Tag: Johannine Theology

Saturday Series: John 19:11

In our study on the Johannine view of sin (hamartía, vb hamartánœ), we turn now to the final references in the Gospel.

John 19:11

The second to last sin-reference occurs at the end of the scene between Jesus and Pilate in the Passion narrative (18:28-19:16). As R. E. Brown (The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 26, pp. 858-9, drawing upon the work of earlier scholars) has noted, this scene is structured according to the spatial aspect of events taking place either in the outer court (outside) or the inner room (inside) of the praetorium. The scenic shifts, with the corresponding structural units of the narrative, may be outlined chiastically as follows:

    • 18:28-32—The Jewish delegation seeks Jesus’ death [outside]
      • 18:33-38a—Interrogation of Jesus (Dialogue 1) [inside]
        • 18:38b-40—Pilate finds no guilt in him: presentation (Barabbas vs. Jesus) [outside]
          • 19:1-3—Scourging/mocking of Jesus as “King of the Jews” [inside]
        • 19:4-8—Pilate finds no guilt in him: presentation (“Behold the man”) [outside]
      • 19:9-11—Interrogation of Jesus (Dialogue 2) [inside]
    • 19:12-16a—Pilate complies with the Jewish delegation’s request for Jesus’ death [outside]

The entire scene is centered upon the title “the King of the Yehudeans” (ho basileús tœ¡n Ioudaíœn), and Jesus’ identity as this “king”. It is presented most vividly by the central episodes:

    • Presentation of Jesus as “king of the Jews” (choice between Barabbas and Jesus) [18:38b-40]
      • Scourging/mocking—Jesus dressed up and ‘hailed’ as “king of the Jews” [19:1-3]
    • Presentation of Jesus as “king of the Jews”
      (“See the man!” [idoú ho ánthrœpos], v. 5) [19:4-8]

Thematically, all of this is rooted in the historical tradition, regarding the basis for the charges brought against Jesus to the Roman authorities (Mk 15:1-20ff par; see esp. verse 2), and ultimately proving to be the reason for his death-sentence (v. 26 par; Jn 19:19-22). The Gospel of John is faithful to this tradition, but typically develops it in light of the distinctive Johannine theology.

We see this most clearly in the parallel Dialogue-sections of 18:33-38a and 19:9-11. In each of these, the idea of Jesus’ kingship is treated, in a manner similar to what we find in the Johannine Discourses. As I have previously discussed, the Discourses follow a basic literary format:

    • Statement/saying by Jesus
    • Response by his audience indicating a lack of understanding (i.e., misunderstanding)
    • Exposition by Jesus, in which he explains (or begins to explain) the true/deeper meaning of his words

The two Dialogue-scenes here, when taken together, form a mini-Discourse, according to the Johannine format. Instead of beginning with a statement by Jesus, there is a question by Pilate: “Are you the king of the Yehudeans?”. This question forms the basis of the discourse, which opens up on the issue of Jesus’ identity—that is, as the Anointed One (Messiah, i.e., king of the Jews) and the Son of God (see the confessional statements in 11:27 and 20:31).

The discourse-motif of misunderstanding is introduced, here through the initial response of Jesus to Pilate: “Do you say this from yourself, or did others say (this) to you about me?” (v. 34). In either case, the implication is that Pilate does not truly understand the nature of Jesus’ kingship. This is expressed in the dialogue that follows (vv. 35-38a), in which two explanatory statements by Jesus are framed by three questions by Pilate, each of which reflects a lack of understanding:

    • Question 1 (v. 35)— “…of the Jews”
    • Exposition 1 (v. 36)—the true nature of Jesus’ kingdom
    • Question 2 (v. 37a)— “the king…”
    • Exposition 2 (v. 37b)—the true nature of Jesus’ kingship
    • Question 3 (v. 38)—what is the truth of it all?

As indicated in the outline above, the first two questions by Pilate relate to the two components of the title “the king of the Jews”. The first (v. 35) relates to “…of the Jews”, assuming that the kingdom/kingship of Jesus is ethnically oriented, being tied to the Israelite/Jewish nation and people. By contrast, Jesus makes clear in his response (v. 36) that his kingdom “is not of this world” (ouk estin ek tou kósmou).

This response leads Pilate to wonder whether, or in what way, Jesus is actually a king (i.e., the first component of the title, “the king…”). The Greek syntax of his question (v. 37a) is a bit difficult to translate in English; literally, it would be something like: “(Is it) not then (that) you are a king?”. Many translations would convert the negative compound particle oukoún (“[is it] not then…”, which occurs only here in the New Testament) into an affirmative—e.g., “So you are a king?”. In any case, this raises a question regarding the nature of Jesus’ kingship. In the explanation that follows (v. 37b), Jesus tells us something about the kind of king he is; his words summarize (in general terms) the mission for which he (the Son) was sent to earth by God the Father:

“Unto this [i.e. for this purpose] I have come to be (born), and unto this I have come into the world—that I should give witness to the truth. Every (one) being [i.e. who is] of the truth hears my voice.”

This answer, which reflects the Johannine theology (and Christology), is expressed somewhat cryptically; the Johannine (Christian) reader will understand it, but those (like Pilate) who belong to the world clearly will not, as Pilate’s concluding question demonstrates: “What is (the) truth?” (v. 38).

At issue is Jesus’ identity as the Messiah (“King of the Jews”) and the Son of God. The first title and point of identification is dealt with in the first Dialogue-section; the second becomes the focus in the second section (19:9-11), as Pilate hears that Jesus had been calling/considering himself to be “the Son of God” (v. 7). This moves the issue further into the sphere of the Johannine theology, as does Pilate’s next question, in response: “Where are you from?” (póthen eí su;). This question reaches to the heart of the Johannine Gospel. Even though Jesus gives no response (and here the Gospel echoes the Synoptic tradition, Mk 15:4-5 par), the answer can be assumed by the Johannine reader: Jesus is from heaven, being the Son (of God) sent to earth by God the Father.

This reinterpretation of the Gospel tradition, in terms of the Johannine theological idiom, allows us to understand the climactic sin-reference of verse 11 in its proper context. Sin (hamartía) should not be understood simply in its ordinary conventional sense, as ethical/religious wrongs, misdeeds, failures, etc. Rather, it refers principally to sin in its distinctive theological sense in the Gospel—that is, of a failure or refusal to trust in Jesus as the Son of God.

In the previous studies on this subject, we have seen how the Gospel writer, in a number of passages, plays on these two aspects of the meaning of sin. I believe that verse 11 represents another such example of this dual-meaning. The conclusion of the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus hinges on the motif of authority (the noun exousía), which naturally relates to the idea of kingship. The noun exousía can be difficult to translate into English. It fundamentally refers to a person having the ability (i.e., from one’s own being) to do something; often the sense is that this ability is given to a person by a superior, meaning it is something that the person is allowed or permitted to do. This relates to the authority that Pilate (as the Roman governor) has over Jesus. Pilate expresses this one way (v. 10), and Jesus another (v. 11). Here is Jesus’ response to Pilate:

“You would not hold authority [exousía] on/against me, if it were not given to you (from) above.”

