Special note on the “name” of the Father

As I discussed in the previous note on John 17:8, the “name” (o&noma), and, in particular, the name of God the Father, is vital for an understanding of the person and work Christ as presented in the Gospel of John. I discuss the name (and names) of God in some detail in an earlier series of notes and articles for Advent/Christmas season. Here, I will focus on the use of the concept, and expression, in the Gospel of John. It should be pointed out, as I have done on several occasions in the past, that names and naming in the ancient world had a very different significance than in modern (Western) society. To know a person’s name was essentially the same as knowing the person. In the ancient way of thinking, there was a kind of magical quality to the name—it communicated and encapsulated the nature and character of the person. The sacredness and efficacy of the name(s) and epithets applied to God is well established in the Old Testament and Jewish religious tradition, especially with regard to the name signified by the tetragrammaton (hwhy, YHWH, Yahweh). In early Christian tradition, the name Yeshua/Jesus also had an efficacious quality similar, and parallel, to YHWH. Jesus and God the Father (YHWH) could both be called by the title “Lord” (Ku/rio$), almost interchangeably, giving a dual meaning to Scripture passages such as Joel 2:32 (cf. Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13). Calling on the “name of Lord (Jesus)” for early Christians was the same as accepting Jesus, trusting/believing in him, and so the common use of the expression “trust in(to) the name of Jesus”, which we also see in the Gospel of John (1:12; 2:23; 3:18). For early Christians, prayer (for healing, etc) was done “in Jesus’ name” (cf. Jn 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26, and frequently in the book of Acts, etc). From the standpoint of the theology (and Christology) of the Johannine Gospel, trusting the name of Jesus truly meant trusting in the person of Jesus—who he is (Son of God) and where he came from (the Father); cf. especially 3:18; 17:3; 20:31.

The idea of Jesus coming “in the name of the Father” (5:43; 10:25) derives from early Gospel tradition and the application of Psalm 118:26 to Jesus as the Anointed One (Messiah) and coming (Davidic) Ruler expected by many Jews and Israelites of the time (cf. Matt 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; and John 12:13). The association was given a new interpretation by early Christians, and, in the Gospel of John, the meaning has deepened still further. In the Johannine discourses, we find frequent references to Jesus as the one who comes from the Father, sent by Him, doing and saying what he sees/hears from the Father—on this, cf. the recent article on “Knowledge and Revelation in John” and the previous note on Jn 17:8. Moreover, we also find the distinct Christological view expressed that Jesus (the Son) was with (alongside) the Father in eternity (cf. the Prologue, 1:1-18); this is also indicated throughout the discourses, where Jesus identifies himself, in various ways, with God the Father. This is best seen in the “I am” sayings of Jesus, which use the 1st-person pronoun (e)gw/, “I”) + the verb of being (ei)mi)—e)gw\ ei)mi (“I am”). These all-important sayings punctuate the discourses, often most dramatically—cf. 6:35, 41, 48, 51; 8:12, 24; 9:5; 10:7, 9, 11; 11:25; 13:19; 15:1, 5; 18:5; and note also the foreshadowing of the expression in 1:20ff; 3:28, and the distinctive use of the verb of being (ei)mi) in 1:1-15. Cf. also 7:33ff and my earlier note on 14:4-7. It has been suggested that the “name” of the Father in the Johannine discourses is actually e)gw\ ei)mi, “I AM” (cf. Brown, pp. 755-6); if so, it still should be understood in relation to the tetragrammaton (hwhy/YHWH, cf. Exod 3:6, 13-15).

In the Gospel narrative, Jesus’ references to the Father’s name begin to gain prominence following the triumphal entry (in which Jesus comes “in the name of the LORD”, 12:13). Soon after, it is mentioned in verse 28:

“Father, honor/glorify [do/cason] your Name!”

This request echoes the opening of the Lord’s Prayer in the Synoptics (Matt 6:9 par), only here it is associated specifically with the impending death of Jesus. This connection between the Father’s name, the divine glory/splendor/honor (do/ca), and the death (and resurrection) of Jesus, is strengthened, expanding and developing throughout the great Last Discourse of chapters 13-17 (cf. 13:31-32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14, etc). As Jesus (the Son) was sent in the Father’s name, so, too, the Spirit will be sent by the Father (in the name of the Son)—cf. 14:6, 26; 15:26; 16:7. It is in the prayer-discourse of chapter 17, that the name of the Father becomes a major theme, occurring at three points—at the beginning of the main section (v. 6), at the midpoint (vv. 11-12), and again at the end (v. 26). The first and last (framing) references should be considered in tandem:

    • V. 6: “I made your name (to) shine forth to the ones whom you gave me out of the world”
      —connection with the word [lo/go$] God has given (through Jesus), which believers have kept/guarded (i.e. abides in them)
    • V. 26: “I made known to them your name, and I will make (it) known…”
      —connection with the love which God has for Jesus, and which is in believers

Clearly, this is not a matter of Jesus giving his disciples factual information about the name Yahweh; rather, according to the ancient way of thinking, making the Father’s name known means making the Father Himself known (cf. Exod 23:20-21; Ps 9:10; 22:22, etc). This takes place through the person of the Son, who represents and reflects the Father, and makes Him manifest to believers. The association between the word and love of God naturally brings to mind the “love command” of Gospel tradition (13:34-35, etc), representing the word[s] (lo/go$ / r(h/mata) of God which Christ speaks. But it goes deeper than this, for the word (lo/go$) is Christ himself (1:1ff), and, likewise, God’s love is identified with the person of Christ (17:26, cf. also 3:16, etc). This brings us to 17:11-12, where the emphasis is on Jesus keeping/guarding his disciples “in the name” [e)n tw=| o)no/mati] which God gave to him. For the idea of God giving this name to Jesus, cf. the early Christian tradition expressed/preserved by Paul in Phil 2:9-11. In the Philippians hymn, Jesus receives the name following his resurrection and exaltation (to the right hand of the Father); however, in the Gospel of John, he was given this name even before, and certainly should be so understood in relation to the Son’s pre-existence (and pre-existent glory) shared with the Father. Upon his coming to earth, he was “given” this name, in order to make it known to his followers. It is important to keep in mind the twin aspects of knowing and seeing expressed in 17:6, 26, since, in the Johannine discourses, to know Jesus is the same as seeing; and, if one sees Jesus (the Son) then the believer has also seen the Father. This important chain of logic is best expressed in 14:1-14 (cf. the notes on 14:4-7).

This Johannine understanding of the “name of the Father”, and the relationship between Jesus and the Father, was given a distinctive interpretation in several key Gnostic writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. The Gospel of John appears to have quite popular in many Gnostic groups. The earliest NT commentary known to us is the Commentary on John by the Gnostic Heracleon, which, in large part, inspired Origen to embark on his own massive (and unfinished) Commentary. Of the numerous references to the Gospel in the surviving Gnostic texts, two passages are especially relevant and may be cited here—from the so-called Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip (cf. Brown, p. 755):

“Now the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who first gave a name to the one who came forth from him, who was himself, and he begot him as a son. He gave him his name which belonged to him; he is the one to whom belongs all that exists around him, the Father. His is the name; his is the Son. It is possible for him to be seen. But the name is invisible because it alone is the mystery of the invisible which comes to ears that are completely filled with it. For indeed the Father’s name is not spoken, but it is apparent through a Son.” (Gospel of Truth, translation by G. W. MacRae, NHL I.38.6-24, p. 47)

The remainder of the text (39-43) develops the ideas and theology of this passage. The Son speaks of the Father from whom he came forth, and the true believers (Gnostics) respond likewise, recognizing their true nature as having come from God:

“They are the ones who appear in truth since they exist in true and eternal life and speak of the light which is perfect and filled with the seed of the Father…and his children are perfect and worthy of his name, for he is the Father: it is children of this kind that he loves.” (43.9ff)

And, here is a passage from the “Gospel of Philip”:

“One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son, the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wears the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.” (translation by W. W. Isenberg, NHL II.54.6-13, p. 133)

A long discussion follows regarding names—hidden and revealed—drawing heavily upon Scripture and various images in the Old and New Testament. It also gives a distinctive interpretation to Baptism and other Christian rituals, using the motif of marriage and the “bridal chamber”. The believer (Gnostic) who “enters” the water and the bridal chamber becomes a “son of the bridal chamber” and will “receive the light”—that is, will experience the mystery, the hidden reality that is revealed in the Son.

