pauline (cf. Phil 2:6-11) and Johannine Gospel portrait (cf. further below). But, is it also possible that the Spirit did not depart from Jesus at his death, and instead remained with him, all through the death, burial and resurrection? Is there any evidence in the New Testament Scriptures for such a view? The best example I can find is the use of Psalm 16:8-10 in the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter (2:25-28ff). The language of verse 10 [LXX], in 2:27 (and 31), is significant, since the same verb (e)gkatalei/pw) is used as in Mk 15:34 par:

    • “…for what (reason) did you leave me behind in (this place)?”
    • “you will not leave behind my soul in (the) unseen realm (of the dead)…” (2:27)
      “and he was not left behind in (the) unseen realm…” (2:31)

The simplest explanation of this use of Ps 16:10 is that God did not leave Jesus to lie dead and buried, but instead raised him from the dead. However, it could also be taken to imply that the Spirit of God remained present with Jesus, even in the grave.

2. The moment of Jesus’ Death in Mk 15:37 par

The Markan Gospel, as representative of the Synoptic Tradition, narrates the death of Jesus with the utmost brevity:

“But Yeshua, (hav)ing let go a great voice, breathed out [e)ce/pneusen] (his last).” (Mk 15:37)

The verb e)kpne/w (“breathe out”, i.e., “expire”) is related to the noun pneu=ma (“breath, spirit”), by way of the root verb pne/w (“blow, breathe”). Matthew’s version is noteworthy in this regard:

“But Yeshua, again (hav)ing cried out with a great voice, let go the (last) breath [pneu=ma].” (27:50)

The Matthean wording is cleaner and clearer than Mark’s. The changes in detail are small but significant. Notably, the verb afi/hmi (“send away”, often in the sense of “let go, release”) is retained, but connected with the last ‘breath’ of Jesus as its object, rather than the ‘great cry’ he utters just before. This allows the wording to be read as an allusion to a sending/release of the Spirit by Jesus (cf. below on John 19:30).

In Luke’s version (23:46), the quotation from Psalm 22:2[1] is omitted, being replaced (as Jesus’ last words) with a different quotation from the Psalms (31:6[5]). The Hebrew may be rendered as follows:

“In(to) your hand I shall give over my spirit—
(may) you (so) ransom me, YHWH Mighty (One)!”
[cf. the discussion in my earlier study on the Psalm]

It would be hard to imagine a greater contrast to the sense of lament and despair of Ps 22:2[1] (cf. above); here the protagonist expresses complete trust that YHWH will protect and save (“ransom”) his life (i.e. “spirit”). The Greek quotation (by Jesus) in Luke generally follows the LXX, the slight differences reflecting adaptation to the Lukan context, and the specific identification of Jesus as the Son of God:

“Father, into your hands I set along my spirit”

The use of the word pneu=ma corresponds to the Hebrew j^Wr. Instead of a simple reference to the ‘last breath’ of Jesus, it refers to his entire life and person. The Son (Jesus) entrusts his life to the Father, knowing that God will protect and care for him, and will not allow him to perish in the grave (cf. above on Ps 16:10/Acts 2:27ff).

The Lukan narrative has effectively eliminated the detail from Mk 15:35-36 par, joining together as a single and concise narrative event: (a) Jesus’ great cry, (b) his final words to God (quoting the Psalms), and (c) the moment of death. Following the quotation from Psalm 31:6[5], we read:

“And, (hav)ing said this, he breathed out (his last).”

Luke retains the Markan use of the verb e)kpneu/w (see above).

In the Johannine version (19:30), we find a different manner (and level) of interpretive development. Instead of a quotation from the Psalm (and far from the cry of despair of Mk 15:34 par), with his last dying word, Jesus simply announces the completion of his mission: “It has been completed” (tete/lestai), cf. verse 28. Then the moment of death is narrated as follows:

“And (then), (hav)ing bent the head, he gave along the spirit.” (v. 30)

The Johannine version shares with Matthew the use of the noun pneu=ma, along with the specific idea of Jesus giving/setting forth the spirit; meanwhile, with Luke there is a similarity in the verb used: paradi/dwmi (“give along”), compared with Luke’s parati/qhmi (“set/place along”). Most significant, however, is the likelihood that the Johannine author, through a bit of wordplay, is alluding to the giving of the Spirit by Jesus to his disciples/believers (cf. 20:22).
It is quite possible that there is a similar allusion to the giving of the Spirit in 19:34.

Conclusion

These instances from the Passion narrative (Mk 15:34, 37 par) provide fascinating and instructive examples as to how details from the Gospel Tradition can take on deeper Christological significance, coming to be interpreted in new and different ways—but without ever entirely separating from the established historical tradition. The ‘cry of dereliction’ by Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:2[1]) resulted in the raising of certain Christological questions and issues, regarding (i) the relation of the Son (Jesus) to the Father, (ii) the relation of the Spirit to Jesus at the time of his death, and (iii) what happened between the moment of his death and his resurrection.

With regard to the narrative description of Jesus’ death, a simple reference to the expiration of Jesus (i.e., breathing his last “breath”), based on the root verb pne/w (and its relation to the noun pneu=ma), allowed early Christians to use this detail as an anticipatory (foreshadowing) allusion to the giving of the Spirit by Jesus (to believers). Such an interpretive development would seem to be clearly present in the Johannine version, but it can perhaps also be glimpsed (in a seminal form) in Matthew’s version.

The general lack of reference to the Spirit in the Passion narratives remains curious, given the importance of the Spirit to the Gospel Tradition as a whole (cf. the discussion in the previous studies), and the vital connection of the Spirit to both the death and resurrection of Jesus in the wider Christian Tradition (points to be discussed in greater detail).

In our next study, we will turn to the resurrection of Jesus, and will be to examine how early Christians understood the connection of the resurrection to the Spirit, in two main respects: (1) the role of the Spirit in raising Jesus from the dead, and (2) the access of the exalted Jesus (following the resurrection) to the Spirit, which entails his ability to give the Spirit to others (believers), thus fulfilling the Messianic baptism-prophecy of Mark 1:8 par.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 Vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1994)

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 5)

Study 5: The Spirit in the Gospel of JOhn

When we turn to the Gospel of John, we come across a rather different portrait of the Spirit in relation to the ministry of Jesus. As we saw in the previous study, as well as in the earlier three studies (1, 2, 3), the Synoptic Gospels emphasized the Messianic identity of Jesus. The Spirit, having come down upon Jesus at his Baptism, was a clear sign identifying him as the Messiah (cf. Isa 42:1-3, 61:1ff, and also 11:2ff). The Spirit’s presence, in and upon Jesus, subsequently served to guide and empower him throughout his entire ministry, enabling him to fulfill his role as the Messiah. During the Galilean Period of ministry, it is particularly his identity as the Messianic Prophet—according to the figure-types of Moses, Elijah, and the Servant of Isa 42:1ff/61:1ff—that is in view.

The two main aspects of Jesus’ Messianic ministry—proclaiming the good news (of God’s Kingdom) and performing healing/exorcism miracles—are presented as being the result of his ‘anointing’ and empowerment by the Spirit. This is most clear in the Gospel of Luke, but is implicit throughout the Synoptic narrative; the Synoptic tradition in Mark 3:28-29 par, along with the “Q” sayings in Matt 12:28 and 32 (pars), in the context of the ‘Beelzebul episode’, also makes the association explicit (cf. the citation of Isa 42:1-3 in Matt 12:17-21). Along with these references, there are a number of statements by Jesus promising the coming of the Spirit upon his disciples, allowing them to continue his Messianic ministry (cf. Mk 13:11 par; Luke 11:13; 12:12 par; cf. also Lk 24:49).

By contrast, in the Gospel of John, the relation of the Spirit to the Messianic identity of Jesus is not particularly emphasized, except for the initial episodes in the first chapter (vv. 19-51), around the central event of Jesus’ Baptism (vv. 29-34). In this regard, the Johannine narrative follows the wider Gospel Tradition, and corresponds generally with the Synoptic narrative. Indeed, the Gospel of John expounds and develops the Tradition in a number of important ways, which serve primarily to emphasize the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. Within the core Synoptic Tradition, this contrast is presented by John the Baptist’s sayings in Mk 1:7-8 par, whereby Baptist’s Messianic identity is subordinated to that of Jesus’. The Johannine Gospel develops this contrast through two main approaches: (1) a distinctive literary framework (in 1:19-51), and (2) a theological and thematic orientation covering chapters 1-3 as a whole.

1. The Messianic Identity of Jesus in 1:19-51

The elements of the Gospel Tradition are presented within a particular literary framework, that narrates the events at the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, according to a sequence of four ‘days’ (cf. the repeated notice in vv. 29, 35, 42, “On the morrow…”). The Prologue (vv. 1-18) prepares for this Johannine presentation by establishing the role of John the Baptist (in relation to Jesus) already in vv. 6-8, 15. John the Baptist is not the Messiah, much less the Son of God (esp. in the Johannine sense); instead, he is identified as a Divinely-appointed witness (marturi/a, vb marture/w) to the true Messiah (and Son of God). It is Jesus who is properly identified as both the Messiah and the (incarnate) Son of God.

In the first episode (vv. 19-28), John the Baptist’s ministry is described, indirectly (see v. 28), and entirely in terms of his role as witness to Jesus. He explicitly denies being any of the three major Messianic figures— “Elijah”, “the Prophet” (i.e., Moses), and “the Anointed One” (presumably the royal/Davidic Messiah). This implies that another (Jesus) will fulfill all of these figure-types. A Johannine version of the saying(s) corresponding to Mk 1:7-8 par provides a climax to the episode (vv. 26-27), though the Baptism-declaration of Mk 1:8 par is not completed until a later point in the narrative (v. 33).

In the second episode (vv. 29-34, the second ‘day’), the Baptism of Jesus is described, but only as an indirect narration, made by the Baptist in his role as witness. I have already mentioned three details or aspects of this narration which touch upon the distinctive Johannine theology (and Christology):

    • The use of the verb katabai/nw (“step [i.e., come] down”) for the description of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus (vv. 32-33); in the Johannine Gospel, this verb (along with the related a)nabai/nw, “step up”) has special Christological significance, identifying Jesus as the incarnate Son of God.
    • The Spirit which comes down upon Jesus is said to remain on him (vv. 32-33); the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is a vital Johannine keyword, used in reference to the abiding union of God the Father and (Jesus the) Son, as well as that of the believer with both Son and Father.
    • John the Baptist serves as God’s own witness, essentially taking the place of the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par) in declaring Jesus’ identity as the “Son of God” (v. 34). In the Johannine Gospel, this Divine Sonship goes beyond the Messianic sense it carried in the original Tradition (cf. the variant reading in v. 34, “the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “chosen [one]”, o( e)klekto/$); Jesus is not merely the Messiah, he is also the pre-existent Son (and Word) of God, as indicated in the Prologue.

This Johannine theological development of the Tradition is also summarized by the saying of John the Baptist in verse 30 (also v. 15), the content and message of a traditional saying by the Baptist (v. 27, Mk 1:7 par) that has been cast in Johannine theological language.

There is a gradual and progressive shift in the literary presentation and development for the final two ‘days’ (vv. 35-41, 42-50f), as the disciples of John the Baptist become disciples of Jesus, and the disciples also gradually take over the Baptist’s role as witness to the Messianic identity of Jesus. There are subtle details in these episodes (as in vv. 29-34, cf. above) which allude to the deeper (Johannine) understanding of who Jesus is. One such detail is the further use of the verb me/nw (in vv. 38-39), foreshadowing the abiding union of believers with the Son (and also with the Father) through the presence of the Spirit.