God (from heaven) has given to Pilate the ability to sentence Jesus to death, and to have him killed. Pilate himself has no intrinsic power over Jesus, who, as the Son, has been given the authority (from the Father) to lay down his own life (10:17-18).

As the local representative of Roman imperial authority, Pilate represents the world—in the full (negative) Johannine understanding of the term kósmos (“world-order”). In the narrative, there are actually two basic manifestations of the world: (1) the Judean/Jewish government, represented by the delegation to Pilate, and (2) the Roman government, represented by Pilate himself. Both reflect the darkness and evil of the world, being fundamentally opposed to God.

Each of the representatives commit sin, in the Johannine theological sense, but do so in different ways. Pilate fails to trust in Jesus as the Son of God, but due to a lack of understanding rather than any outright hostility against Jesus. The dialogue makes this clear (see the discussion above). Moreover, on two occasions in the narrative, he admits that he can find no evidence of guilt for Jesus, yet he remains unable to trust, and ultimately complies with the Jewish delegation’s request for Jesus to be put to death.

The sin of the Jewish delegation has a different emphasis: they are hostile to Jesus, and definitely refuse to trust in him as the Messiah and Son of God. Their sinfulness, which resembles that of the hostile opponents in chapters 8 and 9 (see the previous studies), is greater than Pilate’s in this regard. Jesus states this in his closing words: “Through this [i.e. for this reason], the (one)s giving me along (to you) hold greater sin”. The delegation’s lack of trust has gone beyond simple blindness (i.e., failure to understand), to be expressed as a hostile refusal to trust—indeed, even so far as refusing to admit their own sinful blindness. On this, cf. the prior study on chap. 9, along with the follow-up (on 9:41 and 15:22-24).

Next week, we will look at the final sin-reference in the Gospel (20:23).

November 16: John 15:16 (3)

John 15:16, continued

“(It was) not you (who) gathered me out, but I (who) gathered you out; and I set you (so) that you should lead (yourself) under and should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”

“…(so) that you should lead (yourself) under and should bear fruit”
i%na u(mei=$ u(pa/ghte kai\ karpo\n fe/rhte

In the previous note, we examined the idea that Jesus set (vb ti/qhmi) the disciples, whom he chose, in a special position (in relationship to him). Now, in the next clause, he expresses the purpose of this placement—the purpose being indicated by the governing particle i%na (“[so] that…”). The particle governs two phrases, represented by two verbs. Let us consider each of them.

1. u(pa/gw. This verb means “lead (oneself) under”, that is, hide oneself, go out of sight, disappear; often it is used in the more general sense of “go away”. It is a common verb, used primarily in narrative. While it occurs in all four Gospels, it is most frequent in the Gospel of John (32 times, out of 79 NT occurrences). It is another distinctive Johannine term; even though it can be used in the ordinary sense (of a person going away), e.g., 4:16; 6:21, etc., it tends to have special theological (and Christological) significance as well.

In particular, it is used in the specific context of the exaltation of Jesus—that is, his death, resurrection, and return to the God the Father (in heaven). Specifically, the death of the Son (Jesus), and his return to the Father, represent dual-aspects of a departure-theme that runs through the Gospel, becoming most prominent in the Last Discourse, as the death of Jesus draws near. The verb u(pa/gw is used to express this idea of the Son’s departure. It features in the Sukkot Discourse-complex (7:33; 8:14, 21-22; and note the ironic foreshadowing in 7:3), before being reprised in the Last Supper scene (13:3). Its introduction at the beginning of the Last Supper narrative sets the stage for the theme in the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), where it occurs repeatedly—13:33, 36; 14:4-5, 28; 16:5, 10, 16, and here in 15:16.

There are several other references where the verb carries an important, but somewhat different, nuance:

    • 3:8—where it is used of the invisible coming and going of the Spirit, and of the one who is born of the Spirit (i.e., the believer)
    • 6:67—it is used (indirectly) of disciples who had been following Jesus, but who now ceased (i.e., went away), thus demonstrating that they were not true disciples
    • 12:11—here it is used in the opposite sense, of people who “go away” to follow Jesus, trusting in him
    • 12:35—its proverbial use in connection with the light-darkness motif, has to do with whether a person can see (i.e. know) where he/she is going; the person who has the light, and who can see, is a true believer and disciple of Jesus

Based on this evidence, the theological usage of u(pa/gw in the Gospel can be summarized as two-fold:

    • It refers to the departure of Jesus (the Son), back to the Father, with the completion of his mission
    • It is used (in various ways) to characterize the activity and identity of the true disciple/believer

These two aspects help us to understand the significance of the verb here in v. 16, in the context of the Last Discourse. This significance is rooted in the principal idea of the disciple/believer as an appointed representative of Jesus, one who is sent forth (i.e., the fundamental meaning of the term a)po/stolo$ [apostle]) to continue his mission. The two aspects of u(pa/gw are thus thematically related here:

    • Jesus goes away, back to the Father, having completed his (part of the) mission
    • The disciples (believers) go forth, in Jesus’ name, to continue the mission

2. fe/rw (“bear, carry, bring”)—This verb is used here with the object karpo/$ (“fruit”), as it is throughout the Vine-passage (vv. 2, 4-5, 8); the same expression, “bear fruit”, is used in 12:24 (discussed in an earlier note). In prior notes, I have mentioned that this idiom is to be understood principally in terms of the mission of believers, insofar as they/we are following in the example of Jesus (and his mission). This line of interpretation is more clearly established here, with the strong (if allusive) connection of v. 16 to the historical tradition of the calling of the (Twelve) disciples. The Twelve were specifically chosen to represent Jesus, continuing (and extending) his mission over a wider geographic territory. The same idea applies to the addressees of the Last Discourse—which includes the Twelve (sans Judas), but also encompasses all those who are true disciples/believers.

And what is the mission for believers? From the Johannine standpoint, it is essentially equivalent to fulfilling the two great duties (e)ntolai/) Jesus has given to us: (1) keeping/guarding his word(s), and (2) showing love to one another, according to his example (of sacrificial love); these two duties are defined by the phrases “remain in my word” (8:31, cf. 15:7) and “remain in my love” (15:9-10)—which are aspects and components of the general command “remain in me” (15:4ff). The first duty, guarding the word(s) of Jesus entails the proclamation of the Gospel, since the “word” of Jesus is largely synonymous with the Gospel message. This is particularly so in the Johannine context, where the “word(s)” of Jesus (esp. the great Discourses) are centered on his identity as the Son of God, the heavenly/eternal Son sent to earth by God the Father, and all that this theological affirmation implies.