Clearly, these Gnostic texts have gone considerably beyond the Old Testament and early Christian tradition regarding Jesus and the “name of the Father”. They draw equally upon ancient religious (and mythological) tradition related to the secret, hidden name of God. The true name and nature of the Deity cannot be spoken or expressed in ordinary human terms. From the Gnostic standpoint, it comes to be known in a spiritual (and mystical) manner—through the saving knowledge (revelation) brought by Jesus to the believer. Through the experience of this revelation, the believer becomes aware of his/her true identity as the offspring of God.

In the references above, “NHL” refers to The Nag Hammadi Library (in English), James M. Robinson, General Editor (Brill: 1978). References marked “Brown” are to R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 29/A.

Notes on Prayer: John 17:11-12

John 17:11-12

Last week, in these Prayer Notes on the great prayer-discourse of Jesus in John 17, we looked at verses 9-12, focusing detail on vv. 9-10. Today, I wish to continue by examining vv. 11-12, which contains the substance of Jesus’ petition to God the Father on behalf of his disciples

“And (now) I am no longer in the world, and (yet) they [i.e. the disciples] are in the world, and I come toward you. Holy Father, keep watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, that they might be one, even as we (are). When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, and I guarded (them) and not one of them came to ruin…”

Jesus’ initial words are striking: “I am no longer [ou)ke/ti] in the world”. He says this even as he is still in the presence of his disciples (i.e. on earth) speaking to them; indeed, the statement appears to be contradicted by his words that follow in v. 13 (“I speak these [thing]s in the world”). There is a dual-meaning to the expression “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw|). On the one hand, until Jesus departs and returns to the Father, he remains in the world; but, on the other hand, he and his disciples do not belong to the world (ko/smo$, the current world-order). In verse 6, Jesus describes his disciples as men whom God gave to him “out of [e)k] the world”; this is the opposite of being “in [e)n] the world”. In the same sense, while he is with his disciples, especially at this moment (and after the departure of Judas), Jesus is no longer “in the world”.

Even more important is the way that this expression anticipates his return to the Father. We can see this by an outline of the first sentence of verse 11; thematically, it can be represented by a chiasm:

    • “I am no longer in the world”
      —”but they are (still) in the world”
    • “I come toward you”

This emphasizes the idea that Jesus does not belong to the world, but to the Father; he does not come from the world, but from the Father—and it is to the Father that he returns. The contrast with the disciples presents the other aspect of the expression “in the world”. Even though the disciples, like Jesus, do not belong to the world, they will still remain in it, after Jesus has departed. This refers both to the ordinary sense of living as a human being on earth, and, more importantly, to the reality of believers faced with a hostile world dominated by sin and darkness. This is the context of much of the Last Discourse—cf. especially 15:18-25 and the ominous declaration in 14:30 that “the chief [i.e. ruler] of the world comes [i.e. is coming]”. With regard to this latter phrase, note the parallel (words in italics):

    • “(now) the chief of the world [ko/smo$] comes [e&rxetai] and he holds nothing on/in me
    • “(now) I am no longer in the world [ko/smo$]…and I come [e&rxomai] toward you [i.e. the Father]”

It is the fact of Jesus’ impending departure from the disciples which creates the need for which he prays to the Father in vv. 11b-12. The opening words of this actual request echo those of the Lord’s Prayer:

    • Holy Father [pa/ter a%gie]…in the name [e)n tw=| o)no/mati] which you…”
    • “Our Father [pa/ter h(mw=n]…may your name be made holy [a(giasqh/tw to\ o&noma/ sou]” (Matt 6:9 par)

The emphasis on the name of God the Father is most important to the Prayer-Discourse as a whole, as I discussed last week. The word o&noma (“name”) appears a number of times, beginning with verse 6; that opening declaration, at the start of the prayer proper, gives the thematic (and theological) basis for the remainder of the Prayer-Discourse: “I made your name shine forth to the men whom you gave to me out of the world”. Three key elements of this declaration are also present here in verse 11b: (1) God’s name, (2) the disciples/believers, and (3) God the Father giving to Jesus (the Son). These elements are present, but combined differently, in the specific request made by Jesus:

“Holy Father, keep watch (over) them in the name which you have given to me”

Jesus made the Father’s name “shine forth” to the disciples (“the men”) during his time with them on earth; now he asks the Father to continue that work, the emphasis shifting from revelation to protection—protection from the evil and darkness of the world. Two verbs, largely interchangeable in meaning, are used together here:

    • thre/w (t¢réœ) has the basic meaning “watch”, often in the sense of “keep watch (over)”
    • fula/ssw (phylássœ) similarly means “watch, be alert, guard”

Let us look at how these verbs are used in the Gospel (and Letters) of John. Most commonly they relate to the idea of believers keeping/guarding Jesus’ words. This is expressed three ways, which are more or less synonymous:

    • (1) Jesus’ word/account (singular, lo/go$)—Jn 8:51-52; 14:23; 15:20; 1 Jn 2:5 (all using thre/w)
    • (2) Jesus’ words (plural, lo/goi)—Jn 14:24 (using thre/w)
      or, similarly, his “utterances [i.e. spoken words]” (rh/mata)—Jn 12:47 (using fula/ssw), interchangeable with “word[s]” (lo/go$, v. 48)
    • (3) The things Jesus lays on believers to complete (plur. e)ntolai/), typically translated “command(ment)s”—Jn 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn 2:3-4; 3:22, 24

An important point is that believers are to keep Jesus’ word(s) just as Jesus (the Son) has kept the word(s) of the Father—Jn 8:55; 15:10; 17:6. This chain of relationship between Father, Son and Believer(s) is central to Johannine theology and will be discussed in more detail as we proceed through the Prayer-Discourse. Jesus’ words are identified as being precisely those of God the Father; thus, if one keeps/guards Jesus‘ words, the believer is also keeping/guarding the Father’s words (John 12:49; 17:6; 1 Jn 5:2-3).

But this is only one aspect of the verb thre/w/fula/ssw. Part of the reciprocal relationship between Jesus and the believer is that, just as the believer keeps/guards Jesus’ word, so Jesus also keeps/guards the believer. This is the idea expressed here in vv. 11-12. Jesus prays to the Father, asking that He keep watch (over) the disciples—i.e. the elect/believers, the ones given by the Father into Jesus’ care. Jesus states that he himself kept watch over them (note the emphatic pronoun e)gw/, “I kept watch”) while he has been with them on earth (v. 12); but now, he is going away, and requests that the Father would keep watch over them. Almost certainly this refers to the coming of the Spirit/Paraclete (see below). It is possible to view Jesus’ request here as a fulfillment of 14:16ff. What is the nature of this protection? It is more or less explained in verse 15:

“I do not ask that you should take them out of the world, but that you would keep them out of the evil”

This request, so similar in many ways to the final petition of the Lord’s Prayer, will be discussed next week. It is important to note that it was Jesus himself (the Son) who protected believers during his time on earth; now it is necessary for the Father to provide similar protection in his absence. Let us consider how Jesus states this situation in verse 12:

“When I was with them, I kept watch (over) [e)th/roun] them in your name which you have given to me, and I guarded [e)fu/laca] them…”

The wording is almost identical to the request in v. 11b, indicating again the close relationship between Son and Father. The English phrase “in your name which you have given to me” in both verses glosses over certain difficulties of interpretation. The reading of the best manuscripts is:

    • au)tou\$ e)n tw=| o)no/mati/ sou w!| de/dwka/$ moi
      “…(watch over) them in your name which you have given to me”

Copyists apparently misunderstood the syntax, as we find a number of instances in the manuscripts where it reads a plural accusative form (ou%$), i.e. referring to the disciples:

    • au)tou\$ e)n tw=| o)no/mati/ sou ou%$ de/dwka/$ moi
      “…(watch over) them, the (one)s whom you have given to me, in your name”

There is basis for such a formulation in the Gospel (cf. the wording in verse 6, also 18:9), but almost certainly the dative singular (w!|) is original. The reference is to the name which God has given to Jesus, and it is this name which keeps/guards believers—”in the name which you have given to me”. An even trickier interpretive point involves the nature of the name given to Jesus.

