Tag: Johannine Theology

The Spirit and the Birth of Jesus: Part 5

Spirit and Divine Birth in the Johannine Writings

Before embarking on our final topic (here in Part 5), let us summarize some of the results from our study thus far. This can be done best, I think, by presenting the key points of development in something of a chronological sequence.

    • In the earliest strands of the Gospel Tradition, Jesus was identified as an Anointed (Messianic) Prophet—an identification that was defined, in part, by the servant/herald figures of Isaiah 42:1ff and 61:1ff, upon whom God is said to put His Spirit. The Heavenly Voice at Jesus’ baptism, in the core Synoptic Tradition, apparently alludes to Isa 42:1. Jesus, even during the time of his ministry, could have been thought of as God’s son in this Messianic sense.
    • Jesus also was identified as the royal/Davidic Messiah, though increasingly more so after his resurrection. Passages such as Psalm 2:7 (and 2 Sam 7:14), expressing the ancient Near Eastern tradition of referring to the king as God’s “son” (“born” at his coronation), already given a Messianic interpretation, were applied to Jesus. If the ‘Western’ reading of the Lukan version (3:22) of the Heavenly Voice is original, then the Gospel writer may have intended this specific Messianic identification of Jesus at his baptism (cp. the Transfiguration parallel, Lk 9:35).
    • For early Christians, such Messianic passages were applied to Jesus primarily in the context of his resurrection (and exaltation to heaven). It was through his exaltation that Jesus was ‘born’ as God’s Son. Jesus’ resurrection took place through the presence and power of God’s Holy Spirit, and the exalted Jesus (at God the Father’s right hand) shared in the same Divine Spirit as the Father.
    • Christians soon came to realize that Jesus must have been God’s Son (in this Divine/exalted sense) even prior to his resurrection—that is, during the time of his earthly life and ministry. The Heavenly Voice at Jesus’ baptism (marking the start of his public ministry), declaring him to be God’s Son, would thus have taken on a deeper theological significance.
    • Gradually, the belief developed that Jesus’ Divine status (and nature) as God’s Son preceded even his birth. Belief in the Divine pre-existence of Jesus is attested by 60 A.D., at the latest (the ‘Christ hymn’ of Philippians 2:6-11). Psalm 2:7 was further interpreted in this sense—viz., that Jesus was already ‘born’ as God’s Son in eternity, before the world was created. Hebrews evinces a pre-existence Christology, alongside the earlier exaltation Christology, and can cite Psalm 2:7 (and the idea of Jesus’ being “born” as God’s Son) in both contexts.
    • At around the same time, a seminal narrative of Jesus’ human birth developed, as one of the last strands of the Gospel Tradition. By at least 70 A.D., there was in existence a seminal narrative, common to the core of the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives. It includes the central belief of the role of the Holy Spirit in the miraculous (virginal) conception of Jesus. However, there is no real evidence of a pre-existence Christology in the Infancy narratives.

To these Christological points, we should mention the important parallel between Jesus’ as God’s Son and believers as the sons/children of God. Paul notably brings out this parallel (and relationship) in Galatians 4:1-7 and Romans 8:12-17, explaining that our sonship, as believers, comes through our receiving of the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, the receiving of the Spirit took place during (and was symbolized by) the baptism ritual. This follows the pattern of Jesus’ own baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Paul also juxtaposes Jesus’ incarnate birth (as a human child) with the divine birth of believers (and children of God).

All of these Christological themes reach their pinnacle in the Johannine Writings—the Gospel and First Letter of John. In the Gospel of John, all of the main lines of tradition, regarding the relationship between Jesus (the Son) and the Spirit, are brought together and given new depths of meaning. For example, we have the Spirit descending upon Jesus at his baptism (1:32ff), along with the declaration by the Heavenly Voice (1:34), as in the Synoptic Tradition. Also, the Spirit is associated with the resurrection/exaltation of Jesus, after which Jesus is able to communicate the Spirit, sending it to his disciples (20:22).

However, there are two very distinctive points of Johannine development:

    • Through the Spirit, the manifest presence of Jesus abides in and among believers. We are united with Jesus the Son through the Spirit, and, through the Son, with God the Father, since Father and Son share the same Spirit.
    • Believers come to be “born” of God, through the Spirit, thus becoming children/offspring of God. While Jesus is the Son (ui(o/$), we, as believers, are God’s children (te/kna).

Both of these thematic ideas can be found elsewhere in the New Testament (in Paul’s letters, for example), but they have a very special emphasis in the Johannine Writings. It is the latter idea—of the birth of believers, through the Spirit—that I wish to focus on here. This will be done through a survey of the Johannine passages, many of which I have discussed in detail elsewhere.

John 1:12-13

In order to view this verse properly in context, we must begin with the first portion in verse 12:

“But as (many) as received him, to them he gave the exousia [i.e. ability/authority] to come to be [gene/sqai] (the) offspring of God [te/kna qeou=, i.e. sons/children of God]—to the ones trusting in his name…”

The context is clear enough—Christ himself gives the ability to become “children of God” to believers (the ones who trust/believe in him). The the verb gi/nomai (cognate with genna/w) is used, more or less, in the sense of coming to be born, as is clear from the parallel in v. 13. The expression te/kna qeou= (“offspring/children of God”) is generally synonymous with ui(oi\ qeou= (“sons of God”), as demonstrated by a comparison of Rom 8:16-17, 21 with Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26, etc. The Gospel and letters of John (Jn 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1, 10; 5:2) prefer te/kna qeou=; based on the slight evidence available, Luke (and the Synoptics) tends to use ui(oi\ qeou= (cf. Lk 20:36; and 6:35, where it is u(yi/stou instead of qeou=, as in Lk 1:32).

The sentence continues in verse 13:

“…who, not out of blood [lit. bloods] and not out of (the) will of (the) flesh and not out of (the) will of man, but (rather) out of God [e)k qeou=], have come to be (born) [e)gennh/qhsan]”

Note the general parallel with Lk 1:28-35, especially if v. 35b is expanded with the additional (variant) e)k sou (“out of you”):

    • Jn 1:13—e)gennh/qhsan “(the ones who) have come to be born”
      Lk 1:35—to\ gennw/menon “the (one) coming to be born”
    • Jn 1:13—e)k qeou= “out of God”
      Lk 1:35—[e)k sou=] “[out of you]” (v.l.)

In Lk 1:35, Jesus is born (as a human being) out of Mary’s body (i.e. her “flesh”); in Jn 1:13, believers are born (spiritually) out of God.

John 3:3-8

The spiritual birth of believers is referred to on several occasions in the Gospel of John, most notably in the famous passage Jn 3:3-8, where the verb genna/w appears 8 times; by contrast, it is used of Jesus’ incarnate (human) birth only in Jn 18:37. In the Nicodemus discourse, Jesus specifically contrasts an ordinary human birth (“out of [e)k] flesh,” “out of [e)k] water”) with being born “out of the Spirit” (e)k tou= pneu/mato$, vv. 5-6, 8). Being born out of the Spirit is the same as being born “from above” (a&nwqen), v. 1 (also v. 7), which Nicodemus misunderstands (v. 2) as a second fleshly birth (a&nwqen can also mean “again”). Clearly, this is a heavenly and divine birth (“from above”), and e)k [tou=] pneu/mato$ essentially has the same meaning as e)k qeou= (“out of God“). Jesus also, as the incarnate Son, comes “out of” (e)k) the divine realm above, down to earth (3:13, 31; 6:41-42, 50-51, 58; 8:23, etc).

John 8:47; 15:19; 17:6ff; 18:37

The expression e)k qeou= is used as a characteristic of believers elsewhere in the Gospel. It is often translated in the sense of “belonging to God”, but surely the idea of coming to be born out of God is also implicit in this expression. See, for example, the context of 8:47 (vv. 41-47), dealing with the idea of believers as sons/children of God (i.e., God as their Father); those who reject the Son, or who otherwise to not believe, have the Devil as their father, and belong to (being born of) the world below (8:23). As it is, believers do not belong to the world in this way (15:19). The same language runs through the Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17 (see vv. 6, 14-16).

One may also mention Jesus’ statement in 18:37, in which he declares that those who trust in him are “out of the truth” (e)k th=$ a)lhqei/a$). This is can be understood as “belong to the truth”, but again we should not ignore the implicit idea of being born, especially since Jesus himself mentions it (that is, his own birth) earlier in the same verse. The close connection between truth (a)lhqei/a) and the Spirit in the Johannine writings, makes it likely that the believer’s spiritual birth is being alluded to. The Holy Spirit is specifically called (“the Spirit of Truth“, 1 Jn 4:6; Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13, cf. also 4:23-24), and, in 1 John 5:6, it is even declared that “the Spirit is the Truth” —providing a belated answer, if you will, to the question by Pilate in Jn 18:38.

1 John 3:9, et al

The author of 1 John repeatedly refers to believers—true believers—has those who have been born of God, using the verb genna/w, just as in John 1:12-13 (cf. above). He introduces this language at the close of the first half of the letter (i.e., at the end of the section 2:28-3:10), and then proceeds to develop the theme in the second half. It relates to the central message of the letter, affirming the religious (and spiritual) identity of true believers—members of the Community—in contrast to the false believers (called false prophets and ‘antichrist’) whom he opposes (and of whom he is warning his readers against).

Here is a summary of the references:

1 John 3:9

“Every (one) having come to be (born) [gegennhme/no$] out of God does not sin, (in) that His seed remains in him, and he is not able to sin, (in) that he has come to be (born) [gege/nnhtai] out of God.”

Note the symmetric (chiastic) structure of this verse:

    • Every one having come to be born out of God
      • (he) does not sin
        • (God’s) seed remains in him
      • he is not able to sin
    • he has come to be born out of God
1 John 4:7

“…every (one) loving has come to be (born) [gege/nnhtai] out of God and knows God”

There is also a chiastic structure to 4:7-8:

    • “love is out of God”
      • “the one loving…knows God”
      • “the one not loving does not know God”
    • “God is love”

Here showing love is comparable to not sinning (3:9) as a fundamental attribute of the true believer—i.e., one who has been born of God.

1 John 5:1

“Every (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (One) has come to be (born) [gegennhtai] out of God, and every (one) loving the (One hav)ing caused (him) to be (born) [also] loves the (one) having come to be (born).”

Trust in Jesus and love for one’s fellow believers are the two components of the great Commandment (3:23-24). In 1 John, sin is defined primarily in terms of violating this two-fold great Commandment, which (in the author’s mind) is what the ‘antichrist’ opponents do. Here the main point is that, if one truly loves God, then that person will show proper love to other believers. The fundamental identity of believers as having been born of God is expressed by the two sides—active and passive—of the process of giving birth. That is, God causes the believer to be born (active participle gennh/santa), and the believer as the one who has come to be born (passive participle gegennhme/non).