November 14: John 15:16

John 15:16-17

Verse 16

“(It was) not you (who) gathered me out, but I (who) gathered you out; and I set you (so) that you should lead (yourself) under and should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”

Verses 16-17 represent the conclusion of the Vine-illustration section (15:1-17). These two verses reprise a number of key points and teachings from the illustration (and its exposition), stringing them together in summary fashion. The result, in verse 16, is an extremely awkward Greek sentence—the awkwardness of which is quite evident in the literal translation above.

It will be helpful, I think, to focus on each individual clause or phrase. While the syntax of the sentence may be convoluted, it actually represents a coherent statement from the standpoint of the Johannine theology. The phrases and clauses form a sequential and relational chain, which functions better on the narrative and theological level than it does on the grammatical.

“(It was) not you (who) gathered me out,
but I (who) gathered you out”
ou)x u(mei=$ me e)cele/casqe
a)ll’ e)gw\ e)celeca/mhn u(ma=$

The verse begins with a pair of parallel contrastive phrases, centered on the verb e)kle/gomai (“gather out”). To gather (le/gw, mid. le/gomai) someone out (e)k) essentially means to “pick out,” i.e., select or choose. This compound verb preserves the fundamental and primary meaning of le/gw (“collect, gather”); in the New Testament, it is only used in the middle voice (e)kle/gomai). The verb is relatively rare in the NT, occurring just 22 times; it is something of a Lukan term, occurring 11 times in Luke-Acts. Within the Gospels, it only appears once outside of Luke and John (Mk 13:20).

In the Gospel of Luke, e)kle/gomai is part of the Lukan version (6:12-16) of the Synoptic account of Jesus’ selection of the Twelve (cf. Mk 3:13-19). These twelve disciples were specially chosen by Jesus to serve as his representatives, to carry out an extension of his mission. Mark’s account describes this process by a series of verbs, whereby Jesus

    • calls them toward him—vb proskale/w (mid. voice)
    • he made them (vb poie/w) to be his close associates
    • so that he might send them forth (vb a)poste/llw) to continue his mission

The designation a)po/stolo$ (apóstolos, one “se[n]t forth”) is derived from the latter verb (a)poste/llw, apostéllœ).

The Lukan account is much more streamlined, with the three principal verbal actions by Jesus expressed with greater precision:

    • “he gave voice toward [i.e. called to] his disciples” (vb prosfwne/w)
    • “and he gathered out from them twelve” (vb e)kle/gomai)
    • “whom he named (as one)s (he would) send forth [a)posto/loi]” (vb o)noma/zw)

Just as in Jn 15:16, Jesus is said to have “gathered out” (vb e)kle/gomai) his close disciples. However, the Johannine use of the verb in this context has deeper theological meaning, as we shall see.

There are three other occurrences of the verb in the Gospel of John. The first is in 6:70, part of a narrative (and discourse) unit (vv. 60-71) that functions as an appendix to the chap. 6 Bread of Life Discourse. In this unit, the disciples of Jesus are now his audience, and he is addressing his words specifically to them. The response to his teaching (cf. the discourse-unit of vv. 60-65) proves to be a test of discipleship—do they truly trust in him, and will they continue to follow him? It is here that vv. 66-71 foreshadows the setting of the Last Discourse (including the narrative introduction in chap. 13).

As in the Last Supper narrative, Peter and Judas represent two different kinds of disciples—the true and the false. It is in this context, following Peter’s confession of faith (vv. 68-69), that Jesus makes the statement: “Did I not gather out [e)celeca/mhn] you, the Twelve?” (v. 70). On the surface, Jesus’ words simply echo the historical tradition (Lk 6:13, cf. above). However, the parallel with chap. 13 (and the ensuing Last Discourse) indicates that there is a deeper meaning here as well. This can be glimpsed by considering the contextual parallel between 6:70 and 13:18:

    • “Did I not gather out you, the Twelve? And yet, one of you is a diábolos!”
    • “I do not say this about all of you; (for) I have seen [i.e. I know] (the one)s whom I (have) gathered out…”

In the foot-washing episode (13:4-16), Jesus speaks to his disciples and gives them important instruction regarding what it means to be a true disciple. Yet, here in v. 18, he declares “I do not say this about all of you”. As in 6:70, he is making a veiled reference to Judas’ status (as a false disciple). Judas was allowed to remain in the circle of disciples up to this point so that “the Scripture would be fulfilled…” (v. 18b)—that is, it was necessary for Judas to fulfill his determined role in the coming suffering and death of Jesus. With the departure of Judas, out into the darkness of the world (v. 30), only the true disciples of Jesus remain, and it is to them that he addresses the Last Discourse.

Jesus knows the ones who are truly his disciples (“I have seen…”), referring to them again by way of the verb e)kle/gomai: “…whom I (have) gathered out [e)celeca/mhn]”. Only now, the sense of how this verb is being used has shifted. It no longer follows the context of the original Gospel tradition regarding the choosing of the Twelve (cf. above). In that context, the Twelve are “gathered out” from the other disciples of Jesus, being specially chosen as his close associates and missionary representatives. Now, in the Johannine Gospel setting of the Last Discourse, the distinction is between the true disciple (represented by Peter) and the false disciple (i.e., Judas).

On a wider level, from the standpoint of the Johannine theology, the real distinction is between the true disciple (i.e., the true believer) and the world (o( ko/smo$). As I have discussed, the noun ko/smo$, in the Johannine writings, tends to be used in distinctively negative sense, referring to “the world” as a domain of darkness and evil that is fundamentally opposed to God. Ultimately, the true disciple (believer) is gathered out of the world. This, in fact, is how the verb e)kle/gomai is used in 15:19, just a few short verses after our sentence (v. 16):

“If you were of [e)k] the world, the world would have affection [vb file/w] (for you as) its own; but (it is) that you are not of [e)k] the world—rather, I (have) gathered you out [e)celeca/mhn] of [e)k] the world, (and) for this (reason) the world hates you.”

This same theological emphasis runs through the Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17 (vv. 6, 11, 14-16, 18). The believers are not of (e)k) the world, but have been taken out of (e)k) the world and its darkness.

Here in v. 16, Jesus makes clear that it was he (the Son) who “gathered out” the believers, choosing them to be his disciples. The negative particle precedes the pronoun u(mei=$ (“you”), which means that the emphasis is on the pronoun—viz., “it was not you who chose…”. It was Jesus who chose the disciples, and not the other way around. Ultimately, it is the Father who “gathers out” the believers from the world, and gives them to the Son (Jesus). This is abundantly clear from the wording in chap. 17 (vv. 2, 6f, 9-10ff), but it can be seen elsewhere in the Gospel as well (e.g., 3:35; 6:37, 39, 44ff, 65; 10:29; 13:3).