What is this name? Clearly it belongs to God the Father, since Jesus says “your name”—”in your name which you have given to me”. Elsewhere in the Gospel, the “name” specifically refers to Jesus‘ name, usually with the expression “trust in (Jesus)’ name”. The author speaks of trusting in his name, in Jn 1:12; 2:23; 20:31; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:13, while in Jn 3:18 the reference is to trust “in the name of the…Son of God”. The name of Jesus has great power and efficacy, as we see expressed throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel, Jesus teaches his disciples (and all believers) that they are to pray/ask of the Father in his [i.e. Jesus’] name—Jn 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26. Moreover, believers experience the release (forgiveness) of sins through Jesus’ name (1 Jn 2:12). Jesus also tells his disciples that the Father will send the Spirit/Paraclete in his name (14:26). The more familiar reference to protection/power for believers in Jesus’ name presumably explains the variant reading in vv. 11-12 of the Bodmer Papyrus (Ë66*): “…in my name which you have given to me”.

It is overly simplistic (and somewhat inaccurate) to take the view that Jesus’ name is simply the name Jesus/Yeshua itself. This would reduce “in the name of…” to a quasi-magical formula; and, while many Christians have used and understood it this way, the New Testament suggests something deeper (e.g. Phil 2:9-11, and many other passages). The key is in realizing how ancient peoples understood and treated names. In ancient Near Eastern thought, a person’s name represented the person himself (or herself), embodying the person’s essence and power in an almost magical way. To know or have access/control of a person’s name meant knowledge/control of the person (and the power, etc, which he/she possessed). From a religious standpoint, this gave to the name of God an extraordinary importance. To know the name of God, and to “call on” his name, meant that one had an intimate access to God Himself. For more on this topic, see my earlier Christmas season series (“And you shall call his name…”).

This is important because it relates to the Father/Son relationship that is central to the Gospel (and Discourses) in John. Jesus is the Son sent by the Father—thus he comes in his Father’s name (representing) him, working and acting in His name (Jn 5:43; 10:25; cf. also 12:13). As a faithful Son, he does and says what he seen and hears the Father doing/saying—i.e. his words are those of the Father. Moreover, as the Son (and heir), the Father gives to Jesus everything that belongs to Him (3:35, etc), including His name. Jesus, in turn, gives this name to believers, both in the sense of making it known—i.e. manifesting it to us (17:6, 26)—and also in the sense expressed here in vv. 11-12. Believers are kept/guarded in (e)n) this name which God the Father gave to Jesus. Is it possible to define or identify this name more precisely? There are several possibilities:

    • It is the ancient name represented by the tetragrammaton (YHWH/hwhy)
    • It is the ancient name as translated/interpreted in Greek as e)gw/ ei)mi, “I AM”
    • It is to be understood in the fundamental sense of the name representing the person—i.e. the name of God the Father indicates the presence and power of God Himself

The last option is to be preferred, along the lines suggested above. However, serious consideration should also be given to the second option, considering the prominence of the many “I Am” declarations by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. In these statements, Jesus is identifying himself with God the Father (YHWH), as the divine/eternal Son who represents the Father.

Following each of the parallel requests in vv. 11b-12, involving the name of the Father given to Jesus and the protection of the disciples, we find two statements relating to the unity of the disciples (believers). First, note how these fit into the structure of the passage:

    • “Holy Father, keep watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me,
      • (so) that they may be one even as we (are). ” (v. 11b)
    • “When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me,
      • and I guarded them, and no one out of them went to ruin [i.e. was lost/perished]” (v. 12)

The phrase in v. 11b anticipates the prayer for union/unity that is developed in vv. 20ff; interestingly, Ë66* along with Old Latin, Coptic and Syriac witnesses does not include this phrase. The statement in 12, by contrast, looks back to the role and position of Judas Iscariot among the disciples (6:70-71). This reflects a basic Gospel tradition regarding Judas, of course (Mk 14:20-21 par), but it takes on deeper symbolism in the Johannine Last Supper scene (13:1-3ff, 18, 27-30). There are two main points of significance to the departure of Judas in the narrative: (1) it marks the coming of a time of darkness (“and it was night”, v. 30; cp. 12:35-36), and (2) it allows Jesus to give his ‘Last Discourse’ instruction, speaking now only to his true disciples (believers). At the same time, the mention of Judas (as an exception, in fulfillment of Scripture) only underscores the unity of the remainder of the disciples—”not one of them went to ruin”. This is given dramatic expression during the Passion narrative (18:8-9).

A final point to be made on these verses has already been touched on above—the relationship between Father and Son (Jesus), which is also paralleled in the relationship between Jesus and believers. Central to this two-fold relationship, the key theme of chapter 17, is the presence of the Spirit. While the Spirit/Paraclete (pneu=ma/para/klhto$) is not specifically mentioned in chap. 17, it can be inferred at a number of points, based on the earlier references in chaps. 14-16 (and elsewhere in the Gospel). Jesus states clearly in verse 11 that he is departing and “is no longer in the world”. It is fair to conclude that the request in v. 11 relates to the request for the sending of the Spirit (in 14:16, etc). The keeping/guarding done by Jesus in the Father’s name now will be done for believers through the Spirit. The Spirit is also the basis for the unity (between Father/Son/Believers) which is so much emphasized in the prayer-discourse of Jesus in chap. 17. This will be discussed further in next week’s study (on verses 13-15).

Notes on Prayer: John 17:9-12

John 17:9-12

We are continuing to explore the great Prayer-Discourse of Jesus in John 17 during these Monday Notes on Prayer. In verse 9, the focus shifts toward Jesus’ disciples, though in a manner that builds seamlessly upon the themes and language used previously in the prayer. We may observe something similar to the pattern used by Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer (discussed previously in these Notes on Prayer). In the first portion of the Prayer (Matt 6:9-10 par), the believer is to address God, focusing on His honor and work; while in the second portion (6:11-13), the focus shifts to the needs of believers, making request to God the Father regarding them. This pattern generally holds, though with a decided difference in perspective, in the Prayer-Discourse:

    • Vv. 1-8: Addressing God, focusing on His honor (do/ca) and work (e&rgon)—based on the intimate relationship between Father and Son, the Father’s honor and work both belong to the (faithful) Son as well
    • Vv. 9-23: Addressing the needs of believers—not for ordinary daily needs (as in the Lord’s Prayer), but in light of their/our relationship to both Father and Son

The petitions of the second part (for the needs of believers) are made entirely with the statements of the first part (regarding the honor and work of God) in mind. The Lord’s Prayer begins with a statement involving the name of God the Father (“Father […], may your name be made holy”); and the Father’s name is likewise central to the Prayer-Discourse, beginning with verse 6 which opens the main section (discussed last week):

“I made your name shine forth to the men whom you gave me out of the world”

This statement provides four distinct elements or components which run through the entire Prayer-Discourse:

    1. The name (o&noma) of God the Father
    2. The focus on Jesus’ followers (believers)—”the men whom…”
    3. The Father giving to the Son, using the key verb di/dwmi
    4. The contrast between believers and the world (ko/smo$, the [current] world-order)

All of these are present and feature prominently in verses 9-12 as Jesus begins addressing the needs of believers to God the Father. In verse 9 we find the first occurrence in the Prayer-Discourse of the verb e)rwta/w, “ask (about)”, used again at key points in vv. 15 and 20. Jesus uses this verb when he speaks of his making a request to the Father (16:26), whereas elsewhere in the Last Discourse, when instructing his disciples on their making requests to the Father, he uses the verb ai)te/w (14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24, and see both verbs used together in 16:26). The verb e)rwta/w fundamentally refers to a person seeking information about something (i.e. a point of discussion or interrogation), while ai)te/w properly refers to a specific request (or, more forcefully, a demand). When e)rwta/w is used in the Last Discourse, it is in the sense of the disciples asking questions of Jesus (to find out information). Here, in the Prayer-Discourse, the point is not the request itself, but what Jesus is asking about. This is expressed by the preposition peri/ (“around, about”), with the object being the disciples (believers): “I ask about them…” (e)gw\ peri\ au)tw=n e)rwtw=). A contrast with the “world” (ko/smo$) follows immediately:

“I ask about them—(it is) not about the world (that) I ask, but about the (ones) whom you have given [de/dwka$] to me…”

In verse 6 (cf. above), Jesus specifically refers to his disciples (believers) as the ones God gave to him “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou). There is a two-fold significance to this phrase in the context of the Johannine Discourses of Jesus, playing on the semantic range of the preposition e)k (“out of, from”):

    • Jesus chose people who were in the world, so as to take them out of the world—i.e. as his followers, taking them (with him) to God the Father.
    • Believers respond to Jesus because they ultimate come from God the Father, belonging to him—they do not belong the world

This latter sense, generally corresponding to the idea of divine election, is primarily in view here in the Prayer-Discourse, as the final words of the verse make clear:

“…(in) that [i.e. because] they are [i.e. belong] to you” (o%ti soi/ ei)sin)

Much the same was already stated in verse 6:

“They were [i.e. belong] to you” (soi\ h@san)

This idea, that believers come from (e)k) God—even as Jesus himself does—is expressed at many points in the Gospel and First Letter of John. One of the clearest statements in this regard is in Jesus’ great declaration to Pilate in 18:37, which serves virtually as a summary of Johannine theology (and Christology):

“I have come to be (born) unto this [i.e. for this purpose], and unto this I have come into the world: that I might give witness to the truth; every (one) being out of [e)k, i.e. from, belonging to] the truth hears my voice.”