2. The Thematic Orientation of Chapters 1-3.

The Baptist-references in the Prologue (vv. 6-8, 15, cf. above), are matched by the final testimony of the Baptist at the conclusion of chapter 3 (vv. 27-30[ff]). Thus, chapters 1-3 form a thematic literary unit that intersects with the broader narrative of Jesus’ public ministry (chaps. 2-12). The principal theme throughout chaps. 1-3 is the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. However, in chapter 3, the aspect of this theme being emphasized is the contrast between the baptism (in water) performed by John and that baptism (in the Spirit) performed by Jesus. This thematic emphasis relates back to the tradition in Mk 1:8 par (see here, 1:26-27, 30-33), but is given deeper and more profound theological interpretation in chapter 3—both within the Nicodemus Discourse of vv. 1-21, and in the concluding Discourse-unit of vv. 31-36. As it happens, both of these sections make particular mention of the Spirit.

In the initial exposition by Jesus (vv. 5-8), the contrast between water and the Spirit is framed in terms of the central saying of v. 3, and the idea of a person’s birth. This birth-motif relates naturally enough to the baptism ritual; the emphasis on renewal and the symbolism of emerging from the water both are suggestive of the imagery of birth. But, just as baptism in water is superseded by baptism in the Spirit, so a person’s birth out of water is superseded by his/her birth out of the Spirit. Some commentators would hold that water and Spirit are not being contrasted in verse 5, but I disagree entirely. The whole thrust of the exposition in vv. 5-8 is contrastive (though comparative), and, moreover, the water/Spirit juxtaposition in v. 5 matches the flesh/Spirit contrast in v. 6. According to this line of interpretation, to be born “out of water” is another way of referring to a natural human birth “out of flesh”.

Though it must be inferred within vv. 5-8, it is clear from the remainder of the Discourse (vv. 9-21) that a person’s birth “out of the Spirit” comes as a result of trusting in Jesus—that is, in his identity as the incarnate Son of God, who was sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. This deeper theological (and Christological) understanding of Jesus’ Sonship also represents an important exposition of the tradition regarding Jesus’ Messianic proclamation of the Kingdom (Mk 1:14-15 par, etc). One can neither see (i.e., recognize) nor enter into this Kingdom unless a person comes to be born “from above” (v. 3), which means being born “from the Spirit” (vv. 5-8).

From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, this experience of the Kingdom of God may be explained by the keyword zwh/ (“life”)—that is, the “life of the Age(s)” (zwh/ ai)w/nio$), or eternal life (vv. 15-16ff), which is characteristic of God Himself, and which He Himself bestows. Trust in Jesus leads the believer to experience this Life, and thus to enter into the Kingdom of God. This is certainly the message of the concluding section of the Discourse (vv. 15-16ff), but it also marks the conclusion of chapter 3 (and chaps. 1-3) as a whole, in verse 36.

The concluding Discourse-unit of vv. 31-36, which could be taken as a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony (vv. 27-30), represents the first main portion of the Gospel (apart from the Prologue) in which the relationship of the Divine Son to the Father is described in some detail. This will become a fundamental component of the Gospel narrative, and is at the core of the Johannine Christology.

A key theme in this regard is the idea that the Father gives to the Son, and that the Son, in turn, gives to believers (who are, in their own way, the offspring [children] of God). In this sense, the Son is the ultimate witness—one far superior to John the Baptist himself—who makes the Father known, and who communicates to others (believers) what he has received from the Father. This Johannine theme is introduced here in vv. 31-36 (esp. 32-35). The Father gives “all things” to the Son (v. 35), but the first and foremost of these is the Spirit (v. 34). The Father gives the Spirit to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives the Spirit to believers. This dynamic is symbolized by the Baptism (and the baptism-saying): the Spirit is given by the Father, and comes down upon the Son (Jesus), while Jesus, in turn, will ‘baptize’ believers with the same Spirit.

3. Spirit references in the remainder of the Gospel

The remaining references to the Spirit in the Gospel of John may be isolated and grouped as follows:

    • The statements by Jesus in 4:23-24 (Samaritan Woman, or Living Water Discourse), in connection with the author’s notice in 7:39
    • The climactic saying by Jesus in 6:63 (Bread of Life Discourse)
    • The Paraclete-sayings by Jesus (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-13) in the Last (Farewell) Discourse
    • The likely allusion in 19:30 (and v. 34), at the death of Jesus
    • The giving of the Spirit to believers by Jesus (after the resurrection) in 20:22

Common to all of these references are two fundamental points:

    1. Jesus gives the Spirit to believers. Though God the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit (cf. 3:34-35; 4:24; 6:57), it is the Son (Jesus) who is its source for believers.
    2. The Spirit is given to believers following, and as a result/consequence of, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Spirit-references in 4:23-24 and 6:63 are related, contextually, by their position in the Living Water (chap. 4) and Bread of Life (chap. 6) Discourses, respectively. The imagery is clearly similar (and comparable): the Son gives “living water” (4:10-15), and, similarly, “living bread” (6:35, 51, etc), to those who trust in him. With regard to the “living water”, the context of the Spirit-references in vv. 23-24, as well as the use of the water/baptism motif in 3:5-8 (and 1:30-33), cf. above, makes rather clear that this “water” is the Spirit (a point the Gospel writer explicitly makes in 7:39 [cf. verses 37-38]). As for the “living bread”, this is identified with the person of the incarnate Son (Jesus) himself; however, this “bread” is communicated to believers (and is eaten by them) through the Spirit, as indicated by the climactic saying in v. 63. This will be discussed further in an upcoming study.

It is interesting to consider the subtle ways that these Spirit-references, in their literary and narrative contexts, continue the Johannine theological development of the Gospel Tradition—specifically with regard to the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, and to the Messianic ministry performed by him (cf. sections 1. and 2. above). Note, for example, how the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity plays an important role in both the Living Water and Bread of Life Discourses. In the former, the question comes at the conclusion of the main Discourse (vv. 25-30), immediately following the Spirit-references of vv. 23-24, and preceding the discussion by Jesus with his disciples (vv. 31-38) foreshadowing his message in the Bread of Life Discourse. In that latter Discourse, the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity (vv. 13-14f) precedes the Discourse (vv. 25-59), linking it to the Miraculous Feeding episode (vv. 1-12) and the obvious symbolism (of bread/eating) common to both.

In the Farewell Discourse, the promise of the Spirit/Paraclete relates to the mission of the disciples (believers), in the sense that they will be continuing the Son’s own mission. This follows the Gospel traditions noted in Study 4—the sayings promising the coming of the Spirit, but also the tradition(s) regarding the initial mission(s) of the disciples which took place during Jesus’ lifetime (Mk 6:7-13 par; Lk 10:1-12). In those passages, it is clear that the disciples are continuing Jesus’ Messianic ministry (proclaiming the good news, performing healing miracles), empowered by the Spirit, even though there is no specific mention at that point in the narrative of their having received the Spirit.

Finally, the references in connection with the death (19:30, 34) and resurrection (20:22) of Jesus are implicitly connected to the fundamental Gospel tradition that associates his death with his identity as the Messiah. In the Synoptic Tradition, the Jerusalem period, beginning with the Triumphal Entry (Mark 11 par), emphasizes Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah—and it is this particular Messianic figure-type that features in the Passion narrative, in both the interrogation and crucifixion scenes (Mk 14:61ff; 15:1-2ff, 9ff, 17-20, 26, 32, 39 pars). The Johannine Gospel retains this basic line of tradition (18:33, 39; 19:2-5ff, 12-15, 19-22), but develops it theologically, mainly through the Discourse-dialogue of Pilate and Jesus (18:33-38; 19:9-11, cf. my recent study on these passages). This also occurs by way of certain details and nuances of emphasis in the narrative, such as in 19:30, 34 (to be discussed further in our next study).

Indeed, in Study 6 (timed for Saturday of Holy Week), we will examine the Gospel tradition regarding the moment of Jesus’ death—the release of his “spirit”. This will be done according to three lines of inquiry:

    • The core Gospel tradition as narrated in the Synoptics
    • The Johannine theological development of this tradition, with allusions to the giving of the Spirit to believers, and
    • The theological question regarding what happened to the Spirit of God at the time of Jesus’ death: did it ‘depart’ from him, or did it remain with him through death, burial and resurrection?

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 4)

Study 4: The Spirit in the Ministry of Jesus

In our studies on the Holy Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have begun with the ministry of Jesus. This approach allows us to see how the Spirit-references during the period of Jesus’ ministry relate to the climactic moment of his death/resurrection. Our starting point for this examination was the Baptism tradition, since, in the Gospel narratives (both the Synoptics and John), the Baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of his public ministry.

In the studies thus far (1, 2, 3), we have looked closely at the role of the Spirit in the Baptism episode (Mark 1:8-11 par), noting that the primary significance of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus is Messianic. The presence of the Spirit (v. 10), along with the declaration of the Divine voice from heaven (v. 11), establishes Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God, according to both the Prophetic and Royal/Davidic Messianic figure-types. The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus relates especially to the Prophetic figure-types, drawing upon the Isaian prophecies in 11:2ff, 42:1ff, and 61:1ff, but there are also important associations with the Royal/Davidic figure type, as we have discussed. The Divine voice from heaven seems to be quoting from both Isa 42:1 and Psalm 2:7.

During the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, however, it is his identity as the Messianic Prophet that is foremost in view. This is particularly so in the Synoptic Narrative, which is essentially divided into two halves: (i) the Galilean period, and (ii) the Jerusalem period. In the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to the figure-types of Moses, Elijah, and the Prophet/Servant of Isa 42:1ff, 61:1ff, etc. His identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah is reserved for the Jerusalem Period; only Matthew’s narrative deviates slightly from the distinctive structure, while the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives, which emphasize Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, represent additions to the core Synoptic Tradition.

In the previous study (Study 3), we saw how the Lukan Gospel significantly developed these thematic associations, clearly interpreting the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his Baptism) as a fulfillment of Isa 61:1ff (treated as a Messianic prophecy); cf. Luke 4:16-30. In this regard, the Lukan author brings out the role of the Spirit in a way that is only implied in the broader Synoptic Tradition—the Spirit guides and empowers Jesus in fulfilling his role as the Messiah. We examined how the Lukan additions to the tradition (Mk 1:12-13ff) in 4:1ff, 14ff, along with the positioning of the Nazareth episode (in which the Isa 61:1ff features) at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (cp. Mk 6:1-6a par), give special emphasis to Jesus’ Messianic identity as the Chosen One of God who is Anointed by the Spirit.

The Matthean Gospel does much the same thing, with the quotation of Isa 42:1-3, occurring at a comparable point partway through the Galilean Period narrative. This is especially significant because the Synoptic tradition that the quotation prefaces (12:17-21) is the ‘Beelzebul Episode’, which represents a key reference-point for the role of the Spirit in Jesus’ Messianic ministry.

As previously noted, there are actually quite few—surprisingly few—direct references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, apart from the introductory context of the Baptism scene (and, subsequently, the prefacing Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke). The remaining Spirit-references can be grouped conveniently into two categories:

    1. Sayings of Jesus in connection with the ‘Beelzebul Episode’ and
    2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

Let us briefly examine each of these, in turn.

1. Spirit-references in the ‘Beelzebul Episode’

This episode is a key component of the Synoptic Tradition, being found in all three Synoptic Gospels. The Markan Gospel positions this episode relatively close to the beginning of the Galilean Period, following the initial accounts of healing miracles in 1:21-2:12 and the Sabbath controversy episodes in 2:18-3:6. Interspersed within these narratives is an account of the establishment of the core group of Jesus’ disciples (1:16-20, 29ff; 2:13-14ff; 3:13-19). Thus, the ‘Beelzebul episode’ (3:22-30) comes at a key (and climactic) point of the narrative, following an initial period of ministry-work by Jesus. People now are starting to react to the distinctive (Messianic) character of his ministry, and opposition to him begins to build.

