Saturday Series: 1 John 4:1-6

This study continues our series examining how conflicts within the early Christianity shaped the theology and religious worldview of the New Testament. The initial set of studies has focused on the Letters of John (see the prior studies on 2 John 4-11 and 1 John 2:18-27, as well as the previous study exploring the central section of 1 John). We will be looking at 1 John 4:1-6, focusing on several important Johannine themes, which the author has adapted, as a way of confronting and addressing the conflict involving the “antichrist” opponents. In so doing, we will also consider briefly some of the themes and points emphasized in the central section (2:28-3:24).

1 John 4:1-6

This passage must be considered in the context of the entire central bloc of material spanning 2:18-4:6. In 2:18-27 and 4:1-6, the author deals directly with the conflict involving a group of ‘opponents’ whom he refers to as antíchristoi, people “against [antí] the Anointed [Christós]” (i.e., against Christ)—2:18, 22; 4:3 (see also 2 John 7). These two “antichrist” sections flank the central division of the treatise (2:28-3:24), which expounds the author’s central theme: the contrast between the true and false believer.

By all accounts, the opponents, no less that the author and his adherents, were Johannine Christians who were rooted in the Johannine Tradition. Both groups likely knew (and used) some version of the Gospel of John, and would have shared a common religious tradition, theological vocabulary, and mode of expression. For this reason, in order to combat what the author regards as the false teaching (and example) of the opponents, it was necessary for the author to develop, adapt, and apply certain aspects of the Johannine Tradition. I wish to examine several of these here.

1. “The Spirit of Truth”

In both the Gospel and 1 John there is a strong emphasis on truth. The noun al¢¡theia occurs quite frequently in the Johannine writings (45 out of 109 NT occurrences); it occurs 25 times in the Johannine Gospel, compared with just 7 in the Synoptic Gospels. Also the related adjectives al¢th¢¡s and al¢thinós occur with some frequency—17 out of 26 for al¢th¢¡s, and 13 out of 28 for al¢thinós (23 out of 28 if one includes the book of Revelation as Johannine). Truth, of course, is a fundamental attribute and characteristic of God, and naturally applies to the Son (Jesus) and his teaching, etc, as well. However, in the Johannine writings, there is also a distinctive association with the Spirit. The expression “the Spirit of truth” (to pneúma t¢¡s al¢theías) occurs three times in the Gospel (in the Paraclete-sayings of the Last Discourse), 14:17; 15:26; 16:13, and also here in 1 John 4:6 (see below). A close association between the Spirit and truth, as a fundamental Divine attribute, is expressed famously in Jn 4:23-24, and the author of 1 John goes so far as to identify the Spirit with truth itself (5:6; compare a similar identification of the Son [Jesus] with truth in Jn 14:6).

According to the Johannine theology, which is rooted in the broader early Christian tradition, believers in Christ receive the Spirit of God (Jn 4:10ff/7:37-39; 6:63; 20:22; 1 Jn 3:24; 4:13), and are also born of God’s Spirit (Jn 3:3-8). It is through the Spirit that believers, as God’s offspring, are united with both the Son of God (Jesus) and God the Father. That is to say, our abiding union as believers, in the Son and in the Father, is realized through the Spirit. As a theological point, this is not stated explicitly in the Johannine writings, but it may be plainly inferred from a number of passages. First, since God is Spirit (Jn 4:24), any union with Him must take place in a spiritual manner, at the level of the Spirit. Secondly, there are the statements regarding the Spirit-Paraclete by Jesus in the Last Discourse (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:8-15) where it is clear that, even after his departure back to the Father, the Son (Jesus) will continue to be present in and among believers through the Spirit. The context of these statements, in the Last Discourse, and also the Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17, well establishes the principle that the abiding union of believers with the Son and the Father is realized through the Spirit. This theology is confirmed by the author’s words in 3:24 and 4:13 as well.

Through the Spirit, Jesus continues to be present within believers—all believers—and continues to teach them the truth of God. In light of this role of the Spirit, as it is described in the Paraclete-sayings, there would seem to have been a notable spiritualistic emphasis, or tendency, within the Johannine congregations. The teaching that comes through the internal witness of the Spirit takes priority over the external teaching (by other human beings), since this witness of the Spirit is that of God Himself (and His Son, Jesus).