The message is clear: the person who hears and responds in faith to Jesus does so because he/she already belongs to God, coming from Him. Here in the Prayer this is expressed in terms of God the Father giving believers to Jesus (the Son). The verb di/dwmi occurs numerous times in chapter 17, as a key term summarizing the relationship between Father and Son (and the believer): the Father gives to the Son, who, in turn, gives to his followers (believers), who, as it happens, are among the very things given to the Son by the Father. The wonderfully elliptical logic does create some confusion in the text, since Jesus refers to two different primary objects the Father gives to him: (a) believers, and (b) His name. It is not always immediately clear which is being referred to, and several textual variants have arisen in the manuscript tradition as a result. Let us survey the use of di/dwmi in the Prayer up to this point:

    • “you gave [e&dwka$] to him [i.e. the Son] authority o(ver) all flesh” (v. 2)
    • “so that every [pa=$] (one) that you have given [de/dwka$] to him, he might give [dw/sh|] to them [pl.] the Life of the Age” (v.2)
    • “I honored you upon the earth, completing the work that you have given [de/dwka$] me (to do), that I should do it” (v. 4)
    • “…the men whom you gave [e&dwka$] to me out of the world” (v. 6a)
    • “they were [i.e. belong] to you and you gave [e&dwka$] them to me” (v. 6b)
    • “all (thing)s [pa/nta], as (many) as you have given [de/dwka$] to me, are (from) alongside of you” (v. 7)
    • “the words [lit. utterances] which you gave [e&dwka$] to me, I have given [de/dwka] to them” (v. 8)

The comprehensiveness of this language, using the verb di/dwmi, is confirmed by the declaration which follows in verse 10:

“and all the (thing)s (that are) mine are yours, and the (thing)s (that are) yours (are) mine”

The reciprocal relationship between Father and Son is stated here concisely, more than English translation allows; in Greek it is:

kai\ ta\ e)ma\ pa/nta sa/ e)stin kai\ ta\ sa\ e)ma/

We find the same basic idea expressed elsewhere in the Gospel, perhaps most notably in 3:35:

“The Father loves the Son, and has given all (thing)s [pa/nta de/dwken] in(to) his hand.”

The concluding words of verse 10 state this in a slightly different manner, according to the theme of the Prayer: “all the (thing)s (that are) mine are yours, and the (thing)s (that are) yours (are) mine, and I have been given honor in them [kai\ dedo/casmai e)n au)toi=$].” For more on the important verb doca/zw in chapter 17, see the discussion in the earlier note on vv. 1-5. At the start of the Prayer, Jesus asks the Father to given him honor, and yet here he declares that he has already been given honor (cp. with 12:28 and 13:31-32). This is a declaration of his fundamental identity as God’s Son; the request in vv. 1ff refers to the return of the Son to the Father following the completion of his work on earth, as is clear from v. 5b.

This powerful theological and Christological background is vital to a proper understanding of what follows in the Prayer, beginning with Jesus’ petition on behalf of his disciples (believers) in verse 11, which he expounds in verse 12. Let us consider this petition as a whole, before examining the individual parts of it:

“And (now) I am no longer in the world, and (yet) they are in the world, and I come toward you. Holy Father, keep watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, (so) that they may be one even as we (are).” (v. 11)

Anyone familiar with the Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17 will recognize how the content and language of this primary petition is woven through the remainder of the text. It will aid our understanding greatly if we examine it carefully here, which we will do in next week’s study.

Saturday Series: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18

Today we follow up on last week’s study on John 17:11-12, with a brief examination of 1 John 5:18, perhaps the Johannine passage closest to Jn 17:11ff. The statement made by the author (trad. John the Apostle) is notoriously difficult to interpret, as evidenced by several key textual variants. Especially problematic is the central phrase, which has been read several ways:

    • “the one coming to be (born) out of God keeps/guards him”
      ho genn¢theís ek tou Theou t¢reí auton
    • “the one coming to be (born) out of God keeps/guards himself”
      ho genn¢theís ek tou Theou t¢reí h(e)auton
    • “the coming to be (born) [i.e. birth] out of God keeps/guards him”
      ho génn¢sis ek tou Theou t¢reí auton

Each reading has a different emphasis:

    1. The “one born out of God” (presumably Jesus, the Son) guards the believer
    2. The believer, as “one born out of God”, guards himself/herself (see verse 21)
    3. The (spiritual) birth itself guards the believer

The reading with the noun génn¢sis (i.e., “birth”) is almost certainly not original, but reflects a modification of the participle, most likely in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the passage.

Typically, in the Gospel and First Letter of John, the verb gennᜠ(“come to be [born]”) is applied to the believer, not to Jesus—see Jn 1:13; 3:3-8; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, and all of these references use the same expression “(born) out of God” [or, “…out of Him”]. It is thus reasonable to assume that both occurrences of the participle in 1 Jn 5:18 apply to the believer. On the other hand, the use of the aorist (genn¢theis) for the second participle is a bit unusual (compare the perfect gegenn¢menos for the first participle). This has led many commentators to suspect that there is an important distinction intended by the author. Though the verb gennᜠonly refers to Jesus’ birth (his human birth) only once elsewhere in the Gospel and 1 John (in Jn 18:37), the basic idea of Jesus as the Son makes the idea of a “birth” from God the Father entirely appropriate. Given the wordplay so common in the Johannine writings, it is likely that something similar is intended here in 1 Jn 5:18, with a dual meaning of “the one born out of God”—both the believer (i.e. child of God) and Jesus (the Son of God). If so, then the most likely original reading would be as follows:

“We see that every (one) th(at) has come to be (born) out of God does not sin, but the (one who has) come to be (born) out of God keeps watch (over) him, and the evil (one) does not touch him.”

The parallels with Jn 17:11-12 (and 15) are obvious. Yet, in that passage, as I indicated above, it would seem that the Spirit is in view. Upon Jesus’ departure (back to the Father), the Spirit takes his place in and among believers—thus it is the Spirit which continues the word of keeping/guarding believers in the Father’s name (which is also the name given to the Son). How might this relate to 1 Jn 5:18? The idea of coming to be “born out of God” is closely related to the Spirit, especially in John 3:3-8, where we read of coming to be born “out of the Spirit”. Now the Spirit comes to believers from the Father, but through Jesus—he is the direct source of the Spirit (Jn 3:34; 7:37-39; 15:26-27; 16:7; 20:22). Thus, it may be that the dual use of gennᜠin 1 Jn 5:18 is meant to indicate the shared birth we have with Jesus as Son/Children of God, a relationship which we have through the Spirit. The importance of the Spirit in earlier in chapter 5 makes such an inference all the more likely.

Let us examine this difficult verse in more detail.

“We have seen [i.e. known] that every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not sin [ouch hamartánei]…”

I have intentionally stopped after the first clause, since it is this particular statement which has proven difficult to interpret, from a theological standpoint. First, the perfect participle (with the article)—ho gegenn¢ménos, “the one having come to be born” (i.e. born “…out of God“)—is used by the author as a descriptive title for believers (also in 3:9). The verb gennᜠ(“come to be [born]”) is used repeatedly this way (2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4; cf. also Jn 1:13; 3:3-8). This statement essentially repeats the earlier declarations in 3:9

“Every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not do/make sin [i.e. act sinfully]…”

and also in the prior v. 6:

“Every (one) remaining in him does not sin…”

At the same time, it is quite clear that believers in Christ do sin (1:8-10; 2:1-2, etc). How is this evidence to be reconciled? There are several possibilities:

    • The statements in 3:9 & 5:18 reflect prescriptive, rather than descriptive, language—i.e., expressing how things ought to be, the ideal, rather than how things actually are.
    • The present tense of the verb hamartánœ in 3:6-9 and 5:18 specifically indicates a practice of sinning—i.e. continual or habitual. According to this interpretation, true believers do sin, but do not continually sin.
    • The “sinlessness” of believers expressed in 3:6, 9 and 5:18 reflects the essential reality of our union with Christ, but not necessarily the daily life and practice of practice of believers, which entails the regular dynamic of both sin and forgiveness.