In this regard, it is worth pointing out that Jesus (the Son), in his own way, stands as one chosen (i.e. “gathered out”) by God the Father. In the Gospel tradition, this refers to the Messianic identity of Jesus (cf. the use of e)kle/gomai in Lk 9:35; cp. 23:35, and Jn 1:34 [v.l.]). However, in the Gospel of John, overall, the Christological understanding has developed, so that the emphasis is now on the identity of Jesus as the Son sent from heaven by the Father. He was sent to earth by the Father to fulfill his mission, a mission which believers inherit and are expected to continue.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next phrase(s) in verse 16.

 

November 13: John 15:15

John 15:15

“No longer do I say you (are) dou=loi, (in) that a dou=lo$ has not seen [i.e. does not know] what his lord does; but I have said (that) you (are) fi/loi, (in) that, all the (thing)s that I (have) heard (from) alongside my Father, I (have) made known to you.”

The final statement in this unit of the Vine-exposition further expounds the declaration in verse 14 (discussed in the previous note), in which Jesus identifies his disciples as those dear to him (“his dear [one]s”). The noun used to express this is fi/lo$ (plur. fi/loi), related to the verb file/w (“have/show affection”)—a verb that is largely synonymous (and interchangeable) with a)gapa/w (“[show] love”) in the Gospel of John. Thus the term fi/lo$ relates to the theme of love, and to the duty (e)ntolh/) of disciples/believers to love each other, that is so prominent in the Last Discourse. For more on the use and significance of fi/lo$, cf. the previous notes on vv. 13 and 14.

Here, in verse 15, fi/lo$ is juxtaposed with the noun dou=lo$, which properly denotes a slave. This creates a stark contrast: a dear friend or loved one vs. a slave. Unfortunately, the term “slave” in English brings to mind certain aspects of slavery that would have been somewhat out of place in the first-century Greco-Roman world. For this reason, many commentators prefer the translation “servant”, but this can be misleading as well, and too general a term, lacking the characteristic of a state of bondage or servitude. In Greco-Roman society, a household slave was not necessarily treated harshly, and could even hold a relatively prominent position in the administration of the house. Cf. the use of the term in 4:51; 18:10, 18, 26.

There are two occurrences of dou=lo$ elsewhere in the sayings/teachings of Jesus that are worth noting. The first occurs in the Sukkot Discourse of chaps. 7-8, within the Discourse-unit of 8:31-47, which deals with the theme of freedom and bondage. The central statement by Jesus (in vv. 31-32) ties this theme to a person’s identity as a disciple:

“If you would remain in my word, (then) truly you are my learners [i.e. disciples], and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

In addition to the principal theme of being a true disciple of Jesus, the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”), along with an emphasis on Jesus’ word (lo/go$), makes for a clear connection between this statement and the Vine-exposition (vv. 4-11). In particular, the expression “remain in my word” is precisely parallel with those in the Vine-exposition (“remain in me,” vv. 4ff; “remain in my love”, vv. 9-10); cf. also v. 7: “if you should remain in me, and my words [r(h/mata] should remain in you…”.

Some of the people respond to Jesus’ statement by basing their freedom not on being his disciple (i.e., trusting in him), but on their ethnic-religious identity as ‘children of Abraham,’ along with what that implies—God’s chosen people (Israel), in covenant-bond with Him:

“…we have been enslaved [vb douleu/w] to no one ever, (so) how can you say that ‘you will come to be free’?” (v. 33)

In answer to them, Jesus expounds his statement in two ways. First, he defines freedom and slavery in terms of sin:

“every (one) doing the sin is a slave [dou=lo$] of the sin” (v. 34)

Second, he explains its meaning specifically in Christological terms—that is, in terms of his identity as the Son (of God):

“the slave [dou=lo$] does not remain in the house into the Age, (but) the Son remains into the Age.” (v. 35)

On the surface, Jesus is simply making a distinction between a household slave and a (human) son of the house; however, on a deeper level there can be no doubt that he is also referring to his identity as the Son—one who remains in God’s house forever. In this regard, the two aspects of vv. 34-35 are unquestionably related, since, in the Johannine theology (and the Gospel), sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw) refers principally to the great sin of unbelief—of failing or refusing to trust in Jesus as the Son of God (see esp. 16:9).

The second occurrence of dou=lo$ is the saying by Jesus in 13:16 (alluded to also in 15:20):

“a slave [dou=lo$] is not greater than his lord, nor is (one) sent forth [a)po/stolo$] greater that the (one hav)ing sent [vb pe/mpw] him”

This saying comes from the Last Supper scene, in the context of the foot-washing episode (13:4-15), and serves as its culmination. It emphasizes the need for the disciple to follow the example (and command) of his/her master. But there is also, in this saying, a strong Christological emphasis, as in 8:34-35 (cf. above). In the Johannine Gospel, the verbs a)poste/llw / pe/mpw (“send [forth]”) refer primarily to Jesus’ identity as the Son who was sent (to earth from heaven) by God the Father. This implies that a disciple is one who trusts in Jesus as the Son.

In the narrative context of the Last Discourse, the disciples do not yet truly understand the nature of who Jesus is. They have trust, but not yet a true awareness or understanding. Therefore, it is still possible for Jesus to refer to them as “slaves/servants” (dou=loi), as is implied in 13:16. However, with the Vine-illustration, which lies at the center of the Last Discourse, this situation begins to change. Now Jesus says to them, “I no longer [ou)ke/ti] say you (are) slave/servants [dou=loi]…”. The characteristic of the household slave is that, while he is obedient, he does not fully know (or understand) what his master is doing. That has been the disciples’ position up to this point. Now, however, it has changed:

“but (now) I have called you dear (one)s [fi/loi]”

The basis for this change is that now they are beginning to know and understand “what their lord does” —implying a growing awareness in his identity as the Son sent by God the Father. This Christological point is clear from the wording:

“…(in) that all the (thing)s that I (have) heard (from) alongside my Father, I (have) made known to you.”

This has been a key emphasis throughout the Gospel—viz., that the Son’s words come from the Father, that Jesus speaks to believers what he has heard from the Father. He has been doing this all along, but now, during the Last Discourse, it has been revealed to his disciples in a new and more complete way. It begins a process of revelation that will continue, through the presence of the Spirit (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15).

The disciples are to remain in both his word (8:31; 15:7) and his love (15:4ff, 9-10ff), even before the coming of the Spirit (cf. the context of 14:15-21). Ultimately the true disciple (believer) remains in him, in this same way, through the presence of the Spirit.

 

November 7: John 15:11

John 15:11

“These (thing)s I have spoken to you, (so) that my joy might be in you, and (that) your joy might be (made) full.”