The episode itself consists of a narrative introduction (vv. 22-23a), followed by a series of traditions: (a) the short parable-illustration(s) by Jesus in vv. 24-27, and (b) the saying on the “insult against the Holy Spirit” in vv. 28-29 (with an explanatory comment by the author in v. 30). The entire episode is framed by a further pair of traditions reflecting Jesus’ relationship with family relations and neighbors (vv. 20-21 and 31-35), establishing an important contrast between Jesus’ natural earthly family and his true (spiritual) family (i.e., his disciples/believers).

Underlying and running through all of these traditional elements is the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity—how it is manifested in his ministry (esp. the healing/exorcism miracles), and how people respond to it (i.e., whether [or not] they recognize him as the Spirit-empowered Messiah of God). And, indeed, it is the Spirit-empowered aspect of his ministry that is particularly being emphasized in the Beelzebul episode. The Jewish (religious) authorities and experts have been reacting in an increasingly negative and hostile way toward Jesus (and esp. to his healing miracles), and here, at the beginning of the episode, some of them openly attribute his miracle-working power to evil spirits or daimons (i.e., ‘demons’), rather than to the Spirit of God (v. 22). Both of the traditions that follow address this false attribution, as Jesus effectively makes the point that his miracles are not (and cannot be) brought about by the power of Satan (and the other evil spirits under his control). The Satan is here designated as “the chief (ruler) [a&rxwn] of the daimons”, and is identified by a traditional (and euphemistic) association with the ancient Canaanite deity Haddu/Hadad (i.e., ‘Baal’, called by the title ba±al-z§»ûl, “exalted lord”, or “lord of [the] exalted [place]”.

In the second tradition, the saying of vv. 28-29, Jesus implicitly states that his healing/exorcism miracles are done through the power of God’s holy Spirit. By attributing his miracles to evil/demonic spirits, rather than God’s own Spirit, Jesus’ opponents are committing a grave insult (blasfhmi/a, vb blasfhme/w) against the Spirit of God. The saying in vv. 28-29 warns people against this in the strongest possible terms, pointing out that, of all the “insults” and other sins that human beings (“sons of men”) might commit, such an “insult to the holy Spirit” will not (ever) be forgiven by God.

The Matthean and Lukan Gospels each include this episode, adapting and expanding it in various ways. Their expanded version includes so-called “Q” material (i.e., sayings and traditions present in both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark). Let us first consider the Lukan version (11:14-23). The most notable difference is the setting: Luke has placed the episode entirely out of the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, including it instead as part of the lengthy Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-18:14ff; cp. Mark chap. 10). The Lukan author includes many different traditions—sayings, parables, and narrative episodes—in this central division, during which Jesus is presented as giving extensive teaching to his disciples, in preparation for what will take place in Jerusalem (viz., his suffering, death, and resurrection).

The material in chapters 11 and 12 has, as one of its key themes, the contrast between true and false disciples. This is presented in the context of controversies between Jesus and the hostile religious authorities (material that otherwise belongs properly to the Galilean period), as well as eschatological sayings by Jesus, warning of the coming distress (during which the disciples will experience suffering and persecution) and the end-time Judgment. These thematic points of emphasis make chapter 11 a suitable location for the Beelzebul episode, but it is also worth noting the immediate context of 11:1-13 (teaching on Prayer), with its climactic reference to the promise of the Spirit (v. 13, cf. also verse 2 [v.l.], and the earlier reference in 10:21). This particular Spirit-reference will be discussed briefly in section 2. below.

This Lukan version of the episode (like the Matthean) would seem to be derived primarily from a separate “Q” version, parallel to the Synoptic/Markan version. Matthew has blended the two versions together (cf. below), but this is less evident in Luke. The Lukan author has also given a distinctive shape to the “Q” content (vv. 15, 17, 18ab, 19-20, [21-22?], 23) with his own additions or other source material (vv. 14, 16, 18c, [21-22]); cf. Fitzmyer, p. 918. Most notable is the saying in verse 20, in which Jesus explicitly identifies God as the source of his healing power:

“But if (it is) by the finger of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then (surely) the kingdom of God has now come upon you!”

Interestingly this Lukan/Q version of the episode does not include the saying regarding the “insult to the holy Spirit” (Mk 3:28-29f, cf. above); there is a corresponding “Q” version of this saying which Luke includes a bit further on in the narrative (12:10), in the context of other “Son of Man” references (11:30; 12:8-9, 40), as well as the Spirit reference of v. 11 (cf. below).

This brings us to the Matthean version of the episode, which generally retains the Synoptic/Markan context, and portions of that parallel version, though presenting it around the mid-point of the Galilean Period. As noted above, it is immediately preceded by the quotation of Isa 42:1-3 (12:17ff), designating the healing/exorcism miracles of Jesus as a specific sign of his Messianic identity—viz., the Anointed Servant of God, upon whom the Spirit has come. Thus it is appropriate that the Spirit is given greater prominence in the Matthean version of the episode.

This can be seen, first, by the version of the “Q” saying corresponding to Lk 12:10 (cf. above), which has the expression “Spirit of God” instead of “finger of God”. Most likely, Luke contains the more original form of the “Q” saying; Matthew has presumably explained the idiom “finger of God” as a reference to God’s Spirit (in light of the context of Isa 42:1ff). In Scriptural tradition, miracles and wonders performed by God (YHWH) are usually referenced in terms of His “arm” or “hand”, but occasionally “finger” is also used (Exod 8:15[19]; cf. also Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10; Ps 8:4). In any case, it is made clear that Jesus’ miracles are the result of God’s Spirit at work in and upon him. This was already implied by Luke’s use of Isa 61:1ff (4:18-19ff [cf. vv. 1ff, 14]), in the context of the references to the miracles of Elijah/Elisha (vv. 25-27). Similarly, Isa 61:1ff is alluded to in 7:22, part of a “Q” pericope (7:18-35, par Matt 11:2-19) which confirms Jesus’ Messianic identity, his miracles being those performed by the Servant/Prophet who has been specially ‘Anointed’ by God’s Spirit.

Matthew includes the Synoptic saying (in a simpler form) regarding the “insult to the Spirit” (v. 31, Mk 3:28-29), but has joined to it the “Q” version (v. 32, Lk 12:10 [cf. above]) which is formulated as a “Son of Man” saying:

“whoever should say a word against the son of man, it will be put away [i.e., forgiven] for him; but whoever should say a word against the holy Spirit, it will not be put away [i.e. forgiven] for him—neither in this Age, nor in the (Age) coming!”

This “Q” version of the saying has proven somewhat difficult for commentators and theologians. Why should an insult, etc, against Christ (“the Son of Man”) be forgiven, while the same against the Holy Spirit will not be? I have discussed the matter at length in earlier studies, including (most recently) in an article as part of a series on the “Son of Man” sayings (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). I believe that the distinction being made is between an ad hominem attack on Jesus the man (“son of man”) and an attack on the Divine Spirit that is present within him and which empowers him. This is certainly the context of the Beelzebul episode, which the Markan author makes clear in the closing comment of 3:30. Such an attack on God’s Spirit is fundamentally blasphemous, but, in the case of Jesus Christ, it also indicates an effective denial of his identity as the Spirit-endued Messiah of God.

2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

In the Markan Gospel, there is really only one other reference to the Spirit. It occurs within the Eschatological Discourse of chapter 13. In Jesus’ description of the coming (end-time) period of distress (qli/yi$, v. 19), he includes a section (vv. 9-13) dealing with how this distress will affect his disciples (i.e., believers). He foretells that many of his disciples will be arrested and brought to trial; at such time, when the disciples will have the opportunity to speak in their defense, as as a witness to the Gospel of Christ, it is indicated that they will speak under the prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit (v. 11). This is effectively a Synoptic reference to the promise of the Spirit, implying that the Spirit, after Jesus’ death and departure (i.e., resurrection/exaltation), will be given to believers.

Naturally enough, this theme is more prominent in the Gospel of Luke, where it specifically foreshadows the fulfillment of Jesus’ words narrated in the book of Acts—as the early believers repeatedly are portrayed as speaking under inspiration when interrogated or brought to trial. Luke essentially has two versions of the tradition we see in Mk 13:11. The first occurs in 12:11, immediately following the “Q” saying on the “insult to the Holy Spirit” (v. 10, cf. above). The sayings were likely joined together by way of thematic ‘catchword-bonding’, on the basis of the common Spirit-reference. Interestingly, at the corresponding place in the Eschatological Discourse (21:14-15), there is no direct reference to the Spirit; instead, Jesus indicates that he himself will give the disciples the words to speak: “…for I will give to you a mouth and wisdom” (v. 15).

There are interesting implications here for the relationship of Jesus to the Spirit in a post-resurrection context. Jesus could be seen as functioning in the role of the Spirit (or as the Spirit); alternately the emphasis may be on his giving the Spirit to the disciples (“I will give to you…”). This will be discussed further as we continue through our studies.

In Matthew’s Gospel, the saying corresponding with Luke 12:11 also occurs outside of the Eschatological Discourse (cf. Mk 13:11), and at an earlier point in the narrative (10:20). Indeed, much of what corresponds to Mk 13:9-11 has been transferred to this location, in an expanded form (vv. 17-22), presented as part of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples for the mission on which he sends them, during the time of his ministry (chap. 10; cf. Mark 6:7-13).

This association helps to explain the basic nature of the Spirit-reference, in spite of its varying narrative locations within the Tradition. The disciples’ mission, both during the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry and after his death and resurrection (i.e., the early Christian mission), is fundamentally characterized as a natural extension and continuation of Jesus’ own Spirit-empowered Messianic ministry. This is clearly implied in the core traditions of Mk 3:13-15 par and 6:7-13 par (cf. also Luke 10:1-12). The disciples are authorized (by Jesus) to perform the same works of ministry—(a) proclamation of the good news and (b) performing healing/exorcism miracles. They are clearly empowered to do so, presumably with the same power (of God’s Spirit) that is present in and upon Jesus. For the apostolic early Christian mission (especially as recorded in the Lukan book of Acts), there can be no doubt that believers are guided and empowered by the Spirit.

Thus, if we are to summarize the main references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, the following points can be made:

    • The Spirit is introduced in the Baptism scene, where it is depicted as coming upon Jesus, as a sign of his Messianic identity—specifically as the Anointed Servant of God prophesied by Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff (cf. also 11:2ff).
    • The Spirit guides and empowers Jesus throughout the time of his ministry, especially during the Galilean period where the focus is on his identity as the Messianic Prophet. In particular, the abiding presence of God’s Spirit is the source of his ability to work healing miracles (as in the manner of Elijah, but also the Servant/Prophet figure of Isa 61:1ff).
    • This same Spirit empowers the disciples of Jesus to perform the same works of ministry—preaching the Gospel and performing healing miracles—as a continuation of Jesus’ own inspired Messianic ministry. The Spirit will be given to the disciples (believers) by Jesus (cf. Lk 21:15), after his death and resurrection. It may be inferred that the same occurred during the initial mission described in Mk 6:7-13 par (cf. also Lk 10:1-12), even though there is no specific reference to the disciples receiving the Spirit on these occasions.

Thus, the main purpose and goal of the Spirit’s work is that of the early Christian mission, viewed as an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own (Messianic) ministry. It is the Lukan Gospel that brings out this thematic emphasis most clearly and fully, largely in anticipation of the mission narratives that follow in the corresponding book of Acts.