There are, perhaps, elements of truth in all three of these interpretive approaches. The first option is the simplest, but, in my view, is something of an artificial (modern) distinction. Probably the majority of commentators (and translators) adopt the second option, but, again, there is little clear indication of such a distinction in the text itself. The use of the present tense of hamartánœ scarcely need be limited to the idea of repeated or continual sin; much more likely is a simple distinction between past sins (cleansed upon coming to faith in Jesus) and present sins committed during the time now that one is a believer.

In my view, the third option above best fits the thought (and theology) of the letter, and is likely to be closest to the mark. Note, in particular, the way that the “sinlessness” is worded and qualified:

    • “the one having come to be born of God…”
    • “the one remaining/abiding in him…”

To understand this better, let us examine the context of each of the statements in 3:6, 9, and 5:18.

1 Jn 3:6. The statement is: “Every one remaining in him does not sin”. This is contrasted with the parallel statement in v. 6b: “every one sinning has not looked upon [i.e. seen] him and has not known him”. The combination of these statements would suggest that, if a believer commits sin, then he/she has not seen/known Christ, and (thus) is not a true believer. However, that is not quite the logic of the verse; consider the structure of it, outlined as follows:

    • The one remaining in Christ [i.e. the believer]
      —does not sin [i.e. characteristic of the believer]
      —the one who does sin (“sinning”) [i.e. characteristic of the unbeliever]
    • The one who has not seen/known Christ [i.e. the non-believer]

The thrust of the statement is the kind of dualistic contrast so common in Johannine thought and expression—seeing/not-seeing, knowing/not-knowing, believer/non-believer. How, then, should we regard the similar contrast between not-sinning and sinning? This is made more clear when we look at the prior statements in vv. 3-5, working backward:

    • “in him [i.e. Jesus Christ] there is not (any) sin” (v. 5b)
      —this is a fundamental statement of Jesus’ sinlessness; the “sinlessness” of believers must be understood first, and primarily, through this.
    • “and you have seen/known that that (one) [i.e. Jesus] was made to shine forth [i.e. revealed], (so) that he might take up [i.e. take away] sin” (v. 5a)
      —a central aspect of Jesus’ mission and work on earth, esp. his sacrificial death, was to “take away” sin (cf. Jn 1:29, etc); it is through this work of Jesus that we (believers) are cleansed from sin (1 Jn 1:7).
    • “The one doing sin does/acts without law [anomía], and sin is (being/acting) without law [anomía]” (v. 4)
      —on the surface, this seems simply to reflect the traditional principle that “sin” entails the violation of religious and ethical standards (“law”, “commandments”); however, the Gospel and Letters of John understand and interpret the “commandments” (entolai) for believers in a distinctive way (cf. especially the two-fold ‘commandment’ in 1 Jn 3:23-24). If “sin” is defined as being “without the commandments” then, here in the letter, this essentially means being without (real) trust in Jesus and without (true) love.
    • “Every one holding this hope upon him makes himself pure, even as that one [i.e. Jesus] is pure.” (v. 3)
      —this statement focuses more on the attitude and behavior of believers, with the expression “makes himself pure” (agnízei heautón); it functions as an exhortation for believers to live and act according to their true identity (in Christ). Paul does much the same thing when he exhorts his readers, e.g., “If we live in/by the Spirit, we should also ‘walk in line’ in/by the Spirit” (Gal 5:25).
    • “Loved (one)s, (even) now we are offspring [i.e. children] of God, but it is not yet made to shine forth [i.e. revealed] what we will be…” (v. 2)
      —this declaration is vital to an understanding of the author’s perspective here in the letter; it reflects the two aspects of a “realized” and “future” eschatology, applying it to our identity as believers (“children of God”). Already now, in the present, we are “born of God”, yet this will not be experienced fully for us until the end time. Thus, while we partake of the sinlessness of Christ, we do not act sinlessly at every point of our lives on earth.

1 Jn 3:9. At first glance, throughout verses 2-6ff, the author seems to be speaking generally about “sin”, and it is easy to insert a conventional religious and ethical sense of the word, as though he were simply summarizing traditional immorality such as we see in the Pauline “vice lists” (Rom 1:29-31; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21, etc). Yet, a careful reading of the letter itself indicates that this really is not what he is describing. Indeed, apart from 2:15-17 and (possibly) 5:21, there is very little evidence of traditional ethical teaching in the letter. Which is not to say that the Johannine congregations were careless about such things; however, the emphasis in the letter is specifically on the two-fold “commandment” for believers stated in 3:23-24, etc—of (proper) trust in Jesus and (true) love for fellow believers. We must keep in mind the rhetorical background of the letter, which is directed against the would-be believers (“antichrists”) who have separated from the Johannine congregations. The author views them as breaking both of these “commandments”, and are thus sinning in a fundamental way that the remainder of the faithful are not.

In verse 10, the author begins transitioning his discussion toward the two-fold commandment, beginning with the duty to love one another, according to Jesus’ own example (Jn 13:34-35, etc). This is prefaced by the dualistic contrast of righteousness/sin and God vs. Devil, sharpening and intensifying the line of rhetoric. These characterize true believers, against those who are not (e.g. the Johannine separatists):

    • “the one doing justice/righteousness” vs. “the one doing sin” (vv. 7-8a)
    • “(the works of God)” vs. “the works of the Devil” (v. 8b)
    • “the one born out of God” vs. “the one (born) out of the Devil” (vv. 8a, 9a)

It is thus not merely a question of committing (or not committing) particular sins, but of attributes and qualities characterizing two different “groups” of human beings (and supposed Christians). Again, it is the purity and sinlessness of Jesus himself, the Son of God, by which we come to be made pure and ‘without sin’—i.e. “born of God”, “offspring of God”. The essence and character of this fundamental identity is clearly expressed in verse 7:

“the (one) doing justice is just, even as that (one) [i.e. Jesus] is just”

Doing justice does not make a person just; quite the reverse—the believer’s “just-ness” in Christ results in his/her acting justly. Note how this is expressed in verse 9; it will be useful to look at each component in the verse:

    • “Every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not do sin”
      • “(in) that [i.e. because] His seed remains in him”
      • “and he is not able to sin”
        • “(in) that [i.e. because] he has come to be (born) out of God”

This is one of the most elliptical statements in the letter:

    • “the one having come to be born out of God”
      —”he does not sin”
      ——”His seed remains in him”
      —”he is not able to sin”
    • “he has come to be born out of God”

Central to the “sinlessness” of believers is the essential reality that God’s seed (spérma) remains/abides [ménei] in us. We may fairly interpret this “seed” as the living/abiding Spirit of His Son (which is also His own Spirit). Just as there is no sin in the Son, even so there is no sin abiding/remaining in us.

This brings us again to the statement in 1 Jn 5:18; let us now examine the verse in its entirety:

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not sin, but (rather) the (one) coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch (over) him, and the evil does not attach (itself) to him.”

The difficulty of the wording (and meaning) is reflected by several key variant readings, which were discussed briefly above. The main question is whether the second occurrence of the verb gennᜠ(aorist pass. participle, genn¢theís) refers to Jesus, as the Son of God, or the believer as child/offspring of God. Commentators and textual critics are divided on this question, which involves three different major variants, two involving the object pronoun, and one involving the form of the verb:

    • ho genn¢theis ek tou theou t¢rei auton
      “the (one) coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch (over) him”
    • ho genn¢theis ek tou theou t¢rei heauton
      “the (one) coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch (over) himself”
    • ho genn¢sis ek tou theou t¢rei auton
      “the coming to be (born) [i.e. birth] out of God keeps watch (over) him”

It would seem that the first reading best explains the rise of the other two, and, in my view, is more likely to be original. Though the verb gennáœ, used in a symbolic or spiritual sense, otherwise always applies to the believer rather than Jesus (Jn 18:37 refers more properly to his physical/human birth), the emphasis in the letter on Jesus on the Son of God, and on that as the basis for our being “born of God”/”offspring of God”, makes it highly likely that the author is playing on such a dual-meaning here. This would also seem to be confirmed by 3:9 (cf. above), which speaks of God’s “seed” (i.e. son/offspring) abiding in the believer. It is this seed, this “offspring” born of God, which guards believers, keeping and protecting us from evil.