This statement by Jesus concludes the expository unit vv. 9-11, but it also holds an interesting structural position within the exposition as a whole. Brown (p. 667), following the lead of earlier commentators, notes that verse 11 is transitional between vv. 7-10 and 12-17, joining the two sections thematically. In fact, one may discern a series of inverse parallels within these units:

    • Jesus’ words ‘remaining’ in the disciples, implying their faithfulness in keeping his words (vv. 7a, 17)
    • The promise that the Father will give the disciples what they request (vv. 7b, 16b)
    • The motif of “bearing fruit” (vv. 8, 16)
    • Being disciples (chosen ones) of Jesus (vv. 8, 16a)
    • What Jesus has received (love) from the Father (vv. 9a, 15b)
    • Jesus’ love for the disciples (vv. 9b, 15a)
    • The disciples “remaining” in love and keeping the duties given to them by Jesus (vv. 10, 12/14)

The key motif in verse 11 is joy (xara/). There are three other places where this noun occurs in the Gospel of John. The first is in 3:29, part of John the Baptist’s closing witness concerning Jesus (vv. 27-30)—his Messianic identity and heavenly origin. The Baptist identifies himself as a “dear (friend)” of the bridegroom, rather than the bridegroom (the Messiah) himself:

“The (one) holding the bride is (the) bride-groom; but the dear (friend) of the bride-groom, the (one) having stood (by) and hearing him, rejoices [xai/rei] with (great) joy [xara/] through [i.e. because of] the voice of the bride-groom. So this joy [xara/] of mine has been made full [peplh/rwtai].”

With Jesus having embarked on his ministry, John the Baptist realizes that the time of his own mission has come to an end. He has “heard the voice” of the Messiah (the ‘bridegroom’), and feels complete joy. The Baptist’s own joy, related to his mission and calling by God, is made complete (fulfilled, vb plhro/w) through the coming of the Son (Jesus).

The second passage occurs in the Last Discourse, but in the third Discourse-division (16:4b-28), and following the Vine-illustration. The context is the impending departure of Jesus, which is understood on two levels: (1) his immediate death, and (2) his return to the Father. Both departures will bring feelings of sadness to the disciples (v. 20a), but this will only be temporary, for their sorrow will soon turn to joy (v. 20b). At the first level, this joy relates to the resurrection of Jesus and his immediate return to his disciples; on the second level, the joy refers primarily to the coming of the Spirit (cf. the context of the Paraclete-saying[s] in vv. 7-15), when Jesus will be present with them in a new and abiding way. This is illustrated by the human example of a woman giving birth to a child:

“When the woman would produce (her child), she holds sorrow, (in) that her hour (has) come; but when she should cause to be (born) the little child, she no longer remembers the distress, through [i.e. because of] the joy [xara/] that a man [i.e. human being] has come to be (born) into the world.” (v. 21)

The use of the term “distress” (qli/yi$) tends to have eschatological significance for early Christians, referring to the end-time period of distress, which begins with the passion and death of Jesus. This allows for a further level of meaning to the ‘departure’ of Jesus (back to the Father); the disciples will experience joy with the coming of the Spirit, but they will also find joy with the final return of Jesus. There are thus three ways of understanding the ‘return’ of Jesus, when he will see his disciples again (v. 22): (i) his appearance after the resurrection, (ii) his presence in the Spirit, and (iii) his final/eschatological return. Given the importance of the Spirit-Paraclete statements in the Last Discourse, I would say that the second (ii) of these aspects is primarily in view. Jesus’ abiding presence will be with the disciples (and believers) through the Spirit; and their joy also will abide:

“…your heart will rejoice [xarh/setai], and no one takes (away) your joy [xara/] from you.” (v. 22b)

The final reference is in the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer that follows the Last Discourse. Again, the impending departure of Jesus is in view, and he (the Son) addresses God the Father in preparation of his exaltation (v. 1)—that is, his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. In verse 11, at the heart of the passage, the ultimate goal of the unity/union of believers, together with the Son and the Father, comes into prominence:

“And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, while I am com(ing) toward you. Holy Father, keep watch (over) them in your name that you have given to me, (so) that they may be one, just as we (are).”

The Son (Jesus) was able to keep watch over the disciples while he has been present on earth (v. 12), but now that he is going away, he asks the Father to take over this role, which ultimately will be fulfilled with the coming of the Spirit. And, indeed, the promise of the Spirit was at the heart of Jesus’ message to the disciples in the Last Discourse, and we should probably understand it as the focus of his words here in v. 13 as well:

“Now I come toward you, and (so) these (thing)s I speak in the world, (so) that they might hold my joy [xara/] made full [vb plhro/w] in themselves.”

The Son’s joy is made complete (lit. made full, fulfilled) when he is reunited with the disciples (and all believers) through the Spirit. The disciples will hold this joy within themselves, through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

The language in 17:13 resembles that of 15:11, with the phrase “these (thing)s I speak…”. It also echoes his earlier statement in 14:25, toward the close of the first division of the Last Discourse (and immediately prior to the second Paraclete-saying, vv. 26-27): “These (thing)s I have spoken to you (while) remaining [vb me/nw] alongside you”. The expression “these things” (the demonstrative neuter plural pronoun tau=ta) can be understood on several levels: (a) all of Jesus’ teaching to his disciples (i.e, his “word” in a general/collective sense), (b) the Last Discourse as a whole, or (c) the immediate Discourse-unit (such as the Vine illustration and exposition). All three ways of understanding the use of the comprehensive pronoun are valid.

We may also mention the contextual association between the joy-motif and the promise of the disciples’ prayers being answered by the Father (v. 7). The same association is found in 16:24:

“Until now you have not asked (for) anything in my name; ask and you shall receive, (so) that your joy may be made full.”

The italicized phrase is similar to the one in 17:13 (cf. above); both use a perfect passive participle of the verb plhro/w (“make full, [ful]fill”) as a qualifying verbal adjective. This syntax is difficult to translate literally in English: “that your joy may be (something) having been [i.e. that has been] made full”.

How should we understand the joy-motif as it is used here in the Vine exposition? There are three phrases in verse 11:

1. “These (thing)s I have spoken to you…” The demonstrative pronoun “these (thing)s” (tau=ta) refers comprehensively to all of Jesus’ teaching during his ministry, but particularly (in the narrative context) to the Last Discourse, and specifically to the instruction he gives to his disciples here in the Vine passage.

2. “…(so) that my joy might be in you” This phrase is quite similar to the statement by Jesus in 17:13 (cf. above), expressing his wish that his joy would be in the disciples. The joy of the Son (Jesus) is best understood in terms of his return to the Father, following the completion of his mission. Recall that in 17:11 (just prior to v. 13), Jesus’ request was that the disciples (and all believers) would be one, just as he and the Father are one; the abiding union the Son has with the Father will be realized in and among believers as well.