1 John 5:4

“everything having come to be (born) [gegennhme/non] out of God is victorious (over) the world; and this is the victory (hav)ing been victorious (over) the world: our trust.”

A neuter participle is used here, since what is born of God includes both the believer, and the believer’s trust/faith (pi/sti$) in Jesus. The masculine participle returns in verse 5, referring again to the believer: “Who is the (one) being victorious (over) the world, if not the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God?”

1 John 5:18

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) [gegennhme/no$] does not sin, but the (one hav)ing come to be (born) [gennhqei/$] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and the Evil does not touch him.”

The textual and interpretive difficulties in this verse center on the second passive participle of genna/w, in the aorist (rather than perfect) tense. The Johannine writings use this verb of becoming in relation to believers, and never (or almost never) to Jesus. However, the expression threi= au)to/n (“he keeps watch [over] him”) suggests that the second participle refers here to Jesus, and that he—the Son who is also born of God—protects the believer from evil. If, on the other hand, both participles refer to the believer, then the verb threi= must be understood reflexively, i.e., “he keeps watch (over) him(self)”; in some manuscripts, the reflexive pronoun is used (e(auto/n, instead of au)to/n), which solves the problem. I discuss this verse in more detail in an earlier study.

In some ways, it would be appropriate if the two passive participles of genna/w in 5:18 did refer to both the believer and Jesus, respectively. This would be fitting for the rich and complex theology of the Johannine writings, expressing the relationship between Jesus (the Son) and believers (the children), who are united together as offspring of God.

However, it is worth mentioning again that believers are always referred to as te/kna qeou= (“offspring/children of God”) rather than ui(oi\ qeou= (“sons of God”), as indicated above. For the author (and the tradition/community in which he writes), there is only one true “Son” (ui(o/$) of God, and this is almost certainly the proper way to understand the term monogenh/$ in the  context of Jn 1:14, 18—Christ is the only [monogenh/$] (Son) of God the Father. Within the Gospel, Jesus frequently identifies himself as “(the) Son”, usually in terms of his relationship to, and identity with, God the Father. Believers come to be (born as) “children of God” through Christ—that is, we are dependent on him for our relationship to the Father. Paul says much the same thing (though in different terms) in Rom 8:3ff, 14-15, 22-29; Gal 3:26; 4:4-7.

Saturday Series: John 6:22-59

John 6:22-59

This week we will follow-up on the previous study, in which we examined the Johannine version of the Miraculous Feeding episode. That episode is one of the rare instances where a distinct historical tradition has been preserved in both the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Last week’s study looked especially at the episode as it was developed within the Johannine Tradition. One special aspect of the Johannine version involves the relationship between the Feeding Miracle tradition itself (6:1-15) and the Bread of Life discourse (6:22-59) that follows in the Gospel narrative. This was mentioned in the previous study, but is deserving of a more extensive treatment.

There are three motifs from the Miracle tradition which are developed in the Bread of Life discourse:

    1. The Passover setting—which is unique to John’s account, though Mk 6:39 could also indicate springtime.
    2. The eating of Bread, and
    3. The Eucharist (on these allusions, cf. the previous study)

These three themes run through the discourse, but it may be said that each dominates one of the three main sections. Verses 22-24 serve as the narrative introduction to the discourse, and are transitional, joining the discourse with the Feeding Miracle, etc, in vv. 1-21. Each of the three main sections builds on the dialogue/discourse format used in the Gospel—

    • Saying of Jesus
    • Reaction/question by the people, indicating some level of misunderstanding
    • Explanation/Exposition by Jesus

In addition, the three sections are joined together, forming a larger discourse, by way of a step-parallel thematic technique:

    • Miracle of the bread-loaves —>
      • Passover: manna / bread from heaven —>
        • Eating bread: Jesus the “bread from heaven”, Bread of Life —>
          • Jesus the Living Bread —>
            • Eucharist: eating his flesh/blood leads to (eternal) Life

Section 1 (vv. 25-34)

    • Principal saying by Jesus—verse 27: “Do not work (for) the food th(at is) perishing, but (for) the food remaining into (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]…”
    • [Explanation by Jesus]—v. 29
    • Reaction/question by the people—vv. 28-31
    • Explanation by Jesus—vv. 32-33
    • Theme: transition from the Feeding Miracle (v. 26) to the Passover motif (i.e. the manna, “bread from heaven”, vv. 31-33)

Section 2 (vv. 35-50)

    • Saying by Jesus—verse 35: “I am [egœ¡ eimi] the Bread of Life—the one coming toward me (no) he will not (ever) hunger, and the one trusting into me (no) he will not ever thirst. …”
    • [Explanation by Jesus]—vv. 36-40
    • Reaction/question by the people—vv. 41-42
    • Explanation by Jesus—vv. 44-50
    • Theme: Eating Bread—Jesus as the “Bread of Life”, the Bread come down from Heaven

Section 3 (vv. 51-58)

    • Saying by Jesus—verse 51a (parallel to v. 35): “I am [egœ¡ eimi] the Living Bread stepping down [i.e. coming down] out of Heaven—if any one should eat out of this bread he will live into the Age (to Come)…”
    • [Explanation by Jesus]—v. 51b
    • Reaction/question by the people—v. 52
    • Explanation by Jesus—vv. 53-58
    • Theme: transition from Bread (of Life) to the Eucharist motifs (vv. 53-56ff)

I will not here discuss the rich texture and theology of the discourse; this has been done in some detail in an earlier note (however, see the section below on John 6 and the Eucharist). The outline above is meant to demonstrate how the Gospel writer has developed the Feeding Miracle tradition, by making it part of the larger Bread of Life discourse, much as he did with healing miracle (and Sabbath controversy) episode in chapter 5. The Discourses of Jesus in John are complex and difficult to analyze, due to the sophisticated way that authentic historical traditions have been adapted and interpreted within the Johannine literary style/format (i.e. of the Discourses). This compositional style can be seen at many different points in the Gospel. Compare, for example, the close similarity of structure, language and ideas, between Jesus’ exchange with the Samaritan woman (4:9-15) and that of 6:25-34 (above, cf. also Brown, p. 267). The parallel between Jesus as the living water (ch. 4) and the living bread (ch. 6) is unmistakable, and is clearly intentional within the context of the Gospel.

Also most difficult is the relation between the Bread of Life and Eucharist symbolism in second and third sections (vv. 35-58) of the discourse. As challenging as these passages have been for Christians throughout the ages, Jesus’ words must have been completely baffling to the first hearers, if we accept the essential historicity of the discourse (v. 59). Indeed, this is a prominent theme of the Discourses in John—the misunderstanding of his words by the people who hear him. The explanation by Jesus, within in the discourse format, expounds the true (and deeper) meaning of his words, much as we see him, on occasion in the Synoptics, explaining his sayings and parables to the disciples in private (Mk 4:10-20 par, etc).

John 6:60-65ff

As it happens, John records a similar sort of “private” explanation by Jesus to the disciples in vv. 60-65. This comes in addition to the exposition(s) within the discourse proper; as such, vv. 60ff functions as an epilogue or appendix to the discourse. There is a loose parallel, perhaps, to this in 4:31-38. Verses 60-65 have greatly complicated interpretation of the discourse (particularly the eucharistic motifs in vv. 51-58), since they contain a distinctly spiritual explanation of Jesus’ words. This section may be outlined as follows:

    • Reaction by the disciples (i.e. to the discourse)—v. 60 “This account [i.e. word/discourse] is hard/harsh; who is able to hear it?”
    • Explanation by Jesus—vv. 61-65, which is framed by a question and a statement directed toward his disciples: “Does this trip you (up)?” (v. 61b) “But there are some of you that do not trust (in me)” (v. 64a)

The explanation in vv. 62-63 is comprised of three sayings, which must be taken together:

“Then if you should look upon the Son of Man stepping up to where he was at (the) first(, how will you react)?” (v. 62) “The Spirit is th(at which) makes (one a)live; the flesh does not help (in) anything” (v. 63a) “The utterances [i.e. words] which I have spoken to you (they) are Spirit and Life” (v. 63b)

The first saying (a rhetorical question) emphasizes the divine origin of the “Son of Man” (Jesus), and foreshadows his departure back to the Father. It is at the time of his departure that the Spirit will come to the disciples (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26; 16:13-15; 20:22-23; cf. also 8:39). The second saying clearly states that the Spirit (of God, and Christ) is that which gives life; the flesh plays no role, or is of no use in this. In the third saying, Jesus identifies his words with the Spirit and with the life the Spirit gives. The disciples, at this point in the narrative, could not possibly understand the significance of these things, since they foreshadowed events which had not taken place. They simply had to trust Jesus. This is the emphasis of verses 64-65, and in the tradition which follows (vv. 66-71). Not all of Jesus’ disciples truly trust in him, but only those chosen and given to Jesus by the Father (i.e. the Elect believers). Here the author seems to have joined to the discourse a separate tradition, with similarities to several found in the Synoptics—i.e., the calling of the Twelve (cf. Mk 3:13-19 par) and the confession by Peter (vv. 68-69; cp. Mk 8:29 par). On the latter point, compare Peter’s words in Mk 8:29/Lk 9:20 and Jn 6:69 respectively:

“You are the Anointed One [Christós] of God” “You are the Holy One [Hágios] of God”

It is another example (among many) of how the Synoptic and Johannine traditions are so very similar, and yet, at the same time, so very different.

More on John 6 and the Eucharist

One of the most peculiar features of the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of John is the lack of any mention of the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper, the bread and cup) in the Last Supper scene (chap. 13). Many critical commentators believe that this detail has been transferred to an earlier location in the Gospel (the Bread of Life Discourse, 6:51-58), the precise reason for which remains uncertain. This interpretation is easier to maintain for critical scholars who tend to view the Discourses, etc, as primarily the product of early Christians, rather than representing the authentic words/sayings of Jesus himself. At the historical level indicated by the narrative setting of the Bread of Life discourse, for example, allusions to the Eucharist, while obvious to early Christian readers, would have been completely unintelligible for Jesus’ Galilean contemporaries (the people with whom he is said to be speaking in the Discourse). The same is true of the supposed references to (Christian) baptism in 3:5ff, and so forth.

There is certainly a similarity between 6:51ff and the words of institution in the Synoptic Lord’s Supper tradition; the saying in v. 51 forms the core statement of Jesus in the sub-discourse of vv. 51-58:

“I am the living bread, the (bread hav)ing stepped down out of heaven; if any (one) should eat out of this bread, he shall live into the Age, and the bread, indeed, which I will give is my flesh, over [hypér] the life of the world.”

The reaction (misunderstanding) of the crowd follows immediately in verse 52, and the exposition by Jesus comes in vv. 53-57, along with a restatement of the initial saying in the closing v. 58, bringing it line with the context of the discourse as a whole:

“This is the bread (hav)ing stepped [i.e. come] down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and (then) died off—the (one) munching this bread will live into the Age.”