This concludes our exploration of the Gospel of John in these Saturday discussions. I have used this particular book as a way to demonstrate, inductively, many important aspects of Biblical (i.e., New Testament) criticism. Soon, I will begin introducing some of the special problems and issues involved in study and criticism of the Old Testament. However, next week, in commemoration of Easter season, I will be presenting the first of two studies on some of the important textual variants (and text-critical issues) in the Passion and Resurrection narratives in the Gospels. I hope that you will be here to embark on this exploration with me…next Saturday.

Saturday Series: John 17:11-12

John 17:11-12

The great prayer-discourse of John 17 serves as the conclusion both to the Last Discourse (ch. 13:31-16:33) and to the Johannine Discourses of Jesus as a whole. As such, in the Gospel narrative, they represent the climax of Jesus’ parting words to his disciples before his death. Many of the themes and ideas in the Discourses are restated and given new significance in chapter 17. For an outline of the prayer-discourse, I present here, with some modification, the outline offered by R. E. Brown (in his Anchor Bible [AB] commentary [Vol. 29A, p. 749], based on the earlier work of A. Laurentin):

    • Narrative setting (v. 1a)
    • Prologue—saying/statement (vv. 1b-3)
      —”Response” (v. 3)
    • Refrain:
      (a) Jesus’ relationship with the Father: the pre-existent glory (vv. 4-5)
      (b) Jesus has shone forth (manifest) the Father’s name (v. 6)
    • Part 1—Prayer/petition (vv. 7-12)
    • Part 2—Prayer/petition (vv. 13-23)
    • Refrain:
      (a) Jesus’ relationship with the Father: the pre-existent glory (vv. 24)
      (b) Jesus has shone forth (manifest) the Father’s name (vv. 25-26)

Today we will be looking specifically at verses 11-12:

“And (now) I am no longer in the world, and (yet) these [i.e. the disciples] are in the world, and I come toward you. Holy Father, keep watch (over) these in the name which you have given to me, that they might be one, even as we (are). When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name which you have given to me, and I guarded (them) and not one of them came to ruin…”

There are textual and interpretive difficulties throughout chapter 17, including these verses. As I discussed last week, while the language and vocabulary of the Gospel of John (and the Discourses) is relatively simple, the way this language is applied is often quite complex and allusive. Every grammatical detail and nuance of wording can carry special (theological) significance. At the same time, the style and wording of the Johannine discourses is quite consistent, with the same words, phrases, and images often being repeated from one discourse to the next. This means that we can look to earlier usage in the Gospel for reliable information as to what the author (and Jesus as the speaker) intends to convey.

Moreover, it is possible to use the first Johannine letter (1 John) for added insight as to the meaning of passages in the Gospel. Normally it is not wise to rely upon other New Testament writings for the interpretation of a passage in a particular book; however, the case of the Gospel and Letters of John is special. If they were not written by the same author (traditionally, John the Apostle), then they at least must be viewed as the product of a Community, or congregations, which share a common language and thought-world. The vocabulary and mode of expression in the Letters (esp. 1 John) is very close to that of the Gospel (and the Discourses of Jesus). Many passages in 1 John could have been lifted right out of the Discourses.

There are three elements of John 17:11-12 which we will examine:

    1. The use of the verbs t¢réœ and phylássœ
    2. The meaning and significance of the “name” (ónoma)
    3. The relationship between Father and Son (Jesus), and that between Jesus and the believer

1. First, we have the two verbs t¢réœ and phylássœ, which are largely synonymous:

    • thre/w (t¢réœ) has the basic meaning “watch”, often in the sense of “keep watch (over)”
    • fula/ssw (phylássœ) similarly means “watch, be alert, guard”

Let us look at how these verbs are used in the Gospel (and Letters) of John.

Most commonly they relate to the idea of believers keeping/guarding Jesus’ words. This is expressed three ways, which are more or less synonymous:

    • (1) Jesus’ word/account (singular, lógos)—Jn 8:51-52; 14:23; 15:20; 1 Jn 2:5 (all using t¢réœ)
    • (2) Jesus’ words (plural, lógoi)—Jn 14:24 (using t¢réœ)
      or, similarly, his “utterances [i.e. spoken words]” (rh¢¡mata)—Jn 12:47 (using phylássœ), interchangeable with “word[s]” (lógos, v. 48)
    • (3) The things Jesus lays on believers to complete (plur. entolaí), typically translated “command(ment)s”—Jn 14:15, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn 2:3-4; 3:22, 24

This wording is distinctive in the Gospel and letters of John, and must be studied properly in context, as it can be easily misunderstood. The use of the word entol¢¡ (e)ntolh/), especially when translated “commandment”, can give the impression of a religious or ethical commandment such as we find in the Old Testament Law (Torah). To speak thus of “commandments” of Jesus again suggests a collection of authoritative “commands” like many in the Torah, or, more specifically, in something like the Sermon on the Mount. However, a careful study of the Gospel of John reveals nothing of the kind. While Jesus certainly gave much teaching to his disciples, there is really only one “command” as such—the directive that believers love one another (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12ff; and also 1 Jn 3:11ff, etc). It can be fairly well established from the Gospel that the “commands” actually are two (and only two): (1) trust in Jesus, and (2) love for one another, following Christ’s own example. The author of 1 John states this two-fold “commandment” explicitly in 3:23-24.

An important point is that believers are to keep Jesus’ word(s) just as Jesus (the Son) has kept the word(s) of the Father—Jn 8:55; 15:10; 17:6. This chain of relationship between Father, Son and Believer(s) is central to Johannine theology and will be discussed under point 3 below. Jesus’ words are identified as being precisely those of God the Father; thus, if one keeps/guards Jesus‘ words, the believer is also keeping/guarding the Father’s words (John 12:49; 17:6; 1 Jn 5:2-3).

But this is only one aspect of the verb t¢réœ/phylássœ. Part of the reciprocal relationship between Jesus and the believer is that, just as the believer keeps/guards Jesus’ word, so Jesus also keeps/guards the believer. This is the idea expressed here in vv. 11-12. Jesus prays to the Father, asking that He keep watch (over) the disciples—i.e. the elect/believers, the ones given by the Father into Jesus’ care. Jesus states that he himself kept watch over them while he has been with them on earth (v. 12); but now, he is going away, and requests that the Father would keep watch over them. Almost certainly this refers to the coming of the Spirit/Paraclete (see the discussion last week). It is possible to view Jesus’ request here as a fulfillment of 14:16ff.

What is the nature of this protection? It is more or less explained in verse 15:

“I do not ask that you should take them out of the world, but that you would keep them out of evil” (or, “…out of [the power of] the Evil [One]”)

God, through the Spirit/Paraclete, which is also the Spirit of Jesus (taking his place with believers), will keep watch over us and guard us from sin and evil. In the same manner, we find exhortations for believers to keep/guard themselves (their souls) from evil—Jn 12:25; 1 Jn 5:21 (“from idols/images”).

2. The second point to examine is the reference to the name (ónoma). Twice in vv. 11-12, Jesus uses the phrase “the name which you have given to me”. Copyists apparently misunderstood the syntax, as we find a number of instances in the manuscripts where it reads a plural accusative form (hoús, ou%$), i.e. referring to the disciples—”these…whom you have given to me”. There is basis for such a formulation in the Gospel, but almost certainly the dative singular (hœ¡, w!|) is original. The reference is to the name which God has given to Jesus, and it is this name which keeps/guards believers—”in the name which you have given to me”.

What is this name? Clearly it belongs to God the Father, since Jesus says “your name”—”in your name which you have given to me”. Elsewhere in the Gospel, the “name” specifically refers to Jesus‘ name, usually with the expression “trust in (Jesus)’ name”. The author speaks of trusting in his name, in Jn 1:12; 2:23; 20:31; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:13, while in Jn 3:18 the reference is to trust “in the name of the…Son of God”. The name of Jesus has great power and efficacy, as we see expressed throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel, Jesus teaches his disciples (and all believers) that they are to pray/ask of the Father in his [i.e. Jesus’] name—Jn 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26. Moreover, believers experience the release (forgiveness) of sins through Jesus’ name (1 Jn 2:12). Jesus also tells his disciples that the Father will send the Spirit/Paraclete in his name (14:26).