3. “…and (that) your joy might be (made) full” As discussed above, the disciples’ joy is experienced when they see Jesus again, and are reunited with him. In the context of the Last Discourse, this refers primarily to the presence of Jesus, in and among believers, through the Spirit. The significance of the verb plhro/w (“make full”) in this regard is an emphasis on the abiding presence of the Spirit, through which the Son remains in believers.

The thrust of the Vine-illustration was the importance of believers remaining (vb me/nw) in the Son, and the Son in believers. Here in verse 11, we see the purpose of his teaching is “so that” (i%na) by “remaining” in Jesus—in his word and in his love—believers will be able to experience an abiding union with the Son, and in so doing, share also in the abiding union between Father and Son.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next unit of the exposition (vv. 12-15), in which Jesus further expounds for his disciples (and for us as believers) the nature of the duty (e)ntolh/) to love.

Saturday Series: John 16:8-9

John 16:8-9

In this continuing study on sin in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters of John), we turn now to the Paraclete saying in 16:7-15. This is the fourth (and final) such saying in the Last Discourse, the prior three coming in 14:16-17, 25-26, and 15:26-27. I have recently discussed these in some detail in a set of notes and articles, part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”. The term “Paraclete” is an anglicized transliteration of the descriptive title parákl¢tos (para/klhto$), which means “(one) called alongside” —that is, to give help or assistance. It is a title of the Spirit, which Jesus promises will come to the disciples, after he has been exalted and has returned to the Father in heaven.

In 1 John 2:1, the only other occurrence of parákl¢tos in the New Testament, it is Jesus himself who is referred to as “(one) called alongside”, to give help to believers, specifically through the act of interceding before God the Father on believers’ behalf (in matters related to sin). In 14:16, the first Paraclete-saying in the Gospel, the Spirit is referred to as “another parákl¢tos“, implying that Jesus was the first. Indeed, in many ways, the Spirit-Paraclete continues the work of Jesus in and among his disciples (believers). Jesus continues to be present, speaking to believers through the Spirit, teaching them. For more on this, see the articles on the Paraclete-sayings (1, 2, 3, 4).

The final Paraclete-saying (16:7-15) occurs in the last of the three Discourse-divisions (16:4b-28), which has the following general outline:

    • 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)

The promise of the coming of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15) is thus tied to the departure of Jesus (back to the Father in heaven). He speaks as he does to his disciples because he soon will no longer be with them, at least in a physical sense. And he still has many things he must yet say to his disciples (and all believers), v. 12. For this reason, it is necessary for the Spirit to come, to be present with (“alongside”) believers, and to remain in/among them:

“But I say the truth to you: it bears together (well) for you that I should go away from (you). For, if I should not go away, (then) the (one) called alongside [parákl¢tos] will not come to you; but, if I do travel (away), I will send him to you.” (v. 7)

It is actually beneficial to the disciples (and to future believers) that Jesus should go away (back to the Father). Though he will no longer be present with them physically, as a human being, he can still be present spiritually, through the Spirit. In each of the Paraclete-sayings, Jesus explains certain aspects of the Spirit’s role. He continues that teaching here in verses 8ff:

“And, (hav)ing come, that (one) will show the world (to be wrong), about sin, and about righteousness, and about judgment” (v. 8)

In the previous Paraclete-saying (15:26-27), the emphasis was on the Spirit as a witness—specifically, a witness to the truth of who Jesus is (v. 26). The Spirit will give witness of this to the disciples, but also to the world, through the disciples. The essence of this witness is further explained here, utilizing the verb eléngchœ. The basic meaning of this verb is to show someone to be wrong. It occurs two other places in the Gospel—in 3:20 and 8:46. The first occurrence is close in context to the use here: it refers to a person’s evil deeds being shown to be evil, exposed as such by the light of Jesus Christ—and by the Gospel witness to the truth of his identity as the Son of God. The reference in 8:46, where the verb is used, as it is here, specifically in connection with sin, was discussed in an earlier study.

The Spirit will show the world to be wrong about three things, in particular: sin (hamartía), righteousness (dikaiosýn¢), and judgment (krísis). In the verses that follow (vv. 9-11), Jesus explains the basis upon which the Spirit shows the world to be wrong about each topic. The first topic he addresses is sin; his explanation is short and to the point:

“about sin, (in) that they do not trust in me” (v. 9)

In the prior studies, we have seen how the Johannine understanding of sin entails two distinct levels, or aspects, of meaning. First, there is sin as understood in the general or conventional ethical-religious sense, as wrongs/misdeeds that a person commits. And, second, there is sin in the theological sense, defined as the great sin of unbelief—that is, of failing or refusing to trust in Jesus as the Son of God. Here, the truth regarding sin is clearly defined in terms of the latter (“they do not trust in me”).

Many commentators take the verb eléngchœ here to mean that the Spirit convicts the world of sin, of showing the people of the world to be sinful. While this aspect of meaning is not entirely absent, I do not consider it to be primary here. To be sure, the world (kósmos), dominated as it is by darkness and evil, and being opposed to God, is characteristically sinful. However, what the Spirit does, specifically, is to show the world to be wrong about sin. The world’s view and understanding of sin—that is, the nature and reality of sin—is fundamentally wrong. People may accept the conventional meaning of sin, and even seek to live in a righteous manner, avoiding sin, without realizing the true nature of sin. Even the seemingly righteous people—such as religious Jews in Jesus’ own time, who followed the precepts of the Torah—were sinful, if they refused to trust in Jesus. Indeed, such people commit sin in its truest sense, since they commit the great sin of unbelief.

The explanation regarding the true nature of the judgment (krísis) alludes to this same theological-Christological understanding of sin. According to the conventional view, the judgment occurs at the end of the Age, at some point in the future, when all people will be judged for their deeds (i.e., sin in the conventional ethical-religious sense). However, according to Jesus, and the theology of the Gospel, the world (and its ruler) has already been judged:

“about judgment, (in) that the chief [i.e. ruler] of this world has been judged” (v. 11)

This judgment is based entirely on whether or not a person, when confronted with the Gospel witness, the truth about Jesus, trusts in him. The one who trusts in Jesus, has already passed through the judgment and holds eternal life, while the one who does not trust, has already been condemned. For the key references elsewhere in the Gospel, see 3:19-21; 5:22-24 (v. 24); 8:51; 12:31, 46-50. The subject was also discussed in the previous studies on 8:21ff and 9:39-41 / 15:22-24.

The judgment is realized through the exaltation of Jesus the Son of God. In the Johannine Gospel, the exaltation of Jesus is not limited to his resurrection or ascension; rather, it covers a process that begins with his Passion (suffering and death). This is particularly clear from the setting of the declaration in 12:31. The Son’s mission on earth, and the witness to his identity as the Son, reaches its climax with his death on the cross (19:30). Through his death, resurrection, and return to the Father, the Son is “lifted up”, and Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is manifest to anyone who would believe. This helps us to understand the second of the topics about which the Spirit will show the world to be wrong. In verse 10, Jesus explains the true nature of righteousness (dikaiosýn¢), as being defined in terms of the Son’s return to the Father. In other words, true righteousness is rooted in Jesus’ exaltation and his eternal identity as the Son. Believers experience righteousness only in relation to the Son.