By combining the italicized portion of v. 51 above with the basic idiom of the exposition in vv. 53ff (i.e. eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood) we can approximate the Eucharistic tradition of Mark 14:22-24 par:

“And (with) their eating, (hav)ing taken bread…he gave (it) to them and said ‘Take, [eat,] this is my body’. And, (hav)ing taken the drinking-cup…he gave (it) to them and they all drank out of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood…th(at is) being poured out over [hypér] many’.”

The force of the instruction in Jn 6:53-57 involves a contrast between those who eat/drink Jesus’ flesh/blood and those who do not:

“Then Yeshua said to them: ‘Amen, amen, I relate to you (that), if you should not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not hold life in yourself’.” (v. 53)

“The (one) munching [i.e. eating] my flesh and drinking my blood holds (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life]…” (v. 54)
“The (one) munching [i.e. eating] my flesh and drinking my blood remains [ménei] in me, and I in him.” (v. 56)

Clearly, “holding life” is here synonymous with “remaining” in Jesus, both idioms being essential to the Johannine theological vocabulary and found repeatedly in the Gospel (and Letters). The verb ménœ (“remain”) is of special significance in the way that it defines the identity of the believer in Christ.

Some commentators would view the Vine instruction/illustration in 15:1-8 as a similar Eucharistic reference, with the vine (i.e. wine/cup) as a complement to the bread in the chap. 6 discourse. In point of fact, however, the main parallel between 6:51-58 and 15:1-8 lies in the use of the verb ménœ, and the idea of “remaining” in Jesus. Consider the words of Jesus in 15:4:

“You must remain [meínate] in me, and I in you. Even as the br(anch) broken (off) is not able to bear fruit from itself, if it should not remain [mén¢] in the vine, so also you (can)not if you should not remain [mén¢te] in me.”

The same language is repeated in vv. 5-7, and again, by way of exposition, in vv. 9-10. According to a sacramental (eucharistic) interpretation of these passages, the believer initially comes to Jesus through faith/trust in him, but remains in relationship with Jesus (his life-giving power, etc) by partaking in the ritual meal (sacrament of the bread and wine). While this would make perfect sense, I am sure, to many early Christians, there is precious little support for it in the Johannine Gospel (or Letters). The basis for “remaining” in Jesus, from the standpoint of the Johannine theology (and Christology), is two-fold:

    • Trust in Jesus—that he is the Son who manifests God the Father, and
    • Union with him—being united with both Son and Father—through the Spirit

This is further reflected in the two essential characteristics marking the true believer in Christ:

    • Obedience to the dual-command: of trust and love
    • The abiding and guiding presence of the Spirit

The former is clearly expressed in 15:9-10, where the “remaining in Jesus” of the vine-illustration, is explained precisely in terms of the ‘command’ (entol¢¡) of trust/love (for an explicit definition of this dual-command, cf. 1 John 3:23-24). As for the presence of the Spirit, while this is central to the entire Last Discourse (chaps. 14-16), it applies more directly to the eucharistic language in 6:51-58. Indeed, in the explanation of Jesus that follows in vv. 61ff, we read:

“Does this trip you (up)? Then if you could look at the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was (at) first, (would that help)? The Spirit is the (thing) making [i.e. bringing] life; the flesh is not useful, not (for) one (thing)—(and) the utterances that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. But there are some out of you that do not trust.”

Does the flesh/blood of Jesus in 6:51-58 refer primarily to the Eucharist or to trust in Jesus? The explanation in verses 61ff, within the overall setting of the Johannine theology, clearly indicates the latter. It is our trust in the revelatory message about Jesus—who he is (Son of God the Father) and what he does (his sacrificial death)—which allows us to “hold” life within ourselves and to “remain” in him. Moreover, this message is identified with the Spirit, which is the source of the life we hold, and the presence of the Spirit is what unites us with Jesus the Son (and God the Father).

However, the message of Jesus does center upon his sacrificial death, which brings us around to the Passion setting of the eucharistic language. The “bread”, further described as the “body and blood” of Jesus, which he gives, is given “over the life of the world” (6:51; Mk 14:24 par “…over many”). This alludes to the covenant context of the ritual in Exodus 24:5-8—particularly the action involving the blood in verse 8 (parallel to v. 6). Blood is thrown on (i.e. over) the people as part of the ratification of the covenant (note the declaration of faith/obedience to the covenant in v. 7). Obedience to the covenant leads to life and blessing for Israel.

This idea is taken much further in early Christian thought. As a result of Jesus’ sacrificial death (and resurrection) those who believe in him are freed from the power of sin and evil, and rescued from the coming Judgment of God on the wickedness/evil in the world. We are never told exactly how this is accomplished, though the symbolism and imagery involved offer some clues. Paul, in his letters, provides rather more theological exposition in this regard, but ultimately it remains one of the great mysteries of Christian faith. Jesus’ death brings (eternal) life to all who believe (“…the life of the world”, cp. Jn 3:16 etc).

* * * * * * *

Next week, we will turn our attention to the Transfiguration scene in the Synoptic Gospels. This is another example of the “Triple Tradition”, but it is also particularly instructive for understanding the many subtle (but significant) ways that the individual Gospel writers shaped the historical tradition. It is also a fitting passage to study in celebration of the Lenten season, in preparation for the coming Holy Week. I hope you will join me here…next Saturday.

References marked “Brown” above are to R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 29 (1966).

Notes on Prayer: The Last Discourse (Summary)

Conclusion

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points.

First, the nature of the requests that believers will make to the Father—that is, the requests made “in Jesus’ name”, which are promised to be answered. These requests are referenced in a comprehensive and open ended manner—i.e., “whatever you would request”. The implication is that every prayer will be answered. This may be affirmed as correct, but only in the qualified sense required by the theological context of the Last Discourse.

In this regard, it may be noted that, in the Gospel of John, there is little or no practical teaching regarding prayer, such as we see at various points in the Synoptic Gospels (the Lord’s Prayer, etc). There is virtually nothing said regarding prayer for the practical necessities of daily life—food and drink, healing from illness, release from suffering, deliverance from persecution and temptation, etc. In fact, if anything, Jesus seems to draw a clear contrast between ordinary food and drink, etc, and the true spiritual nourishment that he provides for believers (4:7-14; 6:22-59; 7:37-39). Even in the Synoptic tradition, in the Lord’s Prayer, personal requests to meet daily needs are clearly subordinated to petitions related to God and His Kingdom.

The focus of the requests in the Last Discourse is defined by the thematic emphases that run through the Discourse-complex; of these, we may draw particular attention to:

    • Understanding of who Jesus is, and his relation to the Father
    • Jesus (the Son) as the one sent by God the Father, who makes known, through word and action, the truth of the Father; believers, in turn, are sent by Jesus to do the same—i.e., make known the truth of God the Father and Jesus the Son
    • The bond of love that unites believers to Father and Son; it is the same bond that unites believers with one another (including those chosen ones who have not yet come to faith)
    • The presence of the Spirit, uniting believers with Father and Son (and each other); through the ministry of believers, the Spirit is communicated to others, even as Jesus communicated it to the first disciples (20:22)

Second, the significance of prayer in Jesus’ name. As previously noted, this cannot be limited to a facile inclusion of the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of prayers (though early Christians did adopt this practice). Rather, the phrase is a fundamental mark of identity—that is, those who are true believers in Christ. From the standpoint of Johannine theology, this especially refers to the union of believers with Christ, and of his personal presence abiding in and among them. This emphasis is scarcely unique to the Johannine tradition; it was part of the wider early Christian tradition, including the baptism ritual. Even in the Synoptic Gospels, we find a saying such as in Matt 18:20, where the phrase (“in my name”) clearly indicates the personal (spiritual) presence of Jesus (cf. also Mk 9:37 par).

The Johannine writings go much further in developing the early tradition, especially here in the Last Discourse, where Jesus’ teaching to his disciples is expressed, overwhelmingly, in terms of the Johannine idiom (cp. the language and manner of expression in First John). In the Last Discourse, the abiding presence of Jesus (= “in Jesus’ name”) is defined primarily in terms of: (a) love, and (b) the Spirit. These are addressed in the final two points.

Third, prayer involves fulfillment of the ‘love command’ and is focused on the extension of the bond of love. When one keeps the ‘command(s)’ of Jesus (and of God the Father), the meaning, in the Johannine context, is two-fold. The ‘command’ (or duty) begins with a true trust in Jesus—that is, who he is as the Son of God—and continues (and is completed) as believers love each other, according to the example and teaching of Jesus himself. Jesus’ ultimate prayer (chap. 17) to God the Father was that believers would be united through the bond of love, and this is to be the overriding focus of our prayers, as believers, as well (cf. especially the closing verses 20-26). The mission and ministry of believers, preaching the Gospel and following the example of Jesus in our actions, is a basic sign of love—even to those elect/chosen ones of God who have yet to become believers.

Finally, prayer is centered in the presence and work of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is central to the Last Discourse. There are key statements regarding the Spirit in all three of the main divisions of the Discourse-complex: in 14:16-17, 26, in 15:26, and in 16:7ff, 13-15. The Spirit is also called by the descriptive title para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), “(one who is) called alongside” to give help and assistance.

The references to the Spirit are most notable in the first and third divisions which emphasize the impending departure of Jesus (back to the Father). When Jesus departs, and is no longer physically present with his disciples, the Spirit will be sent to take his place. This is abundantly clear in terms of the framework of the first division, and it is equally clear how closely connected prayer is to the coming of the Spirit. Note the sequence:

    • V. 12: Jesus’ departure (“I am going away”)
    • Vv. 13-14: Prayer/request in Jesus’ name
    • V. 15: Believer’s fulfilling the duty/command of love
    • V. 16: The sending of the Spirit (called “another” para/klhto$, implying that Jesus was the first para/klhto$ [1 Jn 2:1])
    • Vv. 17ff: The Spirit will abide (“remain”, vb me/nw) in and with believers, continuing the presence of Jesus (the Son), and uniting believers with Father and Son

This same sequence is restated in verses 21-27ff (note the context of prayer in vv. 23-24).

In a very real sense, the Spirit is the answer to our prayer. The teaching of Jesus on prayer in Luke 11:1-13 has much the same focus, climaxing with a declaration on God sending the Spirit in answer to his disciples’ prayer (v. 13). The variant reading of the Kingdom-petition in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (verse 2b [v.l.]) explicitly interprets the coming of God’s Kingdom with the coming of the Spirit. And, indeed, the Spirit is identified with the Kingdom of God, both in the narrative of Luke-Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Acts 1:6-7; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50; Gal 5:21ff). As Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22-31 par makes clear, our prayer/requests should focus on the Kingdom of God, rather than on our daily needs, etc.