It is overly simplistic (and somewhat inaccurate) to take the view that Jesus’ name is simply the name Jesus/Yeshua itself. This would reduce “in the name of…” to a quasi-magical formula; and, while many Christians have used and understood it this way, the New Testament suggests something deeper (e.g. Phil 2:9-11, and many other passages). The key is in realizing how ancient peoples understood and treated names. In ancient Near Eastern thought, a person’s name represented the person himself (or herself), embodying the person’s essence and power in an almost magical way. To know or have access/control of a person’s name meant knowledge/control of the person (and the power, etc, which he/she possessed). From a religious standpoint, this gave to the name of God an extraordinary importance. To know the name of God, and to “call on” his name, meant that one had an intimate access to God Himself. For more on this topic, see my earlier Christmas season series (“And you shall call his name…”).

This is important because it relates to the Father/Son relationship that is central to the Gospel (and Discourses) in John. Jesus is the Son sent by the Father—thus he comes in his Father’s name (representing) him, working and acting in His name (Jn 5:43; 10:25; cf. also 12:13). As a faithful Son, he does and says what he seen and hears the Father doing/saying—i.e. his words are those of the Father. Moreover, as the Son (and heir), the Father gives to Jesus everything that belongs to Him (3:35, etc), including His name. Jesus, in turn, gives this name to believers, both in the sense of making it known—i.e. manifesting it to us (17:6, 26)—and also in the sense expressed here in vv. 11-12. Believers are kept/guarded in (en/e)n) this name which God the Father gave to Jesus. Is it possible to define or identify this name more precisely? There are several possibilities:

    • It is the ancient name represented by the tetragrammaton (YHWH/hwhy)
    • It is the ancient name as translated/interpreted in Greek as egœ eimi (e)gw/ ei)mi), “I AM”
    • It is to be understood in the fundamental sense of the name representing the person—i.e. the name of God the Father indicates the presence and power of God Himself

The last option is to be preferred, along the lines suggested above. However, serious consideration should also be given to the second option, considering the prominence of the many “I Am” declarations by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. In these statements, Jesus is identifying himself with God the Father (YHWH), as the divine/eternal Son who represents the Father.

3. The third point has already been touched on above—the relationship between Father and Son (Jesus), which is also paralleled in the relationship between Jesus and believers. Central to this two-fold relationship, the key theme of chapter 17, is the presence of the Spirit. While the Spirit/Paraclete (pneúma/parákl¢tos) is not specifically mentioned in chap. 17, it can be inferred at a number of points, based on the earlier references in chaps. 14-16 (and elsewhere in the Gospel). Jesus states clearly in verse 11 that he is departing and “is no longer in the world”. It is fair to conclude that the request in v. 11 relates to the request for the sending of the Spirit (in 14:16, etc). The keeping/guarding done by Jesus in the Father’s name now will be done for believers through the Spirit. The Spirit is also the basis for the unity (between Father/Son/Believers) which is so much emphasized in the prayer-discourse of Jesus in chap. 17.

For next week, I would ask that you turn to the letter known as First John, and read through the five chapters that comprise the letter. Compare the language and theological ideas with the Discourses of Jesus in the Gospel, especially the Last Discourse and the Prayer-discourse of chap. 17 which we have examined today. Pay special attention to the statement in 1 Jn 5:18, as it is the Johannine passage closest in thought and wording to Jn 17:11ff. I will see you next Saturday.

March 6: Matt 6:9; Lk 11:2 (continued)

Matthew 6:9c; Luke 11:2c

Having discussed the invocation of the Lord’s Prayer in prior notes, we now turn to the first petition, which has the same Greek form in all three versions (Luke, Matthew, Didache):

a(giasqh/tw to\ o&noma/ sou
hagiasth¢tœ to onoma sou
“May your Name be treated (as) holy”

An Aramaic version, such as might have been spoken by Jesus, would be: Em*v= vD^q^t=y], yitqaddaš š§ma½ (Fitzmyer, p. 901). The traditional English translation, by way of the KJV/AV, is “Hallowed be Thy Name”, which, though elegant as a literal rendering, is now quite archaic sounding, even within a formal prayer. We must look more closely at the meaning of verb a(gia/zw (hagiázœ), related to the adjective a%gio$ (hágios), which is more or less accurately translated in English as “holy”. The old Greek noun ago$ (ágos/hágos) relates fundamentally to something which produces, or is a reason for, (religious) awe. The verb a(gia/zw can mean “be holy”, “treat/regard (something) as holy”, or, in the causative sense, “make (something) to be(come) holy”. It is used almost entirely in a religious (and ritual) context, and is typically translated as “sanctify”.

The verb occurs frequently in the Septuagint (LXX), especially in the ritual instruction within the Pentateuch (Torah). It also occurs 28 times in the New Testament, where it tends to be used in a more figurative, spiritualized sense, though certain ritual aspects remain (connected with Baptism, proper conduct of believers, etc). The (passive) imperative form, used in the Prayer, is rather more unusual, occurring elsewhere only in Rev 22:11: “the (one who is) holy [a%gio$] must still be regarded as holy [a(giasqh/tw]”. A literal rendering of the petition in the Prayer would similarly be:

“Your name must be regarded as holy!”

which, in the context of a prayer to God requires a slightly nuanced rendering:

“May/let your name be regarded as holy!”

There is some question about the force of the aorist passive here. It could indicate: (1) the so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum) where God is the implied actor, or (2) what is sometimes called the “aorist of prayer”, in which human worshipers are the acting subjects (cf. Betz, p. 389). Given that the Prayer is addressed to God, the former seems more likely; at the same time, it is clear that the ones who are to treat/regard God’s name as holy are human beings. We might paraphrase and expound the petition as follows:

“(Father,) bring it about that people (everywhere) come to treat your name with the honor due to it”

In Greek, the verb doca/zw is similar in (religious) meaning to a(gia/zw—to regard something as holy (a%gio$) means that one treat it with the honor and esteem (do/ca) that is due to it. In Hebrew, this “honor” is expressed by the root dbK (vb k¹»a¼, noun k¹»ô¼), fundamentally referring to something (or someone) having weight (i.e. value, strength, worth, etc). The root in Hebrew/Aramaic indicating “holiness” is vdq (adj q¹¼ôš, noun qœ¼eš, vb q¹¼aš). Jesus utters a petition to God, similar to that in the Lord’s Prayer, in John 12:28, but using the verb doca/zw instead of a(gia/zw:

“Father, (may you) make your name (to be) honored/esteemed [do/cason]!”

When it comes to the specific idea of holiness, there are two aspects which should be delineated: (1) purity, and (2) setting something apart for special (religious) use. The Greek a%gio– word group emphasizes the former, while Hebrew/Aramaic vdq (qdš) the latter. Moreover, a fundamental religious principle is that: what we treat as holy in terms of religious behavior ultimately is an expression of how we view the nature and character of God. For Israel as the chosen people of God (YHWH), this is defined by the formula in Leviticus 19:2:

“You shall be holy, for I, YHWH your God, am Holy”

Jesus effectively restates this for his followers in the Sermon on the Mount—if they follow his teaching, then:

“…you shall be complete, as your Father the (One) in the heavens is complete” (Matt 5:48)

Thus, true religion requires that people act and think in a way that honors God and reflects his own Person and Character, including all the things he has done on behalf of humankind and his people (as Creator, Life-giver, Savior/Protector, Judge, etc). According to the ancient religious mind-set, shared by Jews and Christians in the first century A.D., the “name” of God represented the Person and Nature of God manifest to human beings on earth. For more on this concept of names and naming, cf. the Christmas season series “And you shall call His Name…” The “name” of God the Father is more than simply the name expressed by the tetragrammaton (hwhy, YHWH, Yahweh)—it reflects the very Person of God Himself as he relates to his People. And, it is God’s “name” that is to be honored and treated as holy by his People—cf. Exod 20:7, etc. By the time of the Prophets, the emphasis had shifted away from ritual honoring of God’s name toward honoring it in terms of one’s overall behavior and conduct (see esp. Isa 29:23). Jesus, in his teaching (as in the Sermon on the Mount), moves even further in this direction, and this is certainly intended in the Lord’s Prayer. But why/how is it that we pray to God for this, when it is our (i.e. human beings’) responsibility to treat His Name as holy? The key to this lies in the eschatological orientation of the Prayer, which will be discussed in the next daily note.