Such an emphasis on the teaching of the Spirit was a basic component of early Christian identity, rooted in Old Testament prophetic and eschatological tradition. The early Christians viewed their experience (of receiving the Spirit) as the fulfillment of a number of key prophecies (Joel 2:28-32; Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:26-27; 39:29, etc) regarding the restoration of God’s people in the New Age. God will ‘pour out’ His Spirit upon His people in a new way, with the result that the Instruction (Torah) of God will be written within, on their hearts (cp. 2 Corinthians 3:6-18). Of particular importance is the “new covenant” prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which indicates that, in the New Age, God’s people will no longer need to be taught the Torah, because it will be written in their hearts.

This prophecy had enormous influence on early Christians, but it seems to have been taken particularly seriously by the Johannine Community. There is an allusion to Jer 31:33-34 (by way of Isa 54:13) in Jn 6:45, and I believe that it informs the Paraclete-sayings as well (see above on the teaching role of the Spirit). The priority of the internal witness of the Spirit is also expressed in 1 John, featuring prominently in all three sections—2:18-27, 4:1-6, and 5:4b-12—that deal most directly with the “antichrist” opponents. Particularly in 2:21ff and 27, the author emphasizes that believers are taught by the Spirit; I take the references to “the anointing” as referring to the Spirit, though not all commentators agree on this point. The witness of the Spirit is sufficient; believers do not need any other human being to teach them regarding the truth—specifically the truth of who Jesus is (Messiah and Son of God), and what was accomplished through his earthly ministry.

But this creates a problem. If all believers are taught the truth by the Spirit, how can Christians such as the opponents espouse a false view of Jesus? Indeed, from the author’s standpoint, these opponents have a false belief in Jesus, and thus cannot be true believers at all; rather, they are false believers, and also false prophets. This is how the author characterizes them in 4:1: “…many false prophets [pseudoproph¢¡tai] have gone out into the world”. The noun proph¢¡t¢s means “foreteller”, but this does not always mean telling the future (i.e., beforehand); rather, the corresponding Hebrew term n¹»î° properly means a “speaker” (spokesperson), one who speaks as God’s representative, communicating His word and will to others. According to the early Christian ideal, all believers function as prophets in this way, and the Johannine churches seem particularly to have emphasized an egalitarian approach to prophecy.

If the opponents (as “false prophets”) are speaking a false word regarding Jesus, then they cannot be inspired by the Spirit of God (the Spirit of truth); instead, they must be speaking from a different spirit. Throughout 4:1-6, the author contrasts this ‘spirit’ with the Spirit of God, beginning here in verse 1:

“Loved (one)s, you must not trust every spirit; but (instead) examine the spirits, (to see) if it is of God.”

There is, of course, only one Spirit that is from God; however, the plural here refers to the idea that each person, who would speak about God, as a prophet, speaks under the influence of a spirit. If they are not inspired by God’s Spirit, then they speak by a different spirit that is not from God. The author puts forward a test, by which believers may examine the prophetic word, and this test is Christological (vv. 2-3). More to the point, the Christological significance is related to the controversy surrounding the opponents (and their understanding of the person of Christ). Unfortunately, from our standpoint, the defining phrase “having come in (the) flesh” does not tell us as much about the opponents’ Christology as we might like to know. Did they deny the reality of the incarnation, holding to an early docetic view of Christ? Or did they, in some way, deny or minimize the importance of the life and ministry of Jesus? The parallel confessional statement in 5:6 suggests that it was the death of Jesus, and/or its significance, that was particularly at issue. For further discussion on the opponents’ view of Jesus Christ, see my earlier notes and articles on the subject, especially the sets of notes on 2:22 and 4:2-3.

Two Johannine themes are thus brought together here in 4:1-6, in an attempt to combat the views of the opponents: (1) the Johannine principle of the internal witness of the Spirit (in teaching the truth), and (2) the eschatological aspect of prophecy (and false prophecy). The opponents are false prophets of the end-time; their view of Jesus, which they speak and teach, being false, does not come from the Spirit of God, but from a different spirit—a false and deceiving spirit. It is a spirit that is opposed to God, and is “against Christ” (antichrist). Indeed, the spirit that does not confess the truth of Jesus Christ “having come in the flesh” (v. 2), is a “spirit of antichrist” (v. 3), a deceiving spirit of false prophecy that is at work in the world. It is a spirit that belongs to “the world” (in the thoroughly negative Johannine sense of the term kósmos); those who speak from this spirit (i.e., the opponents) belong to the world, and only others who belong to the world (i.e., false believers) will listen to and accept what they say (v. 5).