For more detailed discussion on vv. 8-11, see my earlier article and set of notes.

Next week, we will turn our attention to the final two sin-references in the Gospel.

November 4: John 15:10 (continued)

John 15:10, continued

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

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

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

10:17-18

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

12:49-50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 3: John 15:10

John 15:10

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

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

Let us begin with the first part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parallelism is clear and straightforward:

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

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

November 2: John 15:9 (continued)

John 15:9, continued

“Just as the Father (has) loved me, I also (have) loved you—you must remain in my love.”

Continuing our examination of the next portion (vv. 9-11) of the exposition of the Vine illustration, we will be looking at verse 9 in more detail (cf. the previous note). There are three distinct statements, which are related, both in the context of the illustration, and in terms of the Johannine theology. We will consider each component, as well as the relationship between the three.

“Just as the Father (has) loved me…”
kaqw\$ h)ga/phse/n me o( path/r

The first statement emphasizes the Father’s love for the Son (Jesus). This is an important aspect of the love-theme in the Gospel of John. Love (a)ga/ph, vb a)gapa/w) is a natural part of the Parent-Child relationship, particularly with regard to the love that parent has for his/her child. A father will naturally have love for his son—and so does God the Father have love for His Son. The identification of Jesus as the eternal Son of God is central to the Johannine theology, and to the Gospel, being established from the beginning, in the Prologue (1:14, 18). The Father’s love for His Son is declared in a number of places in the Gospel:

    • 3:35— “The Father loves [a)gapa=|] the Son, and has given all (thing)s in(to) his hand.”
    • 5:20— “The Father is fond of [filei=, i.e. loves] the Son, and shows him all (the thing)s that He does…”
    • 10:17— “Through [i.e. because of] this, the Father loves [a)gapa=|] me, (in) that I set (down) my soul, (so) that I might take it (up) again.”
    • 17:23-24, 26—At the climax of the Discourse-Prayer in chap. 17, Jesus requests/expects that the Father will love his disciples (believers), even as He has loved him.

The Father’s love for the Son is also clearly implied in 8:42; 14:21, 23; 16:27, where it is indicated that the Father loves the disciples (believers) because of their love for the Son.

The compound comparative conjunction (kaqw/$, “just as”) at the beginning of verse 9, establishes the Father’s love for the Son as the pattern for the Son’s love for believers (cf. below).

“…I also (have) loved you—”
ka)gw\ u(ma=$ h)ga/phsa

The compound ka)gw/ (conjunction kai/ plus pronoun e)gw/) means “and I”; however, here, in connection with the comparative kaqw/$ in the first statement (cf. above), it must be translated “I also”, or “so I (also)”. Jesus’ love for his disciples (“you” plur.) follows the example and pattern of the Father’s love for him. The form of the verb in both statements is in the aorist, which usually corresponds to the past tense in English. Here, it is practically necessary to translate the verb as though in the perfect tense—i.e., the Father has loved the Son, and the Son has loved the disciples/believers. The aorists do essentially correspond with perfects, in that the action or state (love) continues into the present; the continuous aspect of the Father’s love is expressed by the present tense of a)gapa/w (and file/w) in the Gospel references cited above.

Jesus’ love for his disciples (and all believers) is rarely stated explicitly in the Gospel, though it is implied throughout. Apart from the specific references to Lazarus and his family (11:3, 5, 36), and to the ‘beloved disciple’ (“the [one] whom he loved”, cf. 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), the entire thrust of the Son’s mission on earth is rooted in the love for God’s own, throughout the world (3:16). The theme of love is tied to Jesus’ death, as a self-sacrifice, more explicitly in 10:17. The same thematic emphasis comes into special prominence in the Last Discourse, with the anticipation of Jesus’ death. The narrative setting of chapter 13 establishes this most clearly, from the beginning:

“…Yeshua, having seen that his hour (has) come, (and) that (soon) he would step across, out of this world, toward the Father, (hav)ing loved [a)gaph/sa$] his own th(at are) in the world, unto completion [i.e. to the end] he loved [h)ga/phsen] them.” (v. 1)

This sacrificial love is demonstrated through the symbolism of the foot-washing (vv. 4-11, followed by the teaching in vv. 12-17), which sets the stage for the introduction of the ‘love command’ (vv. 34-35)—i.e., the duty (e)ntolh/) of the disciples/believers to love one another, following Jesus’ own example (cf. 15:13). This love is the theme of 14:15-21, the section of the Last Discourse that immediately precedes the Vine illustration; see especially the teaching in 14:21:

“The (one) holding my e)ntolai/ and keeping watch (over) them—that (one) is the (one) loving me; and the (one) loving me shall be loved under [i.e. by] the Father, and I (also) [ka)gw/] will love him and will shine forth myself in/on him.”

The same thematic emphasis—on love and the e)ntolai/ (i.e., the duties required of the disciple/believer)—prevails here in the exposition of the Vine illustration (vv. 9-11ff).

“—(so) you must remain in my love.”
mei/nate e)n th=| e)mh=|

The first two statements provide the basis for the directive (or command) Jesus gives here to his disciples. The key-verb me/nw (“remain, abide, stay”), so important in the Johannine writings, is used again. It occurred 7 times already in vv. 4-7 (cf. the previous notes), and is clearly central to the exposition of the illustration. The exposition begins with a similar imperative:

“You must remain [mei/nhte] in me, and I in you…”

In verse 4, the directive was to remain “in me” —that is, in Jesus (the Son) himself. Here, it is to remain “in my love” —that is, in the love that the Son has for believers, and for the Father, and which is at the heart of the union between Father and Son. The love is shared by Father and Son, similar to that shared by a parent and child—the love is mutual and reciprocal.

This is the first time in the Gospel that love (a)ga/ph) was associated directly with the verb me/nw. However, there is an important parallel, in this regard, between Jesus’ love (a)ga/ph) and his word (lo/go$/r(h=ma). Here, remaining in the Son’s love is essentially the same as remaining in the Son himself; similarly, having the Son’s words (r(h/mata) remaining in the believer (v. 7) is comparable to having the Son himself remain in the believer. The parallel is even closer when we compare the wording in 8:31:

“If you should remain [mei/nhte] in my word [e)n tw=| lo/gw| tw=| e)mw=|], (then) truly you are my disciples.”

Thus, there is a dual-aspect to what it means to “remain” in Jesus, which can be illustrated by the following diagram:

This will be discussed further as we continue through the exposition.

October 31: John 15:8

John 15:8

“In this my Father is given honor: that you should bear much fruit, and should come to be my learners [i.e. disciples].”