In some ways, the section on prayer in 11:1-13 is central to the Gospel narrative as a whole. It is noteworthy that this passage is essentially framed by references or allusions to the Spirit—first, in the petition for the coming of God’s Kingdom (v. 2), and second, by the climactic reference in verse 13, suggesting that the coming of the Spirit represents the ultimate goal and purpose of the disciples’ prayer. The Lukan Gospel understands God’s Kingdom (and its coming) primarily in terms of the early Christian mission—defined two-fold as: (a) the proclamation of the Gospel, and (b) the coming of the Spirit upon believers; cf. Acts 1:6-8. In this regard, the sub-singular variant reading (mss 162 700 and in two [or three] Church Fathers) attested for the Kingdom petition in the Lukan Lord’s Prayer (11:2) is quite appropriate, as we read (with some variation):

“May your holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us”

This, in turn, alludes back to the prophecy by John the Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel narrative, with its implicit promise (by way of foreshadowing) that Jesus the Messiah, after his death and resurrection, would “…dunk [i.e., baptize] you with the holy Spirit!” (Mk 1:8 par).

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the Gospel of John, looking at some key references to the Spirit, with specific attention being given to the uniquely Johannine theological adaptation of the Gospel Tradition. In so doing, we will begin focusing our attention more closely upon the relationship of the Spirit to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the main subject of these studies.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), Anchor Bible [AB], Vol. 28A (1985).

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 3)

Study 3: The Role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus

In our examination of the Holy Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, we are first considering the role of the Spirit in the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel accounts. In doing so, we have begun with the Baptism of Jesus, in which the Spirit features prominently. After our initial exploration (Study 1), we are now looking at the role of the Spirit in the Baptism, according to three topics:

    1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry
    2. The version of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John
    3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (in the Synoptic Gospels)

The first of these topics was discussed in the previous study (Study 2), while the final two are addressed here in Study 3.

2. The Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John follows the broader Gospel Tradition in the way it begins the narrative with a description of John’s ministry (1:19-28), relating to his Messianic identity, followed by an account of his baptism of Jesus (1:29-34). This, however, is done in such a way as to reflect both: (1) a distinctive Johannine line of tradition (in contrast to the Synoptic), and (2) specific interests and concerns of the Gospel writer (and his Community).

It is difficult to say for certain how much of the description of the Baptism in vv. 29-34 is distinctively Johannine. A better case can be made for the preceding episode (vv. 19-28), involving the testimony of John the Baptist with regard to his Messianic identity, as preserving a coherent piece of Johannine Tradition. However, in both episodes, the special theological (and Christological) concern of the author is clear—in that the purpose of the narrative is to bring out (and enhance) the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. This emphasis was already established in the Gospel Prologue (vv. 1-18), by the comparative references to the Baptist that punctuate the poetic/hymnic text at key points (vv. 6-8 and 15 [cf. 30]). Moreover, such a contrast serves as a thematic point of emphasis that structures the entirety of chapters 1-3.

At the same time, this very contrast is rooted in the early Gospel Tradition, and the authentic historical tradition, regarding the testimony of John the Baptist (and his baptizing ministry) in relation to the person of Jesus Christ (and his Messianic identity). We saw this quite clearly in the tradition of Mk 1:7-8 par, the two sayings by the Baptist that are joined together, and by the distinctive features of Jesus’ Baptism—(i) the descent of the Spirit, and (ii) and the declaration of Sonship by the Divine voice from heaven. All of these elements are included in the Johannine account, but are adapted to the distinctive literary and theological contours of the narrative.

John’s version of the sayings in Mk 1:7-8 par generally follows that of Matthew-Luke, in the way that the saying in v. 7 is contained (grammatically) within the context of v. 8:

“I dunk you in water; (but) in the midst of you has stood (one) whom you have not seen [i.e., known/recognized], the (one) coming in back of me…” (Jn 1:26-27)

The portion in gray is a Johannine ‘addition’, that is not included in the Synoptic version(s) of the tradition. It is essentially repeated by the Baptist in v. 31.

In the Johannine narrative, the saying(s) by the Baptist in vv. 26-27 are part of his response to questions regarding his Messianic identity (vv. 19ff), posed to him by a delegation from the authorities in Jerusalem (cp. the question regarding John’s identity in Luke 3:15). He explicitly denies being: (a) “the Anointed One”, (b) “Elijah”, and (c) “the Prophet”. The first of these designations (o( Xristo/$) probably refers to the Royal/Davidic Messiah; this seems to be how the Gospel writer understands it, even though a Messianic Prophet is more compatible with the character and ministry of the Baptist. The last two designations are certainly Prophet-figures: “Elijah” and “the Prophet”, which most likely is a reference to the “Prophet like Moses” who is to come (Deut 18:15-18). John explicitly denies being any of these Messianic figure-types, implying that they are to be fulfilled by another (Jesus); his denial of being “Elijah” is in marked contrast with other parts of the Gospel Tradition, preserved in the Synoptics (cf. the discussion in Study 1). In the remainder of the episodes in chapter 1—the three “days” of vv. 29-34, 35-42, 43-51—several Messianic titles and designations are applied specifically to Jesus (cf. in vv. 34, 41, 49, note also the reference in v. 45).

Interestingly, the concluding portion of the saying of the Baptist (1:26-27; cf. Mk 1:7-8 par) is not presented until the account of the Baptism itself (v. 33): “…this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!” The entire Baptism account is given indirectly, as testimony by John the Baptist, in accordance with the important Johannine emphasis established in the Prologue (vv. 6-8, 15). The content of the sayings (vv. 26-27) is essentially adapted and expounded within this context, being presented as port of the testimony and account of the Baptism; note:

    • “This is the (one) over whom I said ‘a man comes in back of me…'” (v. 30) |
      “the (one) coming in back of me”
    • “And I had not seen [i.e., recognized] him…” (v. 31) |
      “in the midst of you has stood (one) whom you have not seen”
    • “…having sent me to dunk in water” (v. 33) |
      “I dunk you in water…”

These echoes of the sayings prepare for their conclusion in verse 33, by which they are clearly applied to the person of Jesus, in the context of his Baptism. Indeed, the conclusion of the saying is set in parallel with the account of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus:

    • “I looked upon the Spirit stepping [i.e. coming] down as a dove out of heaven…” (v. 32)
    • “…the (one) upon whom you should see the Spirit stepping down…”
    • “…this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!” (v. 33)

In this regard, the presentation of the Baptism account as the testimony of John the Baptist represents a complex adaptation of the Tradition to the interests of the Johannine theology. Note how the account begins with an emphasis on the Baptist’s witness, and then concludes with a declaration of God’s own words to him (par. to the tradition of the Divine voice from heaven):

And Yohanan gave witness [e)martu/rhsen], saying: “I looked upon the Spirit stepping down as a dove out of heaven and remaining on him. And I had not seen [i.e., recognized] him; but, the (One hav)ing sent me to dunk in water, that (One) said to me, ‘Upon whomever you should see the Spirit stepping down and remaining upon him—this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!'” (vv. 32-33)

Finally, the actual declaration by the Divine/heavenly voice in the Baptism tradition (Mk 1:8 par) is, in the Johannine version, presented as a declaration by the Baptist (i.e., his witness):

“And I have seen and have given witness that this (one) is the Son of God!” (v. 34)
In a few manuscripts and versional witnesses, the text reads e)klekto/$ (“[one] gathered out”, “chosen [one]”), rather than ui(o/$ (“son”). As previously discussed, this designation e)klekto/$ has Messianic signficance, and its parallel here with the title “Son” (ui(o/$, cp. Lk 9:35 par) confirms the fact that, within the Gospel Tradition, this Divine Sonship of Jesus must be understood primarily in a Messianic sense.

Three other details in the Baptism account represent Johannine theological additions or adaptations of the Tradition. First, is the use of the verb katabai/nw (“step down”). The same verb is used to describe the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus in the Synoptics, but both katabai/nw and the parallel/related a)nabai/nw (“step up”) have special theological (and Christological) meaning in the Gospel of John. Note the first key usage in the “Son of Man” saying in 1:51; it is foreshadowed by the occurrence of the verb katabai/nw here in the Baptism account. Second, is the added reference to the Spirit remaining (vb me/nw) upon Jesus (vv. 32-33), which does not occur in the Synoptic versions, though the idea is, I believe, understood and assumed by those authors (a point to be discussed in the next study). The verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is another common word which has special (and profound) theological importance in the Johannine Writings (Gospel and Letters). It ultimately refers to the abiding presence of God, and it applies both to the relationship between Father and Son (Jesus), and to the relationship between the Son (and the Father) and believers. This abiding union is realized through the presence of the Spirit—a theological point that is first mentioned (by way of allusion and foreshadowing) in the Baptism account.

Finally, third, we have the important saying by the Baptist in v. 30 (presented earlier in the Prologue, v. 15), in which, it seems, an early bit of Baptist-tradition (cp. the saying of vv. 26-27) has been cast thoroughly in Johannine theological terms:

“In back of me comes a man who has come to be in front of me, (in) that he was (the) first of me.”

The Johannine use of the verbs e&rxomai (“come”), gi/nomai (“come to be”), and the verb of being (“was,” h@n), refer and allude, in turn, to: (i) the earthly ministry of Jesus (“[a man] comes”), (ii) the incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus (“has come to be [born]”, cf. verse 14), and (iii) the Divine pre-existence of the Son (“was”, see vv. 1-2, 4, etc). Thus, in the Baptism account, and through the Baptist’s testimony, it is signified that Jesus is something more than the Messiah—he is also the pre-existent Son of God, who was sent to earth (from heaven) by God the Father. This Christological point is further signified by the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus and remaining upon him.

This distinctively Johannine theological and Christological understanding of the Spirit will be discussed further as we proceed with our studies.

3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry

As we have seen and discussed, the presence of the Spirit upon Jesus at his Baptism, according to the Gospel Tradition, fundamentally (and primarily) indicates Jesus’ Messianic identity—as the Messianic Prophet, but also as the Royal/Davidic Messiah. We must now consider how this theme of the presence of the Spirit, established in the Baptism scene (and in light of the Baptist’s saying in Mk 1:8 par), is applied and expounded throughout the Gospel narrative. This we will do extensively in the next study (Study 4), but it is worth giving initial consideration to the subject here at the close of the current study.

The first point worth noting is that there are relatively few references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels. Following the Baptism scene, there are just four in the remainder of the Gospel of Mark, with corresponding parallels in Matthew-Luke, and an additional “Q” saying (Matt 12:32 par, cf. v. 31 par). There are four further references to the Spirit in Matthew, two of which occur in the Infancy narrative (1:18, 20), and one at the very close of the Gospel (28:19); only the reference in 12:28 (“Q”, cf. the context of vv. 31-32) occurs in the main narrative. Even in the Gospel of Luke, outside of the Infancy narrative, there are surprisingly few references, in spite of the thematic importance of the Spirit for the two-volume work of Luke-Acts as a whole.

However, it is in the Lukan Gospel that we find the clearest expression of how the presence of the Spirit on Jesus was understood within the Gospel Tradition. We begin with the bit of tradition that is stated briefly by the Markan author, of how, immediately after the Baptism of Jesus (1:9-11)—

“…the Spirit cast him out into the desolate (land)” (v. 12)

Thus, under the guidance and authority of the Spirit, Jesus is thrust into the desert/wilderness, where it is said that “he was being tested by the Satan” and was out in the open “with the wild animals” (v. 13). After this time of testing in the wilderness (a traditional period of forty days), Jesus embarks upon his public ministry (vv. 15-28). The significance of this wilderness/testing tradition will be discussed in the next study. Here, it is most important to note the way that the Lukan author understands and develops this tradition. There are three main thematic and structural components to this tradition:

    • The Spirit impelling Jesus out into the desolate region
    • The time of his being testing by the Satan/Devil
    • His return, to begin his ministry (in Galilee)

Notice how the Lukan author develops these components, within a framework that gives greater emphasis to the presence and role of the Spirit. First, there is the Lukan version of the notice in Mk 1:12:

“And Yeshua, full of (the) holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden, and was led in/by the Spirit in(to) the desolate (land)” (4:1)

These two phrases, of being “full of [i.e., filled by] the Spirit” and being (led) “in the Spirit”, are used repeatedly by the Lukan author, particularly in the book of Acts, where the terminology describes the activity of the Spirit in and among the early believers during their (apostolic) mission. Within the Lukan narrative framework, Jesus serves as the type-pattern for this role of the Spirit in the early Christian mission.