The true believer, however, belongs to God (as His offspring), and not to the world. The Spirit of God dwells within every true believer, and this Spirit is far greater than the false/deceiving spirit of “antichrist” that is in the world (v. 4). Because the Son (Jesus) was victorious over the world (Jn 16:33), believers, who are united with him, share this same victory (2:13-14; 4:4; 5:4-5). In this immediate context, “victory” (vb nikáœ) refers specifically to rejecting the false teaching of the opponents and resisting their influence. The true believer should not—and will not—let himself/herself be led astray by the false teaching and example of the opponents. Here again, the author draws upon early Christian eschatological tradition, regarding the ‘false prophets’ of the end-time who lead people astray (vb planáœ)—see Mark 13:6, 22 par; 2 Tim 3:13; 2 Pet 2:15; Rev 2:20; 12:9; 13:14, etc).

The author offers an exhortation (and warning) to his readers not to be led astray by these particular “false prophets” (2:26; cf. also 1:8; 3:7). At the close of this section (v. 6), the author establishes a stark contrast, between “the Spirit of truth” and “the spirit of going/leading astray [plán¢]”. The noun plán¢ is derived from the verb planáœ, and carries the same eschatological significance—see 2 Thess 2:11; 2 Pet 2:18; 3:17; Jude 11. True believers possess the Spirit of truth, are guided and taught by it, and speak from it; false believers, by contrast, are guided by a false spirit, being led astray by it, and also leading others astray. Just as the true believer will not listen to the false spirit, so the false believer cannot (and will not) hear the Spirit of truth. Note the way that the author frames this in terms of “us” (i.e., true believers) vs. “them” (false believers, viz. the opponents):

“We are of God, (and) the (one) knowing God hears us, (but) the (one) who is not of God does not hear us. Out of this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of going/leading astray.” (v. 6)

Next week, we shall examine several other Johannine themes, which the author employs in his effort to deal with the conflict surrounding the opponents.

July 17: 1 John 5:20 (cont.)

1 John 5:20, continued

“And we have seen that the Son of God is here, and (that) he has given to us dia/noia, (so) that we might know the (One who is) true, and (that) we are in the (One who is) true, in His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed—this is the true God and Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life].”

The first two clauses of verse 20 (a) were discussed in the previous note; we now turn to the next two clauses (b).

Verse 20b:
    • “(so) that we might know the (One who is) true,
      and (that) we are in the (One who is) true,”

The i%na-clause, which I believe covers both statements of v. 20b, expresses the purpose (and expected result) of the understanding (dia/noia) that the Son, in his abiding presence (through the Spirit), gives to believers. The i%na conjunction thus is to be rendered “so that…”.

In the first statement here (clause three), the expressed purpose for the dia/noia that the Son gives is so that (i%na)…

“we [i.e. believers] might know [ginw/skwmen] the (One who is) true [to\n a)lhqino/n]”

The substantive adjective (with the article), o( a)lhqino/$, is a title for God the Father. The theme of truth is fundamental for the Johannine writings:

    • the noun a)lh/qeia occurs 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Letters (45 out of 109 NT occurrences)
    • the adjective a)lhqh/$ occurs 14 times in the Gospel and 3 times in the Letters (17 out of 26 NT occurrences)
    • the adjective a)lhqino/$ occurs 9 times in the Gospel and 4 in 1 John (13 out of 28 NT occurrences); if we count (as Johannine) the 10 occurrences of a)lhqino/$ in the book of Revelation, then all but five of the NT occurrences are in the Johannine writings, making it very much a distinctive keyword.

Drawing upon Old Testament tradition (e.g., Psalm 18:30; 19:9; 25:5; 43:3; 86:11; 119:142, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 45:19; 65:16; Jer 10:10, etc), truth is viewed as a fundamental attribute of God—for this use of the adjective a)lhqino/$ (and a)lhqh/$), cf. Jn 3:33; 7:28; 8:26; 17:3 (cf. also 4:23; 5:32). Somewhat more commonly, in the Johannine writings, it is applied to Jesus—as the “true light” (Jn 1:9; 1 Jn 2:8), the “true bread from heaven” (6:32, cp. v. 55), and the “true vine” (15:1); cf. also 7:18; 8:16. It is used of believers (as true worshipers of God) in Jn 4:23 (cp. 18:37).