At the same time, the Spirit guides the prayer of believers. This is implied by the description in the Last Discourse of the Spirit’s work, and of the basic idea of the Spirit as “one called alongside [para/klhto$]” to help and assist us. Throughout the book of Acts, the Spirit is depicted as guiding and directing believers in all aspects of their life and ministry, and we may fairly assume that this includes their prayers as well. Paul makes this connection more specific at several points in his letters (cf. Rom 8:26-27, etc). The principle expressed in Rom 8:5 is worth nothing:

“the (one)s (who are) [i.e. who live] according to the Spirit (have their mind on) the (thing)s of the Spirit”

In other words, our thought and intention will (and should) be focused on the Spirit. The clear implication is that our prayer should be focused on the Spirit—its presence, work, and communication to others—as well.

 

Notes on Prayer: John 15:16; 16:23-26

John 15:16; 16:23-26

John 15:16

The second of the two declarations regarding prayer in 15:7-17 occurs at the close of the section, and is parallel to the declaration at the beginning of the section (v. 7):

“If you would remain in me, and my words remain in you, then request what ever you would wish (for), and it will come to be (so) for you.” (v. 7)
“…(that) you should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that what ever you would request (from) the Father in my name, He would give (it) to you.” (v. 16)

In the previous study, we saw how the “words” that remain in believers are to be understood in the context of two key themes central to the Last Discourse: (1) Love as the bond (and binding commandment) for believers, and (2) the presence of the Spirit. The first of these is emphasized especially in the exposition portion of this section (vv. 9-15), but the presence of the Spirit is very much in view as well. Much the same may be said regarding the “fruit” that remains (v. 16).

The motif of fruit (karpo/$), of course, follows upon the Vine illustration of verses 1-3ff. This imagery is also central to the use of the key verb me/nw, since the vine image effectively illustrates the theological significance of the verb. The principle involved is two-fold: (1) if the branches (believers) remain in the vine (Jesus), they will bear fruit; yet, at the same time, (2) if they do not bear fruit, then they will be ‘cut off’ and will no longer remain in the vine. This seems to create a paradox: on the one hand, bearing fruit depends on remaining in the vine, but, on the other hand, remaining in the vine depends on bearing fruit.

What does the fruit signify, and what does it mean for Jesus’ disciples to “bear fruit” (v. 8)? Here, we must keep in mind the two central themes of the Discourse: Love and the Spirit. Based on the immediate context of the exposition in vv. 9-12ff, we may fairly interpret “bearing fruit” as manifesting the divine Love. We do this by fulfilling the “love command” —that is, demonstrating true and abiding love towards fellow believers, in accordance with the teaching and example of Jesus (13:1, 12-15, 34-35, etc). It is especially the sacrificial aspect of this love that is emphasized in the Last Discourse, set as the Discourse is in the narrative context of Jesus’ impending death (cf. verse 13, and the saying in 12:24). One should be willing to offer one’s own life for another believer.

When we turn to the theme of the Spirit, one is immediately reminded of Paul’s famous reference to the “fruit of the Spirit” (o( karpo\$ tou= pneu/mato$) in Galatians 5:22ff. There is a strong ethical/moral aspect to this teaching, and, elsewhere in the Pauline letters, the idiom of “fruit” certainly relates to the idea of righteous or upright behavior and “good works” (cf. Rom 6:21-22; 7:4-5; Phil 1:11; Col 1:10; also Eph 5:9). For believers in Christ, this “fruit” is in direct contrast to the sinful passions at work in the “flesh” (Gal 5:16-21).

However valid this Pauline association between “fruit” and the Spirit may be, the Johannine emphasis is rather different. The focus is not ethical, but Christological. The Spirit represents the abiding presence of Jesus (the Son) in and among believers; and it is through him that we are also united with God the Father and experience His presence. Thus, from this standpoint, “bearing fruit” must be understood in terms of communicating the Spirit to others—that is, to other believers (i.e., those who will become believers).

For the first disciples, the Spirit was communicated through the personal presence of Jesus after his resurrection (20:22); however, with Jesus’ departure to the Father, this now occurs through the work of the Spirit in the ministry of his disciples (believers). This involves proclaiming and exemplifying the Gospel message regarding the person and work of Jesus, summarized, within the Johannine idiom, as fulfilling the two-fold duty of trust and love (1 Jn 3:23-24). Love is the uniting bond, and the Spirit is the uniting presence—and both of these, manifest in the life and action of believers, are communicated to others. This basic understanding informs the entire Last Discourse, but is especially prominent in the later portions (cf. below), and in the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17 (esp. the closing verses 20-26).

The missionary aspect is emphasized by the wording here in verse 16, serving to introduce the principal declaration:

“…I gathered you out and set you (so) that you should go away and bear fruit…”

The verb rendered conventionally as “go away”, u(pa/gw, literally means “lead (oneself) under”, i.e. make oneself hidden, going out of sight. The primary significance in the more generalized usage is of leaving the immediate vicinity and going away. The implication is that there is a mission field, away from where we currently are, however near or far that may be, and that other chosen ones (those belonging to God) are to be found there, waiting to become believers (cf. 4:35-38).

John 16:23-26

The other references to prayer in the Last Discourse are found in the final division (16:4b-28). It may be worth summarizing again the basic structure of the entire Discourse-complex:

    • 13:31-38—Introduction to the Discourse (cf. above)
    • 14:1-31—Discourse/division 1—Jesus’ departure
      • The relationship between Jesus and the Father (vv. 1-14)
      • Jesus’ Words for His Disciples (vv. 15-31)
    • 15:1-16:4a—Discourse/division 2—The Disciples in the World
      • Illustration of the Vine and Branches: Jesus and the Disciples (vv. 1-17)
      • Instruction and Exhortation: The Disciples and the World (15:18-16:4a)
    • 16:4b-28—Discourse/division 3—Jesus’ departure (farewell)
      • The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15)
      • Jesus’ Departure and Return (vv. 16-24)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 25-28)
    • 16:29-33—Conclusion to the Discourse

The third division is parallel to the first, and deals primarily with the theme of Jesus’ departure to the Father. This departure, and the related idea of the disciples seeing Jesus again, can be understood at the level of the historical tradition in two ways: (1) Jesus’ death and post-resurrection appearance, or (2) his ‘ascension’ to the Father and future return. However, from the standpoint of the Johannine theology, the paradigm is properly understood in terms of the giving of the Spirit. It is only after receiving the Spirit that the disciples truly see (that is, know and experience) Jesus—the presence and life-giving power of his person. Following his death and resurrection, Jesus ‘ascends’ (i.e., departs) back to his Father (20:17), and then returns to his disciples (vv. 19-23)—an appearance that culminates with Jesus giving them the Spirit.

Indeed, it is the promise of the Spirit (the one “called alongside,” para/klhto$) that is the focus of the first part of this Discourse-division (vv. 4b-15), and the references to Jesus’ departure and return (vv. 16-24) must be understood in this light. The context of the Spirit (cf. above) also informs the statements regarding prayer in vv. 23-26. As in the case of 15:7-17, the section is bracketed by two parallel statements:

“And, in that day, you will not ask anything (from) me. Amen, amen, I say to you, (that) whatever you would request (from) the Father in my name, He will give (it) to you.” (v. 23)
“In that day you will request in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask (it of) the Father about you” (v. 26)

Both of these statements refer to “that day” (“in that day,” e)n e)kei/nh| th=| h(me/ra|), an expression that relates to “the hour” (w%ra) that is to come (v. 25). This term w%ra (“hour”), in the theological context of the Johannine narrative, signifies the entire compass of Jesus’ Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Return to the Father. From this standpoint, “that day” is the moment when Jesus appears again to his disciples and gives the Spirit to them. This “day” motif was introduced in the first portion of the Gospel narrative (1:19-51), which is divided into four successive ‘days’ (note the repeated use of the expression “upon the morrow” [th=| e)pau/rion], i.e., ‘on the next day,’ in vv. 29, 35, 43). Each ‘day’ involves a chain of witness, attesting to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah and Son of God. On the first ‘day’ (1:19-28), John the Baptist denies this identity for himself; on the second ‘day’ (1:29-34) he affirms it of Jesus (in the context of Jesus’ baptism); on the third ‘day’ (1:35-42) the Baptist’s witness leads to the first disciples following Jesus; and, finally, on the fourth ‘day’ (1:43-51) these disciples (the first believers) give this witness to others.

The nature of this witness changes with the coming of the Spirit. Now, believers can truly see Jesus (the Son of God), through his abiding presence in the Spirit. It also changes how believers relate to God the Father. Jesus explains this here in vv. 23-26, as he tells his disciples of the ramifications of what will happen on “that day”. The difference is two-fold, reflected in the statements of vv. 23 and 26:

    • V. 23: They will no longer need to ask questions of Jesus (vb e)rwta/w), regarding who he is, his relationship to the Father, etc. The reason for this is that Jesus will be present with them (and united with them) through the Spirit, and they will suddenly have a new (and far deeper) awareness of things.
    • V. 26: Jesus will no longer have to ask of the Father on their behalf, i.e., interceding for them in their (prayer) requests (vb ai)te/w), etc. Again, the reason for this is the presence of the Spirit. Being united with the Son (Jesus) means that believers are also united with the Father, and so are able to communicate with Him directly.

The last point is made clear by the explanation in verse 27: “for the Father Him(self) considers you dear [vb. file/w] (to Him)”. The use of the verb file/w (par. with a)gapa/w) is another way of referring to the bond of love (a)ga/ph) that unites believers with Father and Son. In this dynamic, the requests made by believers to the Father will be answered. This is stated as a promise, as in all of these prayer-statements that occur in the Last Discourse. The contrast between this and the current situation (before “that day” occurs) is explained in verse 25:

“until now you (have) not requested anything in my name—request (it)! and you will receive (it), (so) that your joy may be fulfilled”

They have not yet made their requests “in Jesus’ name” since they have not yet been united with him through the Spirit. Clearly, this is far more significant than simply including the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of one’s prayers (though early Christians certainly did adopt this practice); the emphasis in the Gospel of John is fundamentally theological and Christological: to be “in his name” means to be united with him through the Spirit, and through the bond of love. The early Christian baptism ritual alludes to this very dynamic, at the traditional level. Authors such as Paul gave to the ritual symbolism a deeper theological meaning, in reference to our union with Christ through the Spirit (Rom 6:3-4 [cp. 8:11ff]; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; 4:6); and the Johannine Tradition certainly did the same.

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points. However, since this requires more than a cursory treatment, and space is needed to draw together all of the strands, this analysis will be saved for next week’s study.