The second development of the tradition comes by way of the author’s use of the Temptation scene in vv. 2-13 (“Q” material, shared by Matthew, 4:2-12), expounding upon the brief notice in Mk 1:12-13. The Lukan version rather clearly implies that Jesus endures the testing, and is victorious over the Devil’s efforts, due to the presence and power of the Spirit that is on him (and in him). And, finally, upon his return from the testing, we read:

“And Yeshua turned back, in the power of the Spirit, (coming) into the Galîl.” (v. 14)

Again, we find specified what is only implied in the Markan narrative—viz., that Jesus begins his public ministry under the power and guidance of the Spirit.

This thematic detail is further expounded in the episode which the Lukan author uses to introduce/begin the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (viz., the Galilean period of ministry)—the episode at Nazareth (vv. 16-30, cf. Mark 6:1-6a par). The short notice in vv. 14b-15 (cf. Mk 1:21, 28) sets the stage for this scene, in which the Scripture of Isaiah 61:1ff, treated as a Messianic prophecy, holds central place. For the Lukan author, and, we may assume, for many other early believers, Isa 61:1ff was a central text in support of Jesus’ Messianic identity (cf. its use in 7:18-23 [“Q” material, par Matt 11:1-6]). By presenting this prophecy (vv. 17-19) in the immediate context of Jesus’ Baptism (and the Spirit-references of vv. 1, 14, cf. above), the Lukan author quite clearly evinces the belief that this prophecy was fulfilled at the Baptism (in which Jesus was ‘anointed’ by the Spirit of God) and then with the beginning of his public ministry (as the Messiah)—cf. the specific statement by Jesus in v. 21.

It is equally clear that Jesus’ Messianic identity, in relation to Isa 61:1ff, is Prophetic—that is to say, he is identified as the Messianic Prophet. We have already discussed how this was established in the Baptism scene, and that the primary significance of both the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, and the declaration of Sonship from heaven, is Messianic. This same understanding of Isa 61:1ff is confirmed by what follows in vv. 23-27, where Jesus identifies himself as a Prophet (v. 24), and specifically connects himself with the figure of Elijah (vv. 25-27).

Actually, the prophecy of Isa 61:1ff would seem to combine two distinct manifestations of inspired (Anointed) prophetic activity, which correspond to the two main aspects of Jesus’ own ministry (esp. in the Galilean Period): (1) the proclamation of “good news” from God, and (2) the performance of healing (and exorcism) miracles. These two aspects of Jesus’ ministry are established quite clearly in the Synoptic Tradition, beginning with the proclamation of “good news” (Mk 1:14-15 par), and then the performance of healing/exorcism miracles (Mk 1:23-27ff par). In Luke’s version, these narratives and notices follow the Nazareth scene, vv. 31-36ff, 43. At the same time, the Lukan author gives greater emphasis to the role of teaching by Jesus (vv. 15-16, etc), developing the point of tradition noted in Mk 1:21-22 par).

It may be said that these two aspects—preaching/teaching and performance of signs/miracles—represent the principal characteristics of the Moses and Elijah figure-types, respectively. This will be discussed further in the next study (Study 4), but here we may posit that, in fulfilling the Anointed Prophet-figure of Isaiah 61:1ff, Jesus also combines in himself the two Messianic Prophet-figures of Moses and Elijah. This was established at the Baptism, at the beginning of the Galilean Period of his ministry, and is confirmed in the Transfiguration scene (Lk 9:28-36 par, vv. 30ff) at the end of this same Period.

The Anointed Prophet-figure of Isa 61:1ff is related, at least conceptually, to the “Servant of YHWH” figure that features in a number of the poems in deutero-Isaiah (esp. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12). Most notable is 42:1-4, in which the Spirit comes down upon the Servant-figure, much as it does in 61:1ff (cf. also 11:2ff). We have already noted how the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism alludes to Isa 42:1ff, and that Luke understands 61:1ff in a similar way, applying it to Jesus’ Baptism (and his Messianic identity). In the Gospel of Matthew, Isa 42:1ff is used in a manner comparable to the Lukan use of 61:1ff. The Matthean author quotes Isa 42:1-3 at 12:17-21, mid-way through his narrative of the Galilean Period of Jesus ministry, but (notably) immediately prior to the key Spirit-references in 12:28, 31-32. We will discuss these, along with the other Synoptic Spirit-references, in our next study.

 

 

 

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 2)

In the first study of this series, on the relation of the Spirit to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, we looked at the Baptism of Jesus—the episode which, in the Gospel Tradition, marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. The Baptism comes at the beginning of his earthly ministry, even as Jesus’ death (and resurrection) marks its end. We cannot properly consider the Spirit in relation to the death/resurrection of Jesus without first examining its relation to his earthly life and ministry (starting with the Baptism).

Our study began with the Baptism in the Synoptic Tradition—that is, the Synoptic Gospels, focusing specifically on the Gospel of Mark. We saw that the presence of the Spirit, coming down upon Jesus (Mk 1:10 par), and accompanied by the declaration of the Divine voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par, “You are my Son…”), primarily signified the Messianic identity of Jesus—both the Prophetic and Royal/Davidic figure types.

Study 2: The Role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus

In this second study (continuing into the third), we will be examining the role of the Spirit in the Baptism tradition, in more detail, focusing on three topics:

    1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry
    2. The version of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John
    3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (in the Synoptic Gospels)
1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry

All of the Synoptic Gospels, along with the Gospel of John, relate the Baptism of Jesus to the dunking (baptizing) ministry of John the Baptist. That the Gospel account of John the Baptist’s ministry (Mk 1:2-8 par) is based largely upon authentic historical tradition would seem to be confirmed by the independent witness of Josephus, writing in his Antiquities (18.5.2, §§116-119 [esp. §117]). The dunking (baptism, Grk ba/ptisma) had, as its main purpose and significance, the purification of the individual and the ‘washing away’ of his/her sins (cf. Mk 1:4 par). In this regard, the Gospel Tradition indicates an eschatological emphasis—that is, the repentance and purifying of the people was in preparation for the coming judgment.

We can glimpse the eschatological significance of John’s ministry based upon the following pieces of evidence from the Gospel Tradition:

    • The implicit identification of John with Elijah (v. 6 par, cf. 2 Kings 1:8), suggesting that he is fulfilling the figure type of the Elijah who comes at the end-time (based on the tradition in Malachi 3:23-24 [4:5-6]); for a more explicit identification elsewhere in the Gospel Tradition, cf. Mark 9:11-13 par; Matt 11:14; Luke 1:17.
    • The use of Isa 40:3 as a prophetic description, juxtaposed with Mal 3:1 (Mk 1:2-3 par); in Jn 1:23, John the Baptist specifically identifies himself with the herald of this prophecy. The eschatological (and Messianic) import of the prophecy is indicated by the Qumran Community’s use of the same text, as a self-designation of their identity as the holy/faithful ones of God’s people in the end-time.
    • John’s prophetic reference to “the one coming” (Mk 1:7 par); on the eschatological/Messianic background of this terminology, see my earlier article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.
    • The pericope included by Matthew and Luke (“Q” material, Matt 3:7-10 / Lk 3:7-9) with its strong judgment-emphasis (indicating the imminence of the coming Judgment), along with the climactic (“Q”) saying in Matt 3:12 / Lk 3:17.

More than this, the act of baptism itself, with its water-symbolism, is strongly suggestive of a number of key prophetic references with an eschatological orientation. The water/fire parallel in the “Q” version of the Baptist’s saying in Mark 1:9 (Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16) only enhances the dual-significance of purification and judgment inherent in this symbolism. Water is used for cleansing, but it can also bring destruction; similarly, fire can refine and purify, but it also destroys. The coming Judgment means purification and salvation for the holy/righteous ones, but destruction for the wicked (cp. the dualism in the harvest imagery of Matt 3:11 par, similarly used by Jesus in 13:30, 39-42).

A key prophetic reference is Isaiah 4:4, where we find the motif of washing/cleansing (i.e., with water), in the context of the coming Judgment. The washing removes the “filth” (i.e., sin/impurity) from the people (represented by Jerusalem and the “daughters of Zion”), in preparation/anticipation of the Judgment, which will involve a “spirit [j^Wr] of burning” (i.e., fire). There is thus here a juxtaposition of water-wind/spirit-fire, just as in the “Q” version of the Baptist’s saying (Mk 1:8; Matt 3:11 par). A similar juxtaposition of motifs, also in a prophecy of judgment, occurs in Isa 30:27-28; and note also Jer 4:11-14, where a hot/burning wind of judgment (from YHWH) combines with a washing that leads to salvation for the righteous (who repent and are purified from their sins). The coming of God’s Spirit (i.e., breath/wind) is symbolized by both water and fire.

In the Baptism scene, water serves exclusively as a motif of cleansing, and thus signifies salvation for the righteous/holy ones. Only those who repent and are purified from sin (i.e., made holy) will be saved from the coming Judgment. It seems likely that the symbolic/ritual act of baptism itself was meant to illustrate the water-imagery from a number of key prophetic texts relating to the coming New Age of Israel’s restoration. By the first centuries B.C./A.D., these prophecies would have been interpreted in an eschatological sense. The main image is of God’s Spirit being ‘poured out’ (like water) upon the people. And, if we understand the baptism (“dunking”, vb bapti/zw) as a partial immersion—i.e., the individual stands or bends down in the water, while the baptizer (John) pours water over his/her head—then the prophetic imagery is, in a sense, being enacted.

The important texts in this regard are: Isaiah 32:15ff; 44:3ff; Ezekiel 39:29; and Joel 2:28-29ff; cf. also Zech 12:10, and the context of 13:1ff. These are the references where the water-Spirit association occurs, though there are other restoration-prophecies which emphasize the role of the Spirit in purifying, restoring, and uniting God’s people—cf. Isa 34:16; 59:21; Ezek 11:19; 36:26-27; 37:14. Also, it is important to note, again, the Isaian prophecies which refer to YHWH’s Spirit coming down upon His chosen Servant: 11:2ff; 42:1ff; 61:1ff; and also 59:21.

All of these prophetic references are significant for relating the Baptism of Jesus to the baptizing ministry of John—particularly with regard to the eschatological and Messianic nature of the event, as understood by early Christians. John’s baptizing illustrated the prophecies, but also pointed to their subsequent fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. The core sayings in Mark 1:7-8 demonstrate two ways in which the prophetic symbolism was applied to Jesus, through the medium of John’s words and symbolic/ritual actions.

First, by the saying in verse 7, John contrasts and subordinates himself to “the one coming”. The Markan wording is: “The (one) stronger than me comes [e)rxetai] in back of me…”. The Matthean version (3:11) differs slightly: “the (one) coming [e)rxo/meno$] in back of me is stronger than me…”. That this figure is to be identified with the Messiah, is clear from the context of the Lukan version (3:15-16). The Johannine Gospel makes this contrast even more pronounced, as the Baptist denies being any of the chief Messianic figure-types (including Elijah), 1:19-21ff; they are all fulfilled by Jesus. This will be discussed further in section 2. (in the next study).

In the second saying (Mk 1:8), it is the baptizing performed by John and Jesus, respectively, that is contrasted:

“I dunked you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit!”