In addition to being an attribute of God, reflecting His nature and character, the adjective “true” also reflects the Israelite religious tradition of El-YHWH as the (only) true God (e.g., Jer 10:10; 2 Chron 15:3). With regard to this monotheistic orientation (and polemic), as inherited by early Christians, cf. here the author’s closing warning against ‘idols’ in verse 21.

The statement in clause three encapsulates the Johannine theology, expressed more fully in the Gospel (17:3):

“And this is the Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]: that they would know you, the only true God, and the (one) whom you sent forth, Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

The i%na-clause (in bold above) is virtually identical with the clause here in v. 20.

As noted above, in the Johannine writings, truth is an essential attribute of Jesus, God’s Son. It is expressed by way of essential predication (by Jesus Himself) in Jn 14:6: “I am…the truth” —one of the famous “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) declarations by Jesus in the Gospel; cf. also 1:14, 17. However, it is equally associated with the Spirit—including the specific title “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 4:6); cf. also Jn 4:23-24. The idea that the Spirit will lead/guide believers in the way of “all truth” (Jn 16:13), teaching them the truth, is present also in 1 John (2:21, 27), and is reflective of a Johannine spiritualism. In 1:6-8 and 2 Jn 2, 4; 3 Jn 3-4, 12, truth seems to be identified with the abiding presence of the Spirit; similarly, being “of the truth” (belonging to it, and ‘born’ of it), 3:19 (cf. Jn 18:37), is comparable to (and largely synonymous with) the Johannine idea of believers being born “of the Spirit” (Jn 3:5-8). Truth is an essential predicate of the Spirit, just as it is of Jesus:

    • Jesus: “I am…the truth” (Jn 14:6)
    • “the Spirit is the truth” (1 Jn 5:6; cp. with Pilate’s question in Jn 18:38)

This brings us to the fourth clause, which I regard as being governed by the same i%na purpose-clause:

“(so that we might know that) we are in the (One who is) true”

This is another fundamental Johannine theological belief—viz., that believers abide in God the Father, in union with Him. This union takes place through the Son (Jesus), which, in turn, is realized through the presence of the Spirit. This is the idea expressed here, in shorthand form. The presence of the Son (through the Spirit) makes the Father known to us, and allows us to abide/remain in Him. It also gives us the knowledge that we abide in Him (and He in us)—a point expressed more clearly by the author in 3:24

“…and in this we know that He remains in us—out of [i.e. from] the Spirit which He gave to us”

and similarly in 4:13:

“In this we know that we remain in Him, and He in us: (in) that He has given of His Spirit to us.”

In the next daily note, we will examine the last two clauses of verse 20.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: John: 1 Jn 4:1-6

1 John 4:1-6

This is the second of the two “antichrist” sections in 1 John (cf. the prior study on the first, 2:18-27); in between the two sections is the major unit of 2:28-3:24 (cf. the previous study), the central section of the work. In the “antichrist” sections, the focus is on the false believers (i.e. the opponents), while the central section deals primarily with the nature and characteristics of true believers (i.e., the author and those who agree with his position). This distinction between the true and false believer is a principal theme of 1 John.

While the role of the Spirit was emphasized in the first “antichrist” section, this spiritual (and spiritualistic) aspect of the author’s teaching is made more explicit in the second section—the actual word “spirit” (pneu=ma) occurring for the first time at the climax of the central section (3:24; cf. the discussion in the previous study).

Because of the author’s understanding, regarding the role of the Spirit, in 2:18-27—viz., that believers are taught (directly) by the indwelling Spirit (referred to as the “anointing,” xri=sma, vv. 20-21, 27)—it is of particular importance the way he begins the section here:

“Loved (ones), you must not trust every spirit, but consider the spirits, (to see) if (the spirit) is out of [i.e. from] God, (for it is) that many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (v. 1)

The author’s use of the plural pneu/mata (“spirits”), along with the expression “every spirit” (pa=n pneu=ma), suggests that he has in mind the existence (and activity) of many different spirit-beings—both good and bad—such as we find attested in a number of the Qumran texts. However, while the author presumably did accept the reality of multiple evil spirits, such a belief is almost certainly not his emphasis here. Rather, as becomes clear in vv. 2-6, there are really only two “spirits,” which are opposed to each other, and only one of them comes from God (being His holy Spirit, the “Spirit of Truth,” 4:6; 5:6).