 

January 19: John 1:34 (continued)

John 1:34, continued

In order to gain a better understanding of the declaration by John the Baptist in verse 34 (and the important text-critical question in the verse, cf. the previous note), it is necessary to examine the narrative context of vv. 19-51. As previously discussed, verses 29-34 make up one of four sections in the narrative, which are joined together using the literary device of setting the four episodes on four successive days. This may be outlined, again, as follows:

    • Day 1—The testimony of John the Baptist regarding his own identity (1:19-28)
    • Day 2—The testimony of John regarding the identity of Jesus (1:29-34)
    • Day 3—Disciples follow/encounter Jesus as the result of John’s witness (1:35-42)
    • Day 4—Disciples follow/encounter Jesus as the result of his (and other disciples’) witness (1:43-51)

The first “Day” involves the question of John the Baptist’s identity. He specifically denies any identification with three figures or titles— “the Anointed One” (i.e. Messiah), “Elijah”, and “the Prophet”. The last two relate to a Messianic Prophet figure-type, drawn from the Old Testament figures of Elijah and Moses (Deut 18:15-20); this subject is discussed further in the series “Yeshua the Anointed” (Part 3). It is not entirely clear whether “the Anointed One” refers to a Messiah generally, a Messianic Prophet, or the traditional Messianic ruler from the line of David; based on the overall context of vv. 29-51, the latter is more likely.

The second and third “Days” follow a similar pattern; each begin with John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (vv. 29, 36). Each ends with a distinct declaration regarding Jesus’ identity. The declaration of the second day is that of verse 34; that of the third day again involves the title Messiah— “We have found the Messiah!” (v. 41), where the Hebrew word j^yv!m* is transliterated as Messi/a$ (before being translated, “Anointed One” [Xristo/$]).

This common Messianic theme, running through the narrative episodes, would perhaps suggest that the reading “Chosen/Elect One” is to be preferred, since this title (presumably derived from Isa 42:1) is more directly Messianic than is “Son of God”. This is certainly the case with its use in Lk 9:35 and 23:35, the only other occurrences in the New Testament where the title is applied to Jesus.

However, a careful examination of the fourth “Day” (vv. 43-51) points in the opposite direction. Here the declaration regarding Jesus’ identity, made by Nathanael (v. 49), is two-fold:

“You are the the Son of God, you are the King of Israel“

The thematic and narrative structure suggests that these two titles are parallel to those in the declarations of the 2nd and 3rd days:

    • “Son of God” = “<Chosen | Son> of God” (v. 34)
    • “King of Israel” = “Messiah” (v. 41)

The parallelism would tend to favor “Son” in v. 34, if only slightly. This, along with the overwhelming external manuscript evidence (in favor of “Son”), makes it the preferred reading. Still, the matter is far from decisive, and it is worth keeping the variant “Elect/Chosen One” well in mind whenever you read this passage. Consider how the two titles (and concepts) are closely intertwined in Luke’s version of the Transfiguration scene, in which the voice from Heaven declares (according to the best manuscripts):

“This is my Son, the Elect/Chosen One [o( e)klelegme/no$]…” (9:35)

The title “Elect/Chosen (One)” here takes the form of a substantive (perfect) participle of the verb e)kle/gomai (“gather out”), from which the adjective e)klekto/$ is derived. Literally, it would be translated “the (one) having been gathered out” (o( e)klelegme/no$), but it is essentially identical in meaning to o( e)klekto/$. The latter occurs as a title of Jesus, albeit delivered mockingly to him, in Lk 23:35, and is clearly used in a Messianic sense (“the Anointed [One], the Elect/Chosen [One] of God”). There can be no real doubt that the same significance is to be found in its usage in the Lukan Transfiguration scene.

The Transfiguration scene, of course, parallels the earlier Baptism scene in the Synoptic Gospels, in which the voice from Heaven makes a similar declaration (in Matthew they are identical). Now, the Gospel of John only narrates the Baptism indirectly (vv. 29-34), through the testimony of John the Baptist, who witnesses the visionary phenomena. His declaration is in the same climactic position as the Divine/Heavenly voice in the Synoptics:

Yet consider, too, a comparison with the variant reading from John—

    • “You are My Son…” / “This is My Son…”
    • “This is the Chosen One of God” (Jn 1:34 v.l.)

which matches the words of the heavenly voice in Lk 9:35:

“You are my Son, the Chosen One”

This declaration, in turn, is an echo of Isaiah 42:1, where God speaks of “My Servant [db#u#]…my Chosen (One) [ryj!B^]…”. In Greek, db#u# is translated by pai=$, which can also mean “child” — “my Child” is obviously close in meaning to “my Son“. At the same time, ryj!B^ is translated by  e)klekto/$, the same word used in Jn 1:34 v.l. (and related to that in Lk 9:35).

It may be helpful at this point to summarize three important aspects of the Johannine tradition in vv. 19-51:

    • The narrative, despite its adapation of the early Gospel tradition into the Johannine idiom, preserves authentic historical tradition. For more on this, cf. the articles dealing with Jn 1:19-51 in my earlier series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition” (The Baptism of Jesus).
    • This early tradition specifically relates to the identity of Jesus as the “Anointed One” (Messiah), and particularly so in terms of the Messianic Prophet figure-type(s). It is the Anointed herald of the (Deutero-)Isaian oracles (e.g., 42:1ff; 61:1ff) that is most clearly in view, and is the figure with which Jesus was identified in the earliest strands of the Tradition. Cf. Parts 2 and 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.
    • Again, in the earliest tradition, the title “Son of God” was fundamentally Messianic in significance. Even though the Gospel of John clearly understands the title in terms of a pre-existence Christology, it still retains the older, traditional meaning as well.

None of this is sufficient to decide the text-critical question of which title— “Son of God” or “Elect/Chosen One of God” —was the original reading. Both titles are appropriate to the Messianic context of vv. 19-51, and, in a sense, can be seen as interchangeable (or, at least, complementary). As noted above, the overwhelming manuscript support, as well as the Johannine usage, favors the reading “Son of God” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=), and I am inclined to adopt it, by a narrow margin. The Baptist’s declaration would then read:

“And I have seen and have witnessed that this (one) is the Son of God“

In so doing, John is the first to give witness to Jesus’ identity as God’s Son. In the context of the Gospel Prologue, this refers to his identity as the pre-existent Son; however, in the immediate context of the narrative (vv. 19-51), and in terms of the early Gospel tradition, the title is to be understood in a Messianic sense (i.e., “Anointed One” = “Elect/Chosen One”). Both aspects are fundamental to the Johannine theology, and must be taken into account when summarizing the Christological portrait in the Gospel. No better summary can be found than the confessional statement by Martha in 11:27:

“I have trusted that you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God…”

This confession holds roughly the same place in the Gospel of John as Peter’s confession does in the Synoptics (Mk 8:29 par). It also is close in form and sense to the Baptist’s declaration in 1:34, especially if we were to combine the two variant readings:

“I have seen…that this (one) is the Elect/Chosen (One), the Son of God”

An even more precise confessional formula is used by the author in his conclusion to the Gospel:

“I have written these (thing)s (so) that you would trust that Yeshua is the Anointed (One), the Son of God…” (20:31)

The uniqueness of the Johannine Gospel lies in the way that the earlier Gospel tradition, which understood the title “Son (of God)” primarily in a Messianic sense, has been adapted and developed to give a deeper theological (and Christological) meaning to the traditional manner of expression. Jesus is still the Anointed One, exalted by God the Father through his death and resurrection; but he is also something more: the incarnation of the pre-existent Logos, who was, even in the very beginning, the Son resting together with God the Father in the bond of His eternal love and power.

January 18: John 1:34

John 1:34

The Johannine account of the Baptism of Jesus concludes with a revelatory declaration by John the Baptist regarding the true identity of Jesus:

“And I have seen and have given witness that this (man) is the <…> of God“

The use of the verbs o(ra/w (“see”) and marture/w (“[give] witness”) frame the declaration by the Baptist in decidedly Johannine theological terms. Both verbs have a special significance in the Gospel of John, as do the concepts of seeing (sight/vision) and witnessing. In the Johannine theological context, these verbs carry a deeper meaning than might otherwise be suggested by their use in the narrative. This meaning refers primarily to a recognition of who Jesus is—viz., his identity as the Messiah and Son of God. On the theological aspect of John the Baptist’s witness of the Baptism event here in vv. 31-33, cf. the discussion in the previous note.

The use of the perfect tense (as in the case of both verbs here) typically indicates a past action or condition that continues into the present. John the Baptist’s revelation regarding the identity of Jesus continues to have abiding force—both when the Gospel was written, and for all those who have read the record of his witness in the centuries since.

The portion of verse 34 in bold above represents the unit where an important textual variation occurs, with the point of variance marked by angle brackets. There are two main variant readings for this unit:

    1. “…the (one) gathered out of [i.e. by] God” (o( e)klekto\$ tou= qeou=)—that is, “the Elect/Chosen (one) of God”
    2. “…the Son of God” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=)

The conflated reading “…the Elect/Chosen Son of God”, found in a few witnesses, is clearly secondary and can be disregarded; however, it does show that both readings above were familiar to certain copyists.

These two variants are of true significance, since they cut to the heart of the Baptist’s declaration of who Jesus is. The majority reading has “Son” (ui(o/$); however, in a number of manuscripts and versions (Ë5vid a* 77 218 b e ff2* and Old Syriac versions) it is “elect/chosen (one)” (e)klekto/$ lit. “gathered out”)—i.e. “the Son of God” vs. “the Elect (One) of God”. The reading with ui(o/$ (“son”) is found nearly every Greek manuscript, and, normally, such overwhelming external evidence would decide the question. Moreover, this reading is fully in accordance with the Gospel usage throughout, and the Johannine theology, with the repeated emphasis on Jesus as the Son. This same emphasis is found in the Prologue (see esp. vv. 14, 18), and given the related Prologue references to John the Baptist as a witness (vv. 6-9, 15), it would be most appropriate for the Baptist here to bear witness that Jesus is the “Son of God”.

On the other hand, the reading with e)klekto/$ (“gathered out,” i.e., elect/chosen) is unquestionably more difficult. Based on the principle of difficilior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is preferred”), and the fact that the minority reading is found in a relative wide range of witnesses, might well lead one to regard it as original. Indeed, as a number of commentators have noted, it is extremely hard to explain how (or why) ui(o/$ would ever have been changed to e)klekto/$, while the reverse would be rather easy to explain, given that:

    • The tendency of copyists was to enhance, rather than reduce, the Christological significance of a passage; and “Son of God” is unquestionably the more exalted title, especially as it came to be understood by Christians in the following centuries.
    • “Son of God” is also by far the more familiar title; even among first-century Christians, to judge by the New Testament evidence, “Elect/Chosen One” was quite rare by comparison.
    • The title “Son” is also fully in keeping with the regular Johannine usage, whereas neither the work e)klekto/$ nor the basic concept of “chosen (one)” is ever applied to Jesus in the Johannine writings.