The subject (“he”) is “the one coming” mentioned in the previous saying. In both Matthew and Luke, the two sayings are joined together differently, and this may reflect a separate (“Q”) version of the material:

“I dunk you in water, but the (one) stronger than me comes…—(and) he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit [and fire]!” (Lk 3:16)

The Gospel of John presents the sayings in a similar way (1:26-27), though the conclusion, regarding the baptizing in/with the Spirit, is separated out and made part of the Baptism account itself (vv. 31, 33).

These points of contrast make clear that the fulfillment of the prophecies involve the pouring out of God’s Spirit, not water—the water only serves to represent and symbolize the Spirit. So it is with the baptizing by John: his baptizing with water symbolizes, and points the way toward, the coming (eschatological) baptizing of God’s people with His Spirit.

All of the Messianic and eschatological references discussed here would seem to apply to the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at his Baptism. However, the treatment of these motifs in the Gospel Tradition is actually quite complex, due to the way that they have been adapted to fit the shape of the traditional (historical and literary) narrative. Before proceeding, it may be worth outlining the basic structure of the Synoptic narrative:

    • The Baptism of Jesus:
      Demonstration and declaration of his Messianic identity
    • The Galilean Period of Jesus’ Ministry:
      Identity as the Messianic Prophet (Moses, Elijah, and the Anointed Servant/Prophet of Isa 61:1ff, etc)
    • The Transfiguration of Jesus:
      Demonstration and declaration of his Messianic identity
    • The Jerusalem Period of Jesus’ Ministry:
      Identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah
    • Conclusion: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah

The ultimate fulfillment of the prophecies would occur only with the death and resurrection of Jesus, after which the Spirit would be poured out on God’s people (believers). However, the Spirit was also manifest during Jesus’ ministry, prior to his death/resurrection. This will be discussed in some detail in Study 4. However, in the next study (Study 3), we will continue the current discussion focusing on sections/topics 2. and 3. noted above:

    • The role of the Spirit in the Johannine version of the Baptism scene, and
    • The Baptism of Jesus as an introduction to the (Synoptic) narrative of Jesus’ ministry (cf. the outline above)

For a useful examination of the eschatological and Scriptural-traditional background of John’s Baptism, and how it was interpreted within the Gospel Tradition, I would also recommend the article by Morna D. Hooker, “John’s Baptism: A Prophetic Sign”, in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, eds. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, Stephen C. Barton (Eerdmans: 2004), pp. 22-40.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Introduction

“God Sent Forth His Son…”

“when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son…” (Galatians 4:4)
“God sent forth His Son into the world…” (John 3:17)

This new study series will examine the early Christian concept of the incarnation—the idea that the (pre-existent) Son of God became a flesh-and-blood (incarnate) human being in the person of Jesus. In particular, we will be considering both the nature and purpose of the incarnation, as this belief originally crystalized and developed within first-century Christianity, as attested in the New Testament Scriptures. The question of the goal and purpose of the incarnation is especially relevant in light of the seasonal celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and makes for a fitting subject to be discussed this Spring during the Lenten/Easter season.

Earlier this year, during the Christmas season, I began  a series on the Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in the Pauline Letters, discussing in some detail nearly all of the relevant passages. The remaining articles that were planned, dealing with the specific theme of the Sonship of Jesus, and the idea of God sending forth His Son, will be folded into this current series.

Introduction: The Development of Early Christology

An important point, to be addressed at the outset, involves the place of the incarnation-concept within the earliest Christology—viz., the view of Christ held by the first generation(s) of believers, during the first century A.D. Contextually, this may be summarized by the heading of the Gospel of Mark, regarded by most commentators as the earliest of the surviving Gospels (c. 60-70 A.D.):

“(The) beginning of the good message of Yeshua (the) Anointed [(the) Son of God]” (1:1)

The words “(the) Son of God” (ui(ou= qeou=) are bracketed [] because they are absent from a number of key manuscripts (a* Q 28c al), and so were possibly not part of the original text of Mk 1:1. However, even if the words were not originally present, they were doubtless added (or included) very early on, probably before the end of the first century. The wording establishes a basic tenet of Christology, identifying Jesus as the “Son of God”. This identification is the cornerstone of the incarnation-concept, particularly as it came to be expressed within orthodox Christology, since it entails (and implies) the idea that the pre-existent Son (of God) became a flesh-and-blood human being, in the person of Jesus.

Yet, the designation at the beginning of the Markan Gospel gives us no further information about what it means to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”, apart from the definite juxtaposition of the expression with the title Xristo/$ (“[the] Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah = Heb. j^yv!m* [m¹šîaµ]). This, in fact, is most significant regarding the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. It indicates that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood primarily, if not exclusively, in a Messianic sense—that is, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God.

This association, established so clearly, and in such a matter-of-fact manner, at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, is confirmed by a careful study of the earliest strands of Christian Tradition found in the New Testament Scriptures. These may be divided into three main categories: (1) the Gospel Tradition, particularly that of the Synoptic Gospels, the core Synoptic Tradition; (2) evidence of early Christian preaching (proclamation [kerygma] of the Gospel) preserved in the sermon-speeches of the book of Acts; and (3) the (undisputed) letters of Paul.

The Gospel Tradition as it came to be represented by the core Synoptic Tradition (such as in the Gospel of Mark), developed during the period of c. 35-60 A.D. The earliest Christian preaching, based on the historical time-frame presented within the Acts-narrative, covers a similar period. Meanwhile, the letters of Paul—that is, those where Pauline authorship is certain or undisputed—were written during the latter half of this period. It will be worth surveying, however briefly, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, as evidenced within each of these sources.

1. The Gospel (Synoptic) Tradition

In examining the Synoptic Tradition, I focus primarily on the Gospel of Mark. Apart from the heading in 1:1 (v.l., see above), there are seven references to Jesus as God’s Son (ui(o/$).
For the purposes of this survey, I exclude all instances where the specific expression “(the) son of man” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] a)nqrw/pou) is used; these were discussed at length in an earlier series (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). While not unrelated to the Divine Sonship of Jesus (esp. in the Gospel of John), the expression/title “Son of Man” has a very different emphasis. It is actually closer in significance to the specific idea of incarnation (viz., Jesus as a real human being). As such, it is certainly relevant for this series, and will be addressed at a number of junctures in the upcoming articles.

The first such reference occurs early in the narrative, in the Baptism scene (1:9-11 par) which marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Following the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (v. 10), the Divine voice from heaven declares: “You are my Son, the (be)loved, in you I think good [i.e. I think good/well of you]” (v. 11). The wording of this declaration, along with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, confirms the observation made above (on the heading [v. 1]), that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood here in a Messianic sense. That is to say, it identifies Jesus as the Messiah—one specially chosen (‘anointed’) by God.

The Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism would seem to allude both to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1—each of these represents a key Messianic reference that was adopted by early Christians and applied to Jesus (as the Messiah). The two verses, respectively, identify Jesus as a Messianic Prophet (Isa 42:1), and as the royal/Davidic Messiah (Ps 2:7). The presence of the Spirit upon Jesus applies more readily to his identity as a Messianic Prophet—particularly the anointed prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (but cf. also Isa 11:2 and 42:1). For further discussion, see the recent article (in the new Studies on the Spirit feature); cf. also the articles on Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, and Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Isaiah 61:1ff is particularly prominent in the Lukan version of the narrative, where this Scripture features in the Nazareth episode (4:16-30, vv. 18-21ff), marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, following the Baptism and Temptation scenes. Thus, the coming of the Spirit at the Baptism, along with the declaration of Sonship by the Divine/heavenly voice (3:21-22), is explained implicitly in terms of Jesus’ identity as the anointed Prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (cf. also the context of 4:1, 14).

As it happens, the Lukan author is following the Synoptic Tradition, which divides the Gospel narrative into two halves. In the first half, the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to two figure-types (Elijah and Moses), that are essentially blended together in the figure of the Anointed herald of Isa 61:1ff, and then are combined (visually) in the Transfiguration scene. Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is more or less reserved for the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period).

The Transfiguration scene (Mk 9:2-8 par) is significant from this standpoint, in terms of the thematic structure of the narrative. It marks the end of the Galilean period, and begins the transition to the Jerusalem period, by effectively introducing (vv. 9-13ff) the journey to Jerusalem (chap. 10). Jesus’ role as the Messianic Prophet reaches its climax in the Transfiguration scene, as he is dramatically associated with (and implicitly identified with) the Messianic Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah. And, in this context, for good measure, the declaration of the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism is essentially repeated, 9:7 (in Matthew’s version, the two declarations are identical [cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5]), confirming Jesus’ as God’s Son (in this Messianic sense).

The Messianic significance is brought out especially in Luke’s version of the declaration (9:35), where (according to the best textual reading) the designation “chosen” (lit., “[one] gathered out”, e)klelegme/no$) is used, rather than “(be)loved”. Cf. the comparable designation e)klekto/$ in 23:35, where its Messianic import is equally clear. The same substantive adjective o( e)klekto/$ (“the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “the chosen [one]”) also occurs in some manuscripts of the Johannine version of the Divine/heavenly declaration at the Baptism (Jn 1:34 v.l.), indicating that the Messianic designation (“the Chosen [One]”) was, to some extent at least, interchangeable with the designation “Son” (of God).

As for the remaining five references (in Mark) to Jesus as God’s Son, two occur as declarations by evil (demon) spirits (3:11; 5:7 pars). These are best explained in terms of Jesus’ miracle-working (i.e., exorcism) power, as the Anointed/Messianic Prophet of God (cf. Isa 61:1ff and the figure-type of Elijah); the demon-spirits recognize this identity, and (implicitly) the power/presence of the Spirit of God upon Jesus (cf. Matt 12:28 par, in the context of vv. 18-21 [citing Isa 42:1-3, see above]).

The final two Son-references in the Gospel occur at climactic points in the Passion narrative (14:61f; 15:39). The question posed by the high priest to Jesus seems to echo the question posed by Jesus to his disciples in 8:27, along with the confession-response by Peter (v. 29). Matthew’s version makes the association explicit, by presenting Peter’s confession (16:16) and the high priest’s confession (26:63) in nearly identical wording. Underlying this Matthean development is the essential juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God”, which we saw already in the heading of Mark (1:1), and which is repeated in the confessional context of 14:61-62; cf. also 15:39, where the centurion’s confession (of Jesus as God’s “Son”) punctuates a Passion-narrative which features a strong Messianic emphasis (14:61-62; 15:2, 9ff, 17-18, 26, 32, 35-36).

By comparison, the Son-reference of 13:32 par is more difficult to place or to explain within the Tradition. The self-designation of Jesus simply as “the Son” is more in keeping with the usage in the Gospel of John. The only other Synoptic occurrence is in a saying from the “Q” material (Matt 11:27 / Lk 10:22); cf. also Matt 28:19. In the immediate context of both Mk 13:32 par and Matt 11:27 par, we find references to Jesus as “the Son of Man”, which is his more regular form of self-designation in the Synoptics.

Both Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark’s Gospel in terms of these Son-references (apart from the “Q” saying in Matt 11:27 par, mentioned in the note above). Evidence of Christological development or expansion is actually quite rare. Perhaps the clearest example can be seen in the Matthean forms of Peter’s confession, and the corresponding question to Jesus by the high priest 16:16; 26:63, cf. above); and note the similar confession by the disciples, earlier in the narrative, 14:33. The use of the title “Son of God” by the Devil in the Temptation scene (“Q” material, Matt 4:6 / Lk 4:3, 9) corresponds to the declarations by the demons in Mk 3:11; 5:7 pars (cf. above). Finally, it may be noted that, in Matthew’s version of the Passion narrative, the climactic confession by the centurion (Matt 27:54) is further enhanced by the references to Jesus as the “Son of God” preceding in vv. 40, 43; comparison with the core Synoptic (Markan) version (cf. above) only confirms that this use of the title “Son of God” is fundamentally Messianic in nature.