For examples in Jewish tradition of invocations or petitions similar to those in the (Matthean) Lord’s Prayer, I point out several here:

    • “…their Father in heaven, the Holy One” (Mekilta on Exod 20:25; Fitzmyer, p. 900)
    • “Thou art holy and Thy name is holy, and the holy ones praise Thee every day. Selah. Blessed be Thou, O Lord, the holy God.” (Shemoneh Esreh [3rd benediction])
    • “Let his great name be magnified and hallowed in the world which he has created according to his will” (The Qaddiš [Kaddish] prayer; Betz, p. 390)

References marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible [AB] series (Vol. 28, 28A [1985]).
References marked “Betz” are to Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 1995).

These notes on the Lord’s Prayer commemorate the start of the new feature “Monday Notes on Prayer” on this site.

“And you shall call His Name…”: Names of God (Yahweh)

Having the discussed the principal Hebrew words signifying “God”—°E~l and °E_lœhîm—in the previous two articles of this series, today I will examine the name which came to be used as the exclusive name of God in ancient Israel, that represented by the tetragrammaton (the ‘four letters’), hwhy, and usually rendered in English transliteration by block letters (YHWH). Numerous difficulties are related to this most important name, and need to be discussed in some detail.

YHWH (Yahweh)

The name hwhy (YHWH) occurs more than 6000 times in the Old Testament, as well as in extrabiblical inscriptions from the Kingdom period. A shortened form hy (YH) appears just under 50 times, primarily in poetry (all but 6 occurrences are in the Psalms); however, it is also incorporated frequently as a hypocoristic element in personal names (cf. below). According to Israelite and Jewish tradition, this name was revered and treated as sacred to the point that it was deemed inappropriate to pronounce out loud in all but the most special of circumstances. As a result, the tradition developed of using the word °¦dœn¹y (yn`d)a&, “My Lord”) in its place. The Masorete copyists of the Scriptures indicated this substitution by applying the vowels of °¦dœn¹y (¦ œ ¹) to the letters hwhy, yielding hw`hy+. The familiar English transliteration “Jehovah” is based on a misunderstanding of this scribal practice.

It is generally recognized that hwhy/YHWH is essentially a verbal form, derived from the verb of being—the old Semitic root hwy, represented in Hebrew by the parallel verbs hwh/hyh (hwh/hyh), “be, come to be”. There is some question, however, whether the form hwhy should be regarded as derived from the basic (ground) stem, or as a causative (Hiphil) form. In my view the latter is more likely, though there continues to be debate among scholars. For a good discussion of the subject, cf. Cross, pp. 63-66 and in TDOT, Vol. V pp. 500-21. As a causative (imperfect) form, it would mean essentially “he causes to be”, i.e. he calls/brings (something) into being, gives life, creates, etc. The principal passage in the Old Testament which offers any sort of explanation as to the meaning of the name among early Israelites (in the time of Moses) is Exodus 3:13ff, which has the famous formula (uttered by God himself) in v. 14hyha rva hyha, vocalized by the Masorete scribes to mean something like “I am what I am”, or “I will be what I will be”. However, the same consonants can be vocalized as a causative—i.e., “I call into being what I call into being”—in which case the expression would be pronounced °ahyê °ašer °ahyê. According to one line of interpretation, in Exod 3:13ff, God is identifying himself with a formula that would have been known and in use by the Semitic-speakers in that region (South Palestine, Sinai), which, translating back into the older language of the period, may have been something like yahw£ ¼¥ yahw£: “he creates [i.e. brings into being] that which he creates”, etc. In other words, God may be saying to Moses, “I am that one who creates all things”, who my people worship as Creator. For more detail, cf. Cross, pp. 68-69.

It would seem that the original form of the name was Yaµw£ or Yahw£, and, subsequently in Hebrew, Yahwê. Most scholars and informed Christians today render this simply as Yahweh, and I will so refer to the tetragrammation (hwhy) in the remainder of this article. As I noted in the previous article (on °E~l), the Scriptural evidence strongly suggests that the Patriarchs and ancestors of Israel, along with the earliest Israelites, worshiped the (one) Creator God by the name °E~l (la@, “Mighty [One]”, i.e. “God”). The notice in Gen 4:26, as well as the use of Yahweh elsewhere in Genesis, likely reflects a later period when the text as we have it was written—either in the time of Moses or thereafter. The name Yahweh eventually came to be in widespread use all throughout Palestine by at least the early Kingdom period, with Yahweh and °E~l being regarded as equivalent names for the same Creator Deity. This is expressed at various points in the Old Testament, most notably in the formula of Exod 3:15, etc—

Yahweh, God of your Fathers…has sent me to you”

where the more common word °E_lœhîm (cf. the previous article) is used instead of °E~l. As an independent Divine name, Yawheh is attested in extrabiblical texts and inscriptions, such as the 9th-century Moabite (Mesha) stone, and the 7th-6th century letters from Lachish and Arad. It would seem that the earliest recorded use of the name preserved to us comes from Egyptian lists of place names from Southern Palestine in the 14th and 13th centuries, which happens to correspond generally with the time of Moses and the geographical setting of Exodus 3. Most likely, however, the name was a verbal epithet applied to °E~l, emphasizing his role and power as Creator, and which eventually came to be used as a separate and distinct name. Such a title could have been expressed simply as Yahwê °E~l, “God [°E~l] brings/calls into being”. In fact, such an expression is found among the personal names, incorporating the verbal element yahwê (or yahw£), in the texts from Mari (18th century B.C. and earlier), which are roughly contemporary with the time of the Patriarchs (Cross, p. 62). Israelite tradition preserves at least one similar expression, the famous Yahwê ƒ§»¹°ôt (toab*x= hwhy), meaning something like “He (who) creates the (heavenly) armies” (Cross, pp. 69-70). It no doubt derives from the tradition of God (El/Yahweh) as a warrior and the ritual “holy war” beliefs and practices of the ancient Near East (Josh 5:14, etc). God is seen as leading the “hosts of heaven”—sun and moon, wind and storm, et al, and the powers (or “Angels”) associated with them—on behalf of Israel (cf. Josh 10:12ff; Judg 5:20). The expression appears to have been associated specifically with symbolism of the Ark in the sanctuary (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2).

We should take most seriously the Scriptural tradition that associates the ‘introduction’ of Yahweh as the name of God for Israel with the time spent by Moses in Midian. Most of the earliest evidence for the use of Yahweh as a distinct name points in the direction of Southern Palestine (cf. above). By the time the Israelites had left Egypt and became established throughout Palestine, Yahweh had begun to supplant °E~l as the primary name of God. There appears to have been relatively little conflict between these two names, as they essentially referred to the same God (and idea of God)—the Creator Deity, the (one) true God. With the split of Israel into the Northern and Southern kingdoms, older °E~l traditions (in the North) may have reasserted themselves, against the Judean royal theology that associated Yahweh specifically with Jerusalem. Yet, even here, the same basic idea of God is involved. There are few, if any, instances in the Old Testament where the name °E~l refers to a (Canaanite) deity different from Yahweh.

By the time of the New Testament, the God of Israel would have been understood by the exclusive (Scriptural) name Yahweh. Israelites and Jews would long have been accustomed, when speaking, to use the substitution °A_dœn¹y (“My Lord”)—or its Aramaic equivalent—for that name. Similarly, in Greek, the word Ku/rio$ (Ky¡rios, “Lord”) was commonly used in place of Yahweh, both in speech, and in translation of the Old Testament Scriptures (in the Septuagint [LXX], etc). When the word ku/rio$ is used of God in the New Testament, at least in a Jewish Christian context, we can assume that the name Yahweh is in view. A certain complication was introduced, however, with the regular use of ku/rio$ in referring to Jesus. There is no doubt that this application reflects a belief in Jesus’ divine nature and status in relationship with God the Father (Yahweh), but it also creates a certain ambiguity in a number of passages. When the word ku/rio$ (“Lord”) is used, without any other qualification or explanation, is the reference to God the Father or to Jesus? We find this problem in a couple of places in the Lukan Infancy narrative (1:17, 43, 76), which will be discussed in upcoming notes in this series.

There are also examples of names in the New Testament—including several in the Infancy narratives—which preserve the name Yahweh (the shortened hypocoristic Yah[û]) in their transliteration from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into Greek. The names Zechariah (Z§kary¹h, “Yah[weh] has remembered”) and John (µ¹n¹n, “Yah[weh] has shown favor”) will be discussed in the notes on Luke 1:5-6, 13-20, and 57-66. Most notably, of course, is the name Yeshua or Jesus itself (šûa±), which will be examined, in detail, in the note on Luke 2:31.

In the references above, “Cross” = F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973 / 1997). “TDOT” = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck and H. Ringgren, English translation by John T. Willis (Eerdmans: 1974 / 1977).