The evidence thus is evenly divided, making it extremely difficult to decide the textual question. A more detailed consideration of vocabulary and style may give further clarification:

As noted above, the adjective e)klekto/$ does not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of John, but the related verb e)kle/gomai (“gather out,” i.e., “choose”) is used five times, all by Jesus, and always in reference to the disciples, i.e. as those chosen by him (6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19). Indeed, throughout the New Testament, both the adjective (as a noun) and the verb are typically used of believers (Matt 13:20; 22:14; Lk 6:13; 18:7; Acts 1:2; Rom 8:33; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:1, etc), and only rarely of Jesus (Lk 9:35; 23:35; cf. below). By contrast, Jesus refers to himself as “the Son” many times in the Gospel of John. The title “Son of God” is less frequent, but still occurs 8 times, declared by others (Jn 1:49; 11:27; 19:7; 20:31) as often as by Jesus himself (3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4). It is also relative common (7 times) in 1 John (3:8; 4:15; 5:5, 10-13, 20). A consideration of style and vocabulary would thus tend to favor the reading “Son of God” in Jn 1:34.

The context of the Gospel Prologue also favors this reading, as mentioned above. However, if one considers the narrative in 1:19-51 on its own, apart from the Prologue, then we find a rather different thematic emphasis, and one which could be said to favor the reading “Elect/Chosen One”. This involves several aspects of the Johannine narrative that are sometimes overlooked by scholars: (1) the distinct manner in which the Gospel preserves authentic tradition, (2) the strong Messianic context of the early Gospel tradition, and (3) the emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah, in relation to his identity as the “Son of God”.

We will examine these points, together, in the next daily note.

 

January 17: John 1:33

John 1:33

Verse 33 is curious in that it essentially repeats the information from verses 31-32 (discussed in the previous notes). It is one of several repetitions and ‘doublets’ in this section, which commentators have sought to explain in a variety of ways. Actually, such repetition/doublets seem to be part of the Johannine literary style, and many examples could be cited from throughout the Discourses. One way to explain this, as a mode of composition by the Gospel writer, is that parallel but distinct source-traditions have been creatively combined together into a single narrative. However, in this case it is perhaps better to view the matter as a combination of different interpretive approaches by the Gospel writer to a common tradition.

It may be useful to compare verses 31-32 and 33 in context here:

Vv. 31-32
John: “And I had not seen [i.e. known] him, but (so) that he should be made to shine forth to Yisrael, through this [i.e. for this reason] I came dunking in water.”
Narration: “And Yohanan gave witness, saying that ‘I looked at the Spirit stepping down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him’.”

V. 33
John: “And I had not seen [i.e. known] him, but the (One) sending me to dunk in water—that (One) said to me”
Heavenly voice: “The (one) upon whom you should see the Spirit stepping down and remaining upon him”
Trad. saying (adapted): “this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit”

There is clear parallelism at work, but, as is often the case in the Gospel of John, the apparent repetitiveness is actually a sign of careful composition and a purposeful literary structure. The reasonably precise parallelism serves to highly the differences between the two versions, and these differences are more significant than might appear at first glance. We may summarize it this way:

    • Vv. 31-32 record John’s witness as to what he saw
    • V. 33 records John’s witness as to what God revealed to him

These are both important, and complementary, aspects, from the standpoint of the Johannine theology. It also demonstrates the special and unique way that the Gospel writer adapted the established tradition. Recall that there are two fundamental components to the Baptism tradition: (a) visual (descent of the Spirit), and (b) aural (voice from heaven). These correspond to the two ‘versions’ of the Johannine account: (a) what John saw (vv. 31-32), and (b) what he heard God say to him (v. 33).

Moreover, there is a reverse progression in vv. 31-33; that is to say, verses 31-32 depend on v. 33, even though verse 33 comes after vv. 31-32 in the narrative. John would not be able to give the witness that he does in vv. 31-32, if God had not first revealed the information to him in vv. 33. In this way, the Gospel writer, through his carefully constructed narrative, takes the reader back to the revelatory point experienced by John himself. In effect, the reader, through the inspired narrative, experiences the same revelation. On the importance of John as a source of revelation regarding the person of Jesus, cf. also 3:26-30ff; 5:33-35.

Some comment must be made regarding one particular adaptation of the Baptism tradition: the use of the verb me/nw (“remain”), an important Johannine keyword, which occurs here in both verse 32 and 33. The common tradition is followed in stating that the Spirit “stepped down” (vb katabai/nw) out of heaven as a dove, coming “upon” (e)pi/) Jesus. However, the phrasing in the Johannine version involves the Spirit stepping down and remaining on Jesus. Given the importance of the verb me/nw for the Johannine theology, this is surely significant. Even though the idea of the Spirit resting upon Jesus, may be part of the traditional (Messianic) imagery, based on the wording, for example, in Isa 11:2 (cp. Testament of Judah 24:1ff; Testament of Levi 18:7), the specific Johannine use of me/nw gives to the scene an even deeper meaning.

It is at just this point, however, that the Johannine Christological portrait seems to be somewhat at odds with the Baptism tradition. In the context of the core Gospel narrative, it is only after the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism that he is empowered to proclaim the Kingdom, teach/preach the Divine message, and work healing miracles. There is not the slightest suggestion in the Synoptic Gospels of the divine pre-existence of Jesus. Fundamentally, his identity as the Son of God begins at the Baptism (Mk 1:10-11 par), marked by the coming of the Spirit upon him.

The Gospel of John, however, evinces a strong pre-existence Christology, identifying Jesus as the Son of God even prior to his life/existence on earth. This is declared (and affirmed), not only in the Prologue, but throughout the Gospel Discourses as well. It may be that the Gospel writer, here in vv. 29-34, has simply retained the core Gospel (and historical) tradition, without altering it substantially to fit the Johannine Christology. Even so, we must ask what significance the theologically charged verb me/nw has in this context.

Throughout the Johannine Discourses, this verb is used to express the abiding relationship (and union) between God the Father and Jesus (the Son). By extension, this same sense of union applies to the relationship between Jesus and believers. In the Last Discourse, in particular, Jesus repeatedly refers to his disciples “remaining” in him, and he in them. The Vine illustration (and its exposition) in 15:1-16 alone contains 11 occurrences of the verb me/nw. This abiding union is realized through the presence of the Spirit, which comes upon believers and dwells in and among them.

Based on the Johannine Christology, expressed most clearly in the Last Discourse, the Spirit also represents the bond of unity shared by God the Father and Jesus the Son. And yet, this fact renders somewhat problematic the traditional Baptism scene recorded in vv. 29-34, where the Spirit comes upon Jesus much as it does upon his disciples (believers). If Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God, sharing the Divine Life and existence with God the Father, would he not already possess the Spirit in full measure? In that case, what is the purpose of the Spirit’s descent at the Baptism?

The question might be answered by way of the kenosis-theory (based on Phil 2:6-8), whereby Jesus “emptied” (vb keno/w) himself of his Divine position and status when he came to be born and live on earth as a human being. According to the kenotic theology, the emptied human Jesus was dependent upon the special presence of the Spirit, which came and empowered him at the Baptism—an empowerment that lasted throughout the time of his life on earth. The validity of this kenotic theology, in whole or in part, continues to be debated by theologians; in any event, it is not at all clear whether (or to what extent) the Gospel writer held such a view of Jesus.

Perhaps the most serious objection to the kenotic hypothesis is that it is predicated upon a developed (post-Nicene) mode of Christological thinking, and it is highly questionable whether such a mode of thinking can (or should) be read back into the first-century context of the New Testament writings. I suspect that the Gospel writer is simply making use of the Baptism tradition without giving any real thought to all of the potential theological implications. The Johannine Christology required that there be some mention of the abiding presence of the Spirit with Jesus during his time on earth as the incarnate Word and Son of God. The Baptism tradition, with its record of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus, was the best vehicle for establishing the fundamental connection between Jesus and the Spirit. From a literary standpoint, once this connection was established, the Gospel writer could then freely reference the incarnate Son’s possession of the Spirit—the same Spirit which God the Father possesses, and which the Father gave to the Son (3:34-35, etc)

One key point that the Johannine theology shares with the wider Gospel tradition is that Jesus’ empowerment by the Spirit’s presence was permanent, and, as such, differed fundamentally from the temporary inspiration of religious leaders and prophets (such as John the Baptist). The verb me/nw certainly captures this idea of permanence: the Spirit “remained” (e&meinen) upon Jesus. This theme also applies to our union (as believers) with Jesus—we remain in him through the abiding presence of the Spirit, and this presence is permanent.

Notes on Prayer: John 15:7, 16 (continued)

John 15:7-17, continued

The condition for the promise of answered prayer is stated two ways—in verses 7 and 16, respectively. The first involves the verb me/nw (“remain”), which is used repeatedly throughout the Vine illustration and its exposition (vv. 1-16). The importance (and significance) of this Johannine keyword was discussed in last week’s study. The condition requires that the believer “remains” connected and united with Jesus, by a bond that runs in two directions:

    • The believer “remains” in Jesus— “if you would remain in me…”
    • Jesus’ words “remain” in the believer— “…and my words [r(h/mata] would remain in you”

The conditional aspect of this two-fold clause is indicated by the use of the subjunctive, along with the governing particle e)a/n (“if”)— “if you would…”. On the surface, the idea that Jesus’ words remain in the believer would seem to refer, rather simply, to observance of Jesus’ various teachings, keeping them in one’s mind and heart. However, while not entirely invalid, such an interpretation is off the mark in terms of the Johannine theology and the context of Last Discourse. It might seem to be confirmed by the parallel, in the central exposition of vv. 9-14, with the statements regarding the ‘commandments’ (e)ntolai/) of Jesus, as though this referred to specific teachings given by Jesus to his disciples. But, again, I would maintain that this is incorrect.

The disciple will, of course, pay special attention to all that Jesus said and did, following both his teaching and his example. But the emphasis here in the Last Discourse is actually quite different. A proper understanding depends on the significance of the term e)ntolh/, as it is used in the Johannine writings. As I have previously discussed, while e)ntolh/ is typically translated as “command(ment)”, it more properly denotes a duty placed on a person—something that the person is obligated to fulfill or complete. While it can be used in reference to the requirements and regulations in the Torah, it gradually ceased to have this meaning for believers. Some early Christians sought to substitute a collection of teachings by Jesus (such as in the Sermon on the Mount), resulting in a new kind of Torah, but even this came to be at odds with the early Christian religious worldview—at least as it is expressed at key points in the New Testament Scriptures.

To understand the Johannine view of the term e)ntolh/, our best (and clearest) guide is the declaration in 1 John 3:23-24:

“And this is His e)ntolh/: that we should trust in the name of His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed), and (that) we should love each other, even as he gave us (this) e)ntolh/.”

It is a single duty (or ‘command’), which is also two-fold—that is, it has two components (trust and love), each of which is binding for believers. It may be said fairly that this dual charge is the only binding ‘commandment’ for believers in Christ—and that all other right moral and religious behavior stems from this one dual command. The interchangeability of the singular e)ntolh/ and plural e)ntolai/ in the Johannine writings tends to confirm this point.