Indeed, from this survey, it would seem to be clear that the Sonship of Jesus, and the use of the title “Son of God”, in the Gospel Tradition is primarily (if not exclusively) Messianic. It is tied to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah—both the royal/Davidic Messiah and the Messianic Prophet figure-types (on which, cf. above)—an identity that is established at the Baptism of Jesus (that is, at the beginning of his public ministry), with the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, accompanied by the Divine/heavenly declaration of Sonship. In the Synoptic narrative, this Messianic identification continues throughout the course of Jesus’ ministry, climaxing with the moment of his death.

2. The Early Gospel Preaching (Kerygma) in Acts

At first glance, it is rather striking how few references there are to Jesus as God’s Son in the book of Acts. Given the relative importance of the designation in the Synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Luke, see the discussion in section 1. above), we would perhaps expect to find a much larger number of references. There are two key references in Acts—9:20 and 13:33. These are significant in at least two respects: (a) they serve (in the narrative) as examples of Paul’s missionary preaching (see section 3. below), and (b) they confirm the fundamental Messianic significance of the designation (“Son of God”) evidenced throughout the Gospel Tradition.

In particular, note the same basic juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” (xristo/$) and “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=) which we highlighted in our analysis of the Synoptic Tradition (above). The correspondence of the titles becomes quite clear when we consider how the Lukan author frames the summary narrative of Paul’s first preaching of the Gospel (in Damascus), 9:20-22; see how Paul’s preaching activity is summarized:

    • “he proclaimed (of) Yeshua that
      ‘This (one) is the Son of God'” (v. 20)
    • “he was driving together (the point) that
      ‘This (one) is the Anointed'” (v. 22)

The titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” are precisely parallel, and, at least to some extent, are interchangeable; this confirms that the title “Son of God”, as applied to Jesus in this context of the early Gospel preaching, was used in a Messianic sense. The same is true with the citation of Psalm 2:7 (by Paul) in 13:33, a usage of the Psalm verse (as a Messianic reference) which conforms to the allusion in the declaration (by the Divine/heavenly voice) at Jesus’ Baptism in the Gospel Tradition (cf. above). In a variant reading of the Lukan form of the declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is explicitly quoted, implying that it was at the Baptism (with the coming upon Jesus of the Spirit) that Jesus came to be ‘born’ as God’s Son.

What is important to note about the use of Psalm 2:7 in the Antioch sermon-speech (by Paul) in Acts 13 (v. 33ff) is that the Messianic reference is applied, not to Jesus’ Baptism, but to his Resurrection. The implication, then, according to this preaching, is that Jesus was ‘born’ as God’s Son when he was raised from the dead. This aspect of Jesus’ Sonship is not emphasized in the Synoptic Gospels, but does seem to be a key point of emphasis that orientates the early proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel. Note, for example, the third section (vv. 29-36) of the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter in chapter 2, which, in many important ways, matches the Antioch sermon-speech by Paul later in chap. 13. As a Scripture text, the well-established Messianic verse of Psalm 110:1 is used (cf. Mark 12:36f par; Heb 1:13, etc), but it is clearly applied to the resurrection of Jesus, with his exaltation to the “right hand” (v. 1b) of God in heaven (on the importance of this particular motif for early Christology, cf. Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). Even more striking is the wording that Peter (and the author of Acts) uses at the conclusion of the sermon:

“let all (the) house of Yisrael know that God made him (to be) both Lord and Anointed [Xristo/$], this Yeshua whom you put to the stake [i.e., crucified]!” (v. 36)

The declaration is clear enough: God made Jesus to be the Anointed One, through his resurrection (and exaltation); this is comparable to the idea in 13:33 (citing Psalm 2:7), that, when Jesus was raised/exalted by God, he came to be born as God’s Son. The designation “Lord” (ku/rio$) in 2:36 indicates a Divine status and distinction comparable to that of “Son of God”. While this sort of language and thinking would be highly problematic from the standpoint of the developed (orthodox) Christology of later generations, it would seem to reflect the earliest Christian understanding of the Gospel accurately enough.

Many scholars, however, would question the extent to which the book of Acts accurately preserves or portrays the early apostolic preaching, as it would have occurred (historically) in the period c. 35-50 A.D. This is an issue that I have dealt with on several occasions, including in my exegetical series “The Speeches of Acts”. I am not able to go into the matter in any detail here, but will only state my conviction that the sermon-speeches of Acts preserve genuine elements and features of the early preaching, while (at the same time) also being thoroughly Lukan in style as a finished literary product.

The preaching recorded in the book of Acts demonstrates two clear points of emphasis for the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the “Son of God: (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, and (2) the fact that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, was exalted to a Divine status and position in heaven (at God’s “right hand”, Ps 110:1b [cf. the discussion above]). The main apologetic concern for the early apostolic missionaries, in both of these respects, centered on the death of Jesus. His death was, naturally enough, the necessary precursor to his exaltation; and, yet, at the same time, it proved a great difficulty for their missionary preaching to other Jews. The suffering and death of the Messiah was not at all part of the Messianic expectation for Jews at the time (on this subject, see the article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). It is repeatedly mentioned in Acts how the missionaries took great pains to demonstrate (from the Scriptures) that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and die, and thus proving that Jesus could be (and was) the promised Messiah—see esp. Acts 3:18; 5:42; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23, and similarly in the Lukan Gospel, Lk 24:26f, 45-46; the teaching echoes the Passion-predictions of Jesus in the Synoptics (cf. Lk 9:22; 18:31ff par). Note also, in this regard, the importance of Isa 52:13-53:12 as a Messianic prophecy, serving as the primary Scripture text for the idea that the Messiah (i.e., the Servant of YHWH) would suffer and die (cf. Acts 8:32-35).

3. The Pauline Letters

Paul, in his letters, generally follows the main contours of the early Christology, with regard to the Sonship of Jesus. The main points of emphasis from the Gospel Tradition and the early apostolic preaching (discussed in sections 1. and 2. above) are continued—viz., the identification of Jesus as the Messiah (i.e., Sonship in a Messianic sense), and that his identity as God’s Son is tied specifically to the Resurrection. This last aspect is especially clear in what is presumably the earliest Son-reference in the surviving letters, 1 Thess 1:10. Most of his other references to Jesus as God’s Son can also be viewed entirely from the standpoint of this early exaltation-Christology—see 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:13, etc.

However, there are other references which indicate a rudimentary pre-existence-Christology, along with an accompanying incarnational aspect. The earliest such occurrence is in the letter to the Galatians (4:4), the dating of which remains disputed, though some time in the early-mid 50s (c. 54?) seems probable. By the time of his letter to the Romans, several years later (c. 57-58), this Christological understanding appears to have become more prominent in his thought—as can be glimpsed from the wording in 1:3; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32. These references (all of which will be discussed) likely preceded the writing of Philippians (c. 60), with its famous ‘Christ-hymn’ (2:6-11), in which the idea of the Divine pre-existence of Jesus features most prominently.

Paul was, it seems, one of the first Christians to express such a pre-existence (and incarnational) Christology. There does not appear to be any real evidence for such a view prior to the mid-50s. As noted in the analysis above, this Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts. In the earlier strands of the Tradition recorded in these texts, the Messianic identity and Divine Sonship of Jesus was seen as being established either: (a) at the beginning of his public ministry (i.e., the time of his baptism), or (b) with his resurrection (and exaltation to heaven). To be sure, the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke evince the view that Jesus was the Messiah from the very moment of his birth; however, even in these narratives, there is no indication of Divine pre-existence. The declaration of Jesus’ Sonship in Luke 1:32, 35, applies to the time of his birth (note the future tense of the announcement, “he will be…”, “he will be called…”), and is also still understood in a Messianic sense (as is clear from the context).

With Paul, however, a new Christological understanding begins to emerge. Paul may not have been the very first believer to express the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence, or of the incarnation (in the person of Jesus) of the pre-existent Son, but he was doubtless influential in the development and spread of this Christology. We can see the Pauline influence, for example, in the book of Hebrews (passages to be discussed). It is not certain what influence Paul may have had upon the Johannine writings; for the most part, they seem to be the product of an entirely separate line of Tradition. In any case, it is in the Gospel of John where this early development of the pre-existence and incarnational Christology receives its flourish.

In the articles within this series, we will attempt to trace this development, beginning with the earliest Pauline references. Our starting point will be the confessional statement in Romans 1:3-4, for the reason that many commentators believe Paul has, in these verses, adapted an earlier (existing) credal formula. If so, then the Christology expressed in these verses may, at least to some extent, pre-date Paul’s own writings. It is often thought that the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Phil 2:6-11 also represents an earlier confessional statement (in poetic-hymnic form) that Paul has utilized. Both of these texts are of particular significance for the way that they join together the older exaltation-Christology (Rom 1:4; Phil 2:9-11) with the newer pre-existence-Christology (Rom 1:3; Phil 2:6-8), and include the specific idea of the incarnation, at least in a rudimentary form. This conjunction is especially clear in the case of the Philippians hymn, but it would seem to be present in Rom 1:3-4 as well; at least, it is possible to read the verses in this way.

 

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 1)

The Saturday Series feature on this site has been repurposed as Studies on the Spirit—exegetical and theological studies on the (Holy) Spirit, focusing on key passages and developments within the New Testament and (early) Christian tradition. The purpose of the original Saturday Series was to introduce the principles and methods of Biblical Criticism, demonstrating them inductively through studies on selected Scripture passages. This will continue to be an important and integral component of the site; already you can find many examples, including all the earlier studies of the Saturday Series. However, I felt it equally important to introduce this new focus on the Spirit, as a sound understanding of the nature and role of the Holy Spirit, particularly as described in the writings of the New Testament, is vital for believers in Christ today, since there seems to be such a fundamental lack of clear awareness and understanding of the subject within much of modern Christianity.

The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus

The first series of studies will examine the role of the Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This theme is, of course, fitting for the seasonal celebrations of Lent, Holy Week, Easter (Resurrection Sunday), and Pentecost this Spring. It is somewhat surprising that the New Testament Scriptures actually say relatively little (at least, explicitly so) regarding this relationship. Most obvious, perhaps, is the salvation-historical context, in terms of the sequence: how the coming of the Spirit naturally follows the death and resurrection of Jesus, with the implication that the former cannot occur until the latter takes place.

Much more can be said about the role of the Spirit—and, indeed, even the nature of the Spirit—in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, based on the evidence attested by the New Testament Scriptures. However, this requires a careful and detailed examination of all the key passages and lines of tradition that touch upon this subject.

Study 1: The Baptism of Jesus in the Gospel Tradition

I choose to begin with the early Gospel Tradition—and, in particular, the role of the Holy Spirit in the tradition of Jesus’ Baptism. In the core Synoptic Tradition, as represented primarily by the Gospel of Mark, this scene of Jesus’ Baptism (Mk 1:9-11 par) represents the first (and arguably the most noteworthy) reference to the Spirit, prefaced immediately by the saying of the Baptist in v. 8 (par): “I dunked [i.e. baptized] you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit [e)n pneu/mati a(gi/w|]”. This saying, which functions in the narrative (and at the level of the historical tradition) as a prophetic statement about the ministry of Jesus, alludes both to Jesus’ Messianic status, and to the coming of the Spirit upon his disciples (believers) following his death and resurrection (Acts 1:5ff). The first thematic aspect (the identification of Jesus as the Messiah) is primary to the Baptism tradition, as will be discussed below.