The first section (vv. 4-8) of the exposition/application of the Vine illustration (vv. 1-3) concludes with this declaration by Jesus. God the Father (i.e., the land-worker of the illustration, v. 1) is given honor (e)doca/sqh) when the branches of the vine bear “much fruit”. The verb doca/zw (“give/show honor”) is an important Johannine keyword in the Gospel, occurring 23 times, compared with 14 in the Synoptics combined (Luke 9, Matthew 4, Mark 1). It tends to be used in the second half of the Gospel, being concentrated in the Last Discourse and the Discourse-Prayer of chap. 17. It features in the opening of the Last Discourse (13:31-32), repeating the earlier announcement by Jesus in 12:23 (cf. also v. 28):

“The hour has come that the Son of Man should be given honor” (12:23)
“Now the Son of Man is given honor, and God is given honor in him;” (13:31)

The second clause of 13:31 is precisely parallel to the statement here in 15:8:

    • “God | is given honor [e)doca/sqe] | in him [e)n au)tw=|]”
    • “the Father | is given honor [e)doca/sqe] | in this [e)n tou=tw|]

Before examining this parallel in more detail, let us consider 13:32, in which Jesus gives us an exposition of the statement in v. 31:

“[(and) if God is given honor in him,] (then) also will God give him honor in Him(self), and will straightaway give him honor.”

The words in square brackets are missing from a significant range of witnesses (Ë66 a* B C D* L W X P f1 al), and thus may not be original; but, as Brown (p. 606) notes, “it is easier to explain why it may have been lost than why it would have been added”.

Also problematic is the precise meaning (and referent) for the second dative pronoun au)tw=|: “…God will also give him honor in him [e)n au)tw=|]”. The pronoun is apparently being used in a reflexive sense (i.e., “in himself”), but is the reference to God the Father or Jesus the Son? Is the promise that God will give Jesus honor in himself, or in Himself (i.e., the Son in the Father)? The emphasis in the Gospel on the reciprocal relationship between Father and Son makes the latter more likely. If the Father is given honor in the Son, then the Son will be given honor (by the Father) in the Father (“in Him[self]”).

The verb doca/zw properly means “recognize”, usually in the sense of giving recognition to someone—i.e., treating them with esteem or honor; sometimes it can include the idea of raising someone to a position of honor. In the Gospel of John, the verb tends to be used in the specific context of the exaltation of the Son (Jesus). The process of exaltation begins with the suffering and death of Jesus, includes his resurrection from the dead, and then concludes with his return to the Father in heaven. This is clearly the context in which the verb is used in 7:39, 12:16, and here in 12:23 and 13:31-32. The Son’s mission on earth brings honor to the Father (11:4; 14:13; 17:4), and the Son is also given honor (and raised to honor) in the process (11:4; 17:1, 5, 10); ultimately it is God the Father who gives honor to the Son (8:54; 12:28; 17:1ff).

This helps us to understand the parallel between 15:8 and 13:31. The Father is given honor “in this” —believers becoming true disciples of the Son—just as He is given honor in the Son himself (“in him”). Believers, as disciples of the Son, continue the mission of the Son.

By continuing the Son’s mission, and following his example, the disciples (i.e., believers) are part of this same dynamic—bringing honor to the Father, and being honored in return (17:10, 22, 24; 21:19). In 15:8, it is clearly stated that, by bearing “much fruit”, the disciples will bring honor to the Father; implicit is the idea that the disciples (believers) are doing this in (e)n) the Son, indicating that they/we take part in the same relationship between Father and Son. This is very much the message in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer, and is an overarching theme throughout the Last Discourse (and elsewhere in the Gospel as well). Consider, for example, the statement in 17:10:

“Indeed, all the (thing)s (that are) mine are yours, and all the (thing)s (that are) yours are mine, and I have been given honor [dedo/casmai] in them.”

When speaking of “all the (thing)s”, Jesus is referring principally to the disciples/believers, as is clear from v. 9: “…the (one)s whom you have given me”, saying of them, “that they are yours”. Believers belong to God the Father, and the Father has given them to the Son, so they also (equally) belong to the Son. Moreover, they are in the Son (and the Son is in them), and thus the honor given/received is shared by both. This relationship of unity is indicated in 14:13, as Jesus tells his disciples:

“And whatever you should request (from the Father) in my name, this I will do, (so) that the Father should be given honor [docasqh=|] in the Son.”

The same emphasis on prayer, with the promise of answered prayer, occurs in the immediate context here (v. 7, discussed in the previous note). The bond of unity is realized through the presence of the Spirit; see, for example, how this relates in 16:14, where Jesus says of the Spirit:

“That (one) will give me honor [e)me\ doca/sei], (in) that he will receive out of th(at which is) mine, and will give (it) forth as a message to you.”

In other words, through the Spirit, the ministry of Jesus continues in/through the disciples (believers), and this gives honor to the Son—and thus also to the Father, since, as it is again stated in 16:15, all things that belong to the Father also belong to the Son (“All [thing]s, as [many] as the Father holds, are mine”).

Returning to verse 8 of the Vine illustration, the Father is “given honor” when the disciples “bear much fruit”. An interpretative crux of the passage involves determining just what, precisely, it means for a disciple/believer to “bear (much) fruit”. We have discussed the matter, initially, in prior notes, but have yet to give it a thorough treatment. Here, however, Jesus himself (as the speaker) offers us a glimpse of the meaning, by effectively identifying the “bearing of fruit” with being a disciple:

“…that you should bear much fruit and should come to be my learners [ge/nhsqe e)moi\ maqhtai/]”

Some manuscripts read the future indicative genh/sesqe, rather than the aorist subjunctive (ge/nhsqe). This would give a slightly different emphasis to Jesus’ statement:

“…that you should bear much fruit, and (so) you will come to be my learners”

The noun maqhth/$ means “learner, one who learns”, but is typically translated as “disciple,” which is accurate enough; certainly, the noun is used in the New Testament almost exclusively for disciples/followers of Jesus. In two other places in the Gospel of John, Jesus (and also the Gospel writer) gives us an indication of what it means to be a true disciple:

    • “If you should remain in my word, (then) truly you are my learners [i.e. disciples]” (8:31)
    • “In this all (people) shall know that you are my learners [i.e. disciples]—if you would hold love among (one) another” (13:35)

The Gospel thus gives two specific criteria for being a true disciple of Jesus—(1) “remaining” in his word, and (2) having love toward fellow believers (“each other”). And since, according to 15:8, “bearing fruit” is essentially the same as being a (true) disciple, then believers who fulfill/exhibit these two criteria are “bearing much fruit”.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next portion of the exposition, vv. 9-11, which introduces a new theme—love and the ‘commandments’ —that very much relates to the line of interpretation discussed here. And exegesis of these verses will give us an even clearer understanding of what it means for the disciple/believer to “bear much fruit”.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29A (1970).