The Love Command

Here in the Last Discourse, it is the love-component that is emphasized, reflecting a view of the so-called “love command” that was widely held among early Christians. This “love command” derives primarily from Jesus’ own teaching, exemplified in the Synoptic tradition by the famous saying of Jesus in Mark 12:30-31 par (cp. the ‘Golden Rule’ in Matt 7:12 par). Early Christians came to view this “love command” as effectively summarizing the entirety of the Old Testament Law (Torah), with the single command, as an expression of the way in which believers are committed to following the teaching and example of Jesus himself, coming to take the place of the myriad of Torah regulations. We see this tendency (and principle) stated in several different lines of early Christian tradition: in the writings of Paul (Gal 5:6, 13-14; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13; 16:14, etc), the letter of James (2:8ff, cf. also 1:25ff), and in the Johannine writings.

In the Gospel of John, the “love command” is presented as a direct, precise command (e)ntolh/) given by Jesus to his disciples—it introduces the Last Discourse (13:34-35), and runs throughout the Discourse as a central theme. Consider how it is emphasized here in 15:7-17, especially in the middle expository portion covering vv. 9-15:

    • Verses 9-12: Love (a)ga/ph), the significance of the “love command” —as the bond between believers and Jesus (and with God the Father)
    • Verse 13: The example of love in the person of Jesus
    • Verses 14-15: Those who follow Jesus’ example are beloved (“dear ones,” filoi) to him (and to God the Father)

The fundamental importance of the “love command” is illustrated by the careful thematic structure found in verses 9-10, which takes the form of a chiastic outline:

    • The Father has loved me (Jesus, the Son)
      • I have loved you (believers) in turn
        • e)ntolh/: “remain in my love”
          • you will remain in my love if
        • you keep my e)ntolai/ (love)
      • as I have kept my Father’s e)ntolai/ (love)
    • I remain in His (the Father’s) love

The ‘command’ —indeed, the ‘commandments’ [plural], and the “words” of Jesus (v. 7)—are all contained and embodied in the single comprehensive dynamic of love. This is not simply a command to love, though it may be expressed that way; rather, it is the very love that unites Jesus (the Son) with God the Father. The Father loves the Son, and the Son, in turn, loves the other “offspring” (children) of God—those believers who come to trust in Jesus as God’s Son. It is through the bond of love that we are united with Jesus, abiding and “remaining” in him, even as he “remains” in us. Since Jesus, as the Son, also abides in the bond of love with God the Father, when we “remain” in the Son, we “remain” in the Father as well (and He in us). This is the essence of the Johannine theology, particularly as it is expressed and expounded in the Last Discourse.

The Spirit

If the bond that unites with Father and Son is defined in terms of love, it may equally be understood in terms of the Spirit—the presence of the Holy Spirit in and among believers. It may be better to keep the idea of a bond associated specifically with love, since love (a)ga/ph) is expressed repeatedly as a binding requirement (e)ntolh/) in a way that the Spirit is not. The Spirit instead is a presence—the abiding presence of Jesus the Son, and, through the Son, the presence of God the Father as well. Through the Spirit, Jesus continues to speak and instruct his disciples. This is another way to understand the words of Jesus “remaining” in his disciples: through the Spirit who “remains” (that is, abides) in us (14:17). It is not simply a matter of the Spirit enabling Jesus’ disciples to recall and retain the things he said during his earthly ministry, though that is part of the picture (14:26). Rather,—and this must be emphasized—Jesus continues to speak to believers through the Spirit. Insofar as the Spirit “remains” in us, Jesus’ words—especially the ‘command’ to love—remain in us as well.

The identification of Jesus’ words with the Spirit of God is made clearly, and directly, in the statement of 6:63b: “the words [r(h/mata] that I have spoken to you are (the) Spirit and are (the) Life”. The term used here, as in 15:7, is r(h=ma, which properly means “utterance” (i.e., something spoken). However, it can also be used in a more general sense, and, in the Johannine writings, the noun r(h=ma is largely interchangeable with lo/go$. The “utterances” (r(h/mata) of Jesus cannot be reduced simply to a specific set of teachings, things he said during his earthly ministry; they are also a living word (r(h=ma), even as Jesus himself is the living Word (lo/go$) of God. And it is this living Word—which includes all of his “words” —that “remains” in us through the presence of the Spirit.

The role of the Spirit, in terms of the references to prayer in the Last Discourse, will be discussed further in the concluding study in this set. Next week, our study will cover three areas:

    • An examination of the closing reference to prayer here in verse 16
    • A survey of the remaining references to prayer in the Last Discourse, and
    • A consideration of how the various conditional statements relate to the promise of our requests (prayers) being answered by God

(For further study on the New Testament view of the Old Testament Law [Torah], and its significance for believers in Christ, you may wish to consult my earlier series “The Law and the New Testament” —especially the articles and notes on “Jesus and the Law” and “Paul’s View of the Law”.)

January 16: John 1:32

John 1:32

In verse 31 (cf. the previous note), the Baptist states that “I had not known him [that is, Jesus].” On the surface, this would simply mean that John was unfamiliar with Jesus, and did not known him personally, prior to his coming forward to be baptized. However, as I have discussed, the terminology of seeing/knowing (here represented by the verb ei&dw, “see”), in the Johannine writings, has special theological meaning. From the standpoint of the Johaninne theology, the Baptist’s statement means that he had not recognized Jesus’ true identity (as the Son of God) before this moment. This Christological awareness applies even more to the context of verse 26, when the Baptist says, of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, that they “have not seen [i.e. known]” who Jesus is: “in your midst has stood (one) whom you have not seen”. The irony in this statement runs deep, since, as repeatedly documented in the Gospel narrative, the Jewish religious leaders refused (or were unable) to acknowledge who Jesus was—the Anointed One (Messiah) and Son of God. Chapter 9 deals extensively with this special sense of “seeing”.

The tense of the verb in v. 31 is the pluperfect (“I had seen,” h&|dein), used only rarely in the New Testament. The implication is that John had not understood who Jesus was until the present moment. Now he does realize the truth of Jesus’ identity, for it has been revealed to him by God. This is indicated in the remainder of verse 31: “…but (so) that he should be made to shine forth to Israel, through this [i.e. for this purpose] I came dunking in water”. Apparently, John now realizes the purpose of his baptizing ministry: it was to make known the person of Jesus—his identity as the Messiah and Son of God.

In the Gospel Tradition, the baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of his public ministry. The core Tradition says virtually nothing of Jesus’ life prior to the baptism. According to the Synoptic narrative, Jesus’ ministry begins almost immediately after his baptism (Mk 1:9-11 par)—following a short period of time spent in the desert (Mk 1:12-13 par). Being filled with the Spirit of God (cf. Lk 4:1, 14, 18), Jesus begins to teach and perform healing miracles.

The Johannine account of the Baptism is unusual in that it is presented indirectly, as a narration by the Baptist. Whether this difference is intrinsic to the Johannine tradition, or represents a literary development by the Gospel writer, is difficult to say. For more discussion on such critical questions, consult the articles on the Baptism of Jesus in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition” (the Johannine version of the Baptism is treated most extensively in Part 3).

Here is the summary of the Johannine account in verse 32:

“And Yohanan gave witness [e)martu/rhsen], saying that ‘I have looked at [teqe/amai] the Spirit stepping down [katabai=non] as a dove out of heaven, and it remained [e&meinen] upon him’.”

This generally corresponds with the Synoptic narrative, and we can be fairly certain that the Johannine tradition preserved an account of the Baptism that more or less resembled the statement in Mark 1:10 par:

“And, straightaway, stepping up [a)nabai/nwn] out of the water, he saw the heavens being split, and the Spirit as a dove stepping down [katabai=non] <upon> him.”
[The Markan version reads “into/unto [ei)$] him”, while Matthew [3:16] has “upon [e)pi] him”, as in the Johannine account]

The two main differences in John’s version are: (a) the event is reported as witnessed by the Baptist, and (b) the verbs, reflecting the distinctive Johannine (theological) vocabulary, that are used in the narration.

(a) The Baptism witnessed by John the Baptist

While this may be part of the underlying Johannine tradition, and rooted in historical tradition, it takes on added meaning in the Gospel context. Its significance is informed by the references to John the Baptist in the Prologue, where the Baptist is described specifically as a witness (marturi/a, vb marture/w) to the Light (vv. 6-9), by which is meant a witness to Jesus’ identity as the pre-existent Son of God (v. 15). John the Baptist is the first such witness to Jesus’ true identity, an identity that was revealed to John during the Baptism-event. In the Markan account, it is Jesus who sees and hears the Divine phenomena (descent of the Spirit, voice from Heaven), while Matthew seems to present the phenomena as observable by the wider audience.

The Johannine version certainly departs from the Matthean portrait—the public did not see or hear the heavenly phenomena (a point reinforced by the scene at the close of Jesus’ ministry, in 12:27-30ff). The presence of the Spirit and the voice of God from heaven were witnessed only by John, and it is he who reports them (as a witness) to others. This is of vital importance to the thematic structure of the narrative in 1:19-51.

(b) The Johannine Vocabulary

Four verbs are used in v. 32, and they all have special significance as part of the Johannine theological vocabulary:

1. marture/w (“[give] witness”)—John the Baptist as a witness was emphasized above (cf. verses 6-9, 15 of the Prologue); however, these references are only the first of a considerable number throughout the Gospel. The verb marture/w occurs 33 times in the Gospel of John (compared with just 2 in the Synoptic Gospels combined). In addition, it is used 10 times in the Letters of John, and another 4 in the book of Revelation (1:2; 22:16, 18, 20). In comparison with these 47 Johannine occurrences, the verb occurs just 29 times in the remainder of the New Testament.

The theological meaning of the “witness” is three-fold:

    • Jesus gives witness about himself—i.e., who he is, as Son of God the Father—both through his words and deeds
    • People (believers) give witness about Jesus through their trust in him; others, by contrast, give witness that they are not believers
    • The Spirit will bear witness, continuing the witness of Jesus himself, and will continue working in believers (i.e., their trust and love)

2. qea/omai (“look [closely] at”)—this is one of a number of verbs, used in the Gospel, denoting sight/vision, the others being ei&dw, ble/pw, o(ra/w, and qeore/w. To “see” Jesus, in the theological sense, is to trust in him, recognizing his identity as the Son of God. The verb qea/omai occurs first in the Prologue (v. 14), where this meaning is implied. The context of the Prologue-hymn is the incarnation of the pre-existent Logos, by which is meant the birth and life of Jesus on earth. The beginning of his life and ministry is suggested in v. 14, and is certainly indicated in the Baptism scene (cf. above). The verb qea/omai may also allude to the beginning of awareness and understanding (cf. 4:35; 11:45). The full force of the verb, in the context of the Johannine theology, can be seen in 1 Jn 1:1; 4:12, 14.