The Markan Gospel narrates the event as follows:

“And it came to be in those days (that) Yeshua came from Nazaret of the Galîl and was dunked in the Yarden under [i.e. by] Yohanan. And straightaway, (with his) stepping up out of the water, he saw the heavens being split and the Spirit as a dove stepping [i.e. coming] down to him. And there came to be a voice out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son the (be)loved (one), (and) in you I think good [i.e., I think good of you].'” (1:9-11)

This is a core component of the Synoptic Tradition, and the versions of the event in Matthew (3:13, 16-17) and Luke (3:21-22) different in only relatively small ways. Even the Gospel of John (1:32-34) shows awareness of an underlying tradition which generally corresponds to that of the Synoptics. The point will be discussed further in the next study.

What is the significance of the coming of the Spirit down onto/upon (ei)$/e)pi/) Jesus? The saying(s) by the Baptist in Mk 1:7-8 par (cf. also Lk 3:17 par, and the context of vv. 15-16), coupled with the declaration by the Divine/heavenly voice (Mk 1:11 par; cf. 9:7 par), point to the primary significance as being Messianic—that is, the presence of the Spirit identifies Jesus as one specially chosen (i.e., ‘anointed’) by God as His Servant (and “Son”). The Spirit also empowers him toward fulfilling this Messianic role. Within the (Synoptic) Gospel narrative, the Baptism, with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, marks the beginning of his public ministry. Moreover, it is to be inferred that the Spirit remained on Jesus (cf. Jn 1:32-33, to be discussed), continuing to empower and guide him, until the moment of his death. Thus, the Spirit’s role throughout the entire Gospel narrative leads up to the critical association with the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. Our examination of this association will develop over the course of the remaining studies.

The Messianic significance of the Spirit at Jesus’ Baptism

In terms of the Baptism tradition, the coming of the Spirit (v. 10) is closely tied to the declaration by the heavenly voice (v. 11)—the two details cannot be separated, and each serves to inform the meaning and significance of the other. The Spirit and the Divine voice both serve to identify Jesus as the Chosen/Anointed One (i.e., Messiah) of God. It is import to realize, in this regard, that the identification of Jesus as God’s Son is fundamentally (and primarily) Messianic.

Within the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is rather clearly defined according to two broad lines of Scriptural and Jewish tradition, which may be epitomized as categories of Messianic figure-types: (1) the Prophetic, and (2) the Royal/Davidic. In point of fact, these serve to structure the Synoptic narrative. In the first half of the narrative, the Galilean period, Jesus is identified as a Messianic Prophet, and is only identified as a Royal Messiah (from the line of David) in the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period), beginning with the Triumphal Entry (Mk 11:1-10 par), and anticipated by the use of the expression “Son of David” in the prior episode (cf. 10:47-48 par). Only Matthew deviates from this demarcation, introducing the title “Son of David” at several points during the Galilean period (9:27; 12:3, 23; 15:22).

The Infancy narratives (both Matthean and Lukan) focus entirely upon Jesus’ identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, and say virtually nothing about his role as a Prophetic Messiah. Yet, these narratives almost certainly represent secondary developments (and additions) to the Synoptic Tradition, and, as such, in their thematic emphases, they reflect the Christological orientation of believers in the mid-late first century, when the idea of Jesus as a Messianic Prophet had lost its importance and had largely vanished from view. In this regard, it is interesting that the Lukan author hews so closely to the Synoptic Tradition, focusing on Jesus almost exclusively as a Messianic Prophet-figure in the Galilean period (cf. the discussion below)—this in spite of his strong emphasis on Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah in the Infancy narrative.

(1) Jesus’ identity as a Messianic Prophet

(cf. Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”)

If we consider the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus as a sign of his status as a Messianic (Chosen/Anointed) Prophet, we must look to the background for such an association in the Scriptures, and in subsequent Jewish Tradition. That prophecy was a sign of the presence of the Divine Spirit upon a person is well attested; among the references in the Scriptures, see Num 11:25ff; 24:2; 1 Sam 10:6ff; 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron 15:1; Isa 59:21; Ezek 2:2, etc.

The early Christian understanding of Jesus as a Messianic Prophet follows three lines of tradition, represented by three distinct Messianic figure-types: (1) Moses, (2) Elijah, and (3) the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff. Each of these figures is associated with the manifest presence of God’s Spirit, or of a Divinely instilled prophetic Spirit.

For Moses, there are two passages relating to his role as a Divinely-inspired prophet: (i) Numbers 11:10-30 (esp. vv. 24-30), and (ii) Deuteronomy 18:15-22; cf. also the statement in Deut 34:10. The first passage focuses on the presence and activity of the Spirit, while the second came to be the core text for the idea of a Messianic  prophet “like Moses” who would appear at the end time. This idea had become well-established in Jewish Tradition by the first century B.C./A.D., and was adopted by early Christians, applying it to Jesus (see esp. Acts 3:22; 7:37). I have discussed the first passage at length in an earlier series on the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; cf. the notes on Num 11:10-30.

The prophetic spirit that was manifest in the person of Elijah is mentioned in 2 Kings 2:9, 15; in this context, see also the association with the Spirit of YHWH in v. 16, indicating Elijah’s special/chosen status. Traditionally, the miracle-working power of Elijah (and Elisha) is associated with this ‘anointing’ (cf. 1 Kings 19:16) by the Spirit, as in Isa 61:1ff (cf. below). It is this aspect of Jesus’ ministry (i.e., his working of healing miracles, etc) which led to his being identified with the Messianic figure type of Elijah, though elsewhere in the Gospel and early Christian tradition this role is given to John the Baptist (see esp. Lk 1:15, 17, where the prophetic “spirit of Elijah” is closely connected with the presence of the Spirit of God). The idea of Messianic prophet according to the figure-type of Elijah, who would appear at the end-time, largely stems from Malachi 3:23-24 [4:5-6], which expounds the earlier oracle of 3:1ff (cf. my note on “The One Coming” in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

Finally, there is the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff, which is related conceptually to the “Servant of YHWH” figure that recurs throughout the Isaian (and/or deutero-Isaian) oracle-poems. There are actually three key Isaian passages which are fundamental to the idea of a Messianic prophet who is ‘anointed’ by the Spirit of God. I have discussed each of these in the earlier series on “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, or in the aforementioned series on the Spirit in the Old Testament: (a) 11:1-9 (esp. vv. 1-2 [notes]), (b) 42:1ff (article), and (c) 61:1ff (article). The influence of Isa 11:1-2ff is certain, though the passage is not specifically cited or alluded to in the Gospel Tradition; Jesus is identified as the Spirit-anointed figure of the passage, according to a Messianic interpretation, in 2 Thess 2:8 (citing v. 4). The wording of v. 2 (“The Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him”) certainly could be seen as having been fulfilled by the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus in the Baptism scene.

More explicit associations, however, are attested for the prophecies of Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff, both of which are connected with the Baptism scene in the Gospel Tradition (cf. the aforementioned articles). The scene itself almost certainly alludes to Isa 42:1, particularly in the LXX translation, since the word for Hebrew db#u# (“servant”) in Greek is pai=$, which also means “child”.  The latter nuance puts the LXX of Isa 42:1 into close alignment with the Gospel Baptism scene, juxtaposing the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus with the declaration that he is God’s Son.

As for Isa 61:1ff, the Lukan Gospel specifically identifies the Baptism of Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy. The author does this by moving up the Nazareth scene (cf. Mk 6:1-6 par) to the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (4:16ff), immediately following the Baptism and Temptation episodes (3:21-22; 4:1-13); Isa 61:1 is famously featured (vv. 18-19ff) in this Lukan version of the Nazareth scene. In context, the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at the Baptism is to be understood as the ‘anointing’ of the Spirit mentioned in Isa 61:1, a fact that the author more or less confirms by the narrative detail in 4:1, 14. The Spirit, having come down upon Jesus, now guides and empowers him all throughout his ministry; in this regard, Jesus serves as the type-pattern for the mission of the first (apostolic) believers, who continue his Spirit-empowered ministry, as narrated in the book of Acts.

(2) Jesus’ identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah

(cf. Parts 6, 7, 8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”)

If the Divine/heavenly voice of the Baptism scene alludes to Isaiah 42:1 (cf. above), it also evokes the declaration (by YHWH) in Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son”. The original context of this statement of Divine sonship involves the ancient/traditional royal theology, whereby the king was identified—symbolically and ritually—as the “son” of God. For more detail, see my earlier study on Psalm 2, as well as the article in the series “The Birth of the Messiah”. In a variant reading of the Lukan version of the Divine/heavenly declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is more fully (and explicitly) quoted, as from the LXX: “You are my Son; today I have caused you to be (born) [e)gw\ sh/meron gege/nnka/ se]”. This is understandable, given the importance of Ps 2:7 as a Messianic prophecy, both in Jewish Tradition and among early Christians (cf. Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5).

The anointing of the king is an obvious motif; but how does the Spirit relate specifically to the royal/Davidic Messiah (and, thus, to Jesus’ identification with this figure)? The association goes back to an ancient Near Eastern concept of charismatic kingship, whereby the king was seen to be specially favored and gifted by the gods, so as to be equipped and able to rule effectively. We see vestiges of this traditional conception in some of the earlier narrative strata of the Scriptures. It is expressed according to two primary aspects, whereby the manifest Spirit of God results in: (1) wisdom, insight, and skill for ruling; and (2) military leadership and prowess in battle.

With regard to the former, Joshua is perhaps the principal example, though the references are quite limited (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9). Like Elisha who followed Elijah (cf. above), the presence of the Spirit on/in Joshua is a continuation of the Spirit’s presence on/in Moses, enabling him to rule over God’s people (Num 11:17ff; Deut 34:10). Joseph (Gen 41:38) and Daniel (Dan 4:8-9, etc) also achieved a certain royal/ruling status, due to the presence of God’s Spirit enabling and guiding them. As for the military aspect, this is emphasized mainly in the narratives of the Judges—cf. the references regarding Othniel (3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14).

Most relevant to the specific figure-type of the Davidic royal Messiah are the references to the Spirit in the David narratives of 1 Samuel. Particularly notable is the contrast between Saul and David. As king (the first king of Israel), God’s Spirit had come upon Saul (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6), in a highly dramatic and powerful manner (note the prophetic emphasis [cf. also 19:20, 23ff]). However, following Saul’s disobedience (see chap. 15), the promise of kingship was taken away from him, to be given over to another (David), cf. 16:1-12. As part of this transfer, God’s Spirit came upon David (16:13), while, at the same time, departing from Saul, to be replaced by an evil spirit (v. 14). Especially to be noted, in relation to the Messianic figure-type, is the close connection between the anointing of David as king (v. 12) and the coming of the Spirit upon him (v. 13). The presence of God’s Spirit is mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, where again the emphasis is on David’s role as an inspired prophet (2 Sam 23:2; cf. also Psalm 51:11; Mk 12:36 par; Acts 1:16; 4:25).

In point of fact, the ruling and prophetic aspects of the Spirit’s presence upon chosen individuals are often blended together in the Scriptural tradition; beyond Saul and David, the examples of Moses, Joseph, and Daniel have already been noted (cf. above). This tendency allowed for the same combination to be applied readily with regard to the Messianic identity of Jesus—viz., as both King and Prophet. The Baptism scene would seem to establish both of these points of identification, even though, in the Synoptic narrative, Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah does not come clearly into view until the Jerusalem period.

In the next two studies (2 and 3), we will continue with our discussion of the role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus. The significance of the Spirit’s role will be examined in a bit more detail; in addition, we will explore the development of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John, as well as give consideration to how the Spirit’s role, established in the Baptism scene, was to be demonstrated throughout Jesus’ ministry—as described in the Synoptic narrative (and, particularly, the Lukan narrative).