3. katabai/nw (“step down”)—This is the first occurrence of the verb in the Gospel, which, along with the corresponding a)nabai/nw (“step up”), will be used repeatedly, and almost always with special Christological significance. The verb pair is used in the Synoptic account of the Baptism of Jesus (cf. above), and this important traditional context may well have influenced the Johannine usage. The verbs are used together in 1:51, and then variously, at a number of key points in the Discourses (3:13; 6:33-58, 62, etc). Even when they seem to be used in a simple narrative setting (e.g., of Jesus “going up” to Jerusalem), the theological meaning is doubtless present, at a deeper level, as well. The fundamental significance involves the “descent” (katabai/nw) of the Son from the Father (in heaven), and to his eventual “ascent” (a)nabai/nw) back to Him (20:17).

4. me/nw (“remain”)—The importance of this key verb in the Johannine Gospel can scarcely be overemphasized. It occurs 40 times in the Gospel, and another 27 in the Letters of John—more than half of all NT occurrences (118). It carries a powerful theological meaning, referring at once to the union between God the Father and Jesus (the Son), and between Jesus and believers. Through our trust, we come to “remain” in Jesus, and he “remains” in us—the bond of union being effected (and maintained) through the abiding presence of the Spirit. This idea is expounded by Jesus throughout the Last Discourse, with the verb me/nw occurring 14 times between 14:10 and 15:16, and being especially prominent as part of the Vine illustration in 15:1-3ff.

Here in v. 32, however, there is a difficulty in understanding the precise force of me/nw in the context of the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, since the significance of the core Gospel tradition in this regard seems to be at odds with the Christological portrait in the Johannine Gospel. This will be discussed further, along with verse 33, in the next daily note.

 

 

 

January 12: John 1:30

John 1:30

These verses build upon the statement in v. 29: “See, the Lamb of God, the (one) taking up the sins of the world”. V. 30 begins “This is (the one) over whom I said…” —then follows the difficult saying:

o)pi/sw mou e&rxetai a)nh\r o^$ e&mprosqe/n mou ge/gonen o%ti prw=to/$ mou h@n “(in) back of me comes a man who has come to be in front of me (in) that [i.e. because] he was first/foremost (over) me”

This is nearly identical to verse 15, which begins “Yoµanan {John} witnessed about him and cried out, relating/saying, ‘This was (the one of) whom I said…”

o( o)pi/sw mou e)rxo/meno$ e&mprosqe/n mou ge/gonen o%ti prw=to/$ mou h@n “the (one) coming (in) back of me has come to be in front of me (in) that [i.e. because] he was first/foremost (over) me”

I recently discussed verse 15 as part of an earlier set of notes on the Gospel Prologue (vv. 1-18). There I mentioned the curious position of the v. 15 saying, which interrupts the poetry of the strophe in vv. 14, 16, and fits rather awkwardly within the Prologue as a whole. I offered a tentative explanation: that the placement of the v. 15 saying, in context, was done with the express intention of explaining the difficult saying of the Baptist in v. 30. In particular, with regard to the second and third phrases of the saying (see below), verse 14 of the Prologue-hymn provides clarification for what otherwise might seem obscure to readers—a reference to the incarnation of the pre-existent Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God in the person of Jesus. This will be discussed further in the exegesis below. There are three phrases in this saying (in v. 30), each of which is governed by a specific verb (and form) which is most significant to observe (the distinctions being generally obscured in translation):

    • “a man comes [e&rxetai]  in back of [o)pi/sw] me”
    • “who has come to be [ge/gonen] in front of [e&mprosqe/n] me”
    • “(he) was [h@n] first/foremost [prw=to/$] (over) me”

These three verbs are used with great care in the Gospel, when applied to Jesus, and especially in the ‘Prologue’ (Jn 1:1-18). Let us consider them in turn (references to verses in the Prologue exclude v. 15 which is largely identical to v. 30):

e&rxomai is a basic verb in narration and description which fundamentally means “come, go”. It is used frequently in the Gospel of John, often with a deeper theological or spiritual nuance than ordinary coming/going—in particular Jesus speaks of coming from the Father and going (back) to the Father; believers also come to Jesus (and to the Father). In the Prologue, the verb occurs three times (outside of v. 15):

    1. John came [h@lqen] as a witness to the (true) Light (v. 7)
    2. The reference is to someone coming [e)rxo/menon] into the world (v. 9). It is not entirely clear whether this relates to “every man” or “the true Light”; the latter is to be preferred, making it a reference to the Word (Christ) coming into the world
    3. The Word (Christ) came [h@lqen] to his own… (v. 11)
  1.  

These references (discussed in recent notes on the Prologue-hymn) all relate to the appearance/presence of a human being in the world (i.e. among people). The present indicative form [e&rxetai] in verse 30 is closest to the present participle in v. 9 (and 15). In terms of Christ (the incarnate Word), we might speak here of the “historical Jesus” —that is, the man who was born, lived, and ministered in the world, among his own (the people of Israel).

gi/nomai has the primary meaning “come to be, become”, again common in narration and description, and, like e&rxomai, is often used with special significance in the Gospel of John. It can carry the nuance of “come to be born”, and, as such, is very close to the related verb genna/w. This latter verb is used in John for the spiritual “birth” of believers (Jn 1:13; 3:3-8) and gi/nomai also is used frequently to describe coming to faith (i.e. “becoming” believers, Jn 12:36; 13:19; 14:29; 15:8, etc). Gi/nomai occurs 8 times in the Prologue (outside of v. 15):

    1. For the things which came-to-be [e)ge/neto/ge/gonen] through the Word (v. 3 [x 3], 10)
    2. A man (John) came-to-be (born) [e)ge/neto] (v. 6)
    3. The Word came-to-be [e)ge/neto] flesh… (v. 14)
    4. “Grace and truth” came-to-be [e)ge/neto] through Christ (v. 17)—contrast with “the Law was given” through Moses.
    5. Those who received (Christ) are given authority to become [gene/sqai] sons of God (v. 12)

The perfect form [ge/gonen] in verse 30 (and 15) creates a difficulty in interpretation (discussed below), however it would seem to relate to the aorist form [e)ge/neto] in v. 14 (“the Word became flesh”).

ei)mi is the primary (existential) verb of being. In the prologue it occurs 10 times (outside of v. 15):

    1. Three times in v. 1: the Logos was [h@n] (on this, see below); and in v. 2.
    2. Twice in v. 4: In him (the Word) was [h@n] life, and the life was [h@n] the light…; and in v. 9 “the true light was [h@n]…”
    3. John was [h@n] not the (true) light (v. 8)
    4. The Word (Christ) was [h@n] in the world (v. 10)

The three occurrences of h@n in verse 1 form a definite contrast to the three forms of gi/nomai in verse 3:

  • In the beginning the Logos was
  • The Logos was toward [pro/$] God
  • God was the Logos (given in the literal word order, i.e. the Logos was God)
    • All things came to be [e)ge/neto] through him
    • Apart from him came to be [e)ge/neto] not even one (thing)
    • {one (thing)} which has come to be [ge/gonen]

In other words, the things in creation come to be (gi/nomai), but God is (ei)mi). For a similar contrast, see John 8:58: pri\n  )Abraa\m gene/sqai e)gw\ ei)mi/ (“before Abraham came to be, I am“). So the use of ei)mi in verse 30 in context clearly refers to the Divine existence of Jesus. Let us explore a little further how these three verbs—e&rxomai, gi/nomai and ei)mi—may relate here by glossing the terms in each phrase:

1. o)pi/sw mou e&rxetai a)nh\r (“[in] back of me comes a man”):

o)pi/sw mou (“[in] back of me”)—this can mean: (a) Jesus is younger, and has appeared publicly later than, John; or (b) Jesus is/was a follower of John; or even (c) Jesus was unknown or less well known than John. Many critical scholars accept (b) as an authentic historical detail, which can be debated. In terms of Gospel tradition as it has come down to us, and the overall presentation in the Gospel of John here, probably little more than (a), or some combination of (a) and (c), is intended.

e&rxetai (“comes”)—that is, the immediate (historical) presence/appearance of the man Jesus, publicly, in the midst of the people (see above on e&rxomai in 1:7, 9, 11).

a)nh\r (“a man”)—i.e., the “historical Jesus”, a real human being, a man like all the other people around John.

2. o^$ e&mprosqe/n mou ge/gonen (“who has come to be in front of me”):

o^$ (“who/which”)—relative particle qualifying a)nh\r and serving to join the first and second phrases.

e&mprosqe/n mou (“in front of me”)—this is clearly a contrast with o)pi/sw mou (“[in] back of me”), but in what sense? Much depends on the interpretation of ge/gonen, but I see this a typical bit of Johannine wordplay, whereby the immediate (apparent) sense is overshadowed (and may even be contrary) to the deeper (true) meaning. One might think that the Baptist (or the Gospel writer) here is simply saying that Jesus, who was younger than John and relatively unknown, is now coming into greater prominence. The immediate context would certainly suggest this—those who were following John now follow Christ (vv. 35ff, cf. also 3:27-30).

ge/gonen (“has come to be”)—the usage of gi/nomai in the Prologue (see above), and especially in verse 14 (“the Word became [e)ge/neto] flesh”), strongly suggests that the Incarnation be understood here. In other words, Jesus has come to be “in front of” John because he is the eternal Word (Lo/go$) that became flesh. The perfect form here (ge/gonen, parallel to the occurrence in v. 3) may be meant to indicate that something which took place in the (eternal) past, is presently true.

3. o%ti prw=to/$ mou h@n (“[in] that he was first/foremost [over] me”):

o%ti (“[in] that [i.e. because]”)—the reason why Jesus is “in front of” John.

prw=to/$ mou (“first/foremost [over] me”)—the superlative adjective prw=to$ is the climax of a step-parallelism (a favorite Johannine technique) with the earlier prepositions o)pi/sw (“[in] back of”) and e&mprosqen (“in front of”). Not only is Jesus “in front of” John, but he is “first (of all)” or “foremost” over him; indeed, this is the reason for his being “in front”. It is a dense and powerful symbolic chain of argument.

h@n (“was”)—this is the same form of ei)mi used throughout the Prologue (esp. vv. 1-2), and serves to identify Jesus, in no uncertain terms, with the Divine (and pre-existent) Word (Lo/go$) of God.

Many critical scholars have expressed doubts that this remarkable saying could have come from the historical John; it seems rather more like a theological-christological declaration by the Gospel writer. The point certainly can be debated; however, even if it does not preserve the ipsissima verba of the Baptist, the words very likely stem from a genuine saying. Other traditions, more objectively verifiable, are recorded, in all four Gospels, whereby John confesses the (far) greater status of Jesus (Mark 1:7-8 par.; Matt 3:14-15; John 3:27-30). Some of these critical questions will be addressed, along with a discussion of verse 31, in the next daily note.