Every person is influenced and inspired by one or the other of these two spirits, being dominated by it, much as we see, for example, in the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” portion (3:13-4:26) of the Community Rule text (1QS) from Qumran. That text essentially juxtaposes the same two “spirits” as our author does here in 1 Jn 4:6: “the Spirit of truth [a)lh/qeia]” vs. “the Spirit of going astray [pla/nh]”. The noun pla/nh here (as elsewhere in the New Testament) is used primarily in a causative sense, i.e., leading people astray, and connotes the idea of deception. Cf. the author’s use of the related verb plana/w in 2:26 (also 1:8; 3:7). In the Qumran “Two Spirits” treatise (1QS 3:18-19), the corresponding Hebrew expressions are tm#a$h^ j^Wr (“the spirit of truth”) and lw#u*h^ j^Wr (“the spirit of injustice”).

God’s holy Spirit leads believers into truth (cf. Jn 16:13), while the evil spirit (of injustice) leads other people into falsehood and error. This role of the Spirit within believers is emphasized by the author in 2:20-21, 27, echoing, it seems, the Paraclete-saying of Jesus in Jn 16:13 (cf. the earlier study and note on this saying). The point applies, of course, only to true believers; the false believer is not taught by God’s Spirit, but, rather, is influenced by the evil spirit that leads people astray (pla/nh, vb plana/w).

In verse 1, the author specifically refers to the opponents as “false prophets” (yeudoprofh=tai), drawing rather clearly upon the eschatological tradition that deceiving false prophets will be increasingly active (and prevalent) during the end-time period of distress. This is expressed, for example, in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse of Jesus (Mk 13:6, 22; par Matt 24:11, 24); cf. also Matt 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1; Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10. The noun pla/nh and verb plana/w are used in similar eschatological contexts in Mark 13:5-6 par; 2 Thess 2:11; 2 Tim 3:13; 2 Pet 2:15; 3:17; Jude 11; Rev 2:20; 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10.

Some commentators have thought that the author has a special prophetic gifting in mind, such as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 1114; cf. also Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9-10; Eph 4:11. However, I do not think that this is the case. While it is possible that the opponents (or at least some of their leaders/teachers) may have claimed special inspiration (cp. Rev 2:20), I feel the author has something more basic in mind, which is very much related, as I see it, to the spiritualistic tendencies within the Johannine Community.

The implicit logic of the author goes something like this: All (true) believers are taught and led by the indwelling Spirit, which is the Spirit of truth, and which thus cannot teach anything that is false. Thus if any supposed believer speaks something that is false, and claims (or takes for granted) that it was derived from the Spirit’s teaching, such a person is, in fact, a false believer. He/she speaks, not from God’s holy Spirit, but from an evil and deceiving spirit. Every true believer, possessing the Spirit, functions as a prophet (cf. Joel 2:28-29 in Acts 2:17-18; cp. 1 Jn 2:27, in light of Jer 31:34, cf. also Jn 6:45 [Isa 54:13]), which means the false believer is, by definition, a false prophet. The opponents are false prophets because they are taught and speak by a false/deceiving spirit, rather than by the Spirit of God.

Yet how can one discern between the true believer, speaking from the Holy Spirit (2:20-21, 27), and the false believer speaking from another spirit? The author provides at least one clear test in verse 2:

“In this you (can) know the Spirit of God: every spirit that gives account as one [o(mologei=] (of) Yeshua (the) Anointed having come in (the) flesh is out of [i.e. from] God…”

Evidence of the false/lying spirit, by contrast, is given in v. 3:

“…and every spirit that does not give account as one (of) Yeshua is not out of [i.e. from] God”

The test is Christological, regarding a one’s public confession regarding the person of Jesus Christ (“Yeshua [the] Anointed”). I have discussed verses 2-3 at length in a recent set of exegetical notes, which are supplemental to this article; for a detailed study of the many critical and exegetical issues in these verses, you should consult those notes. The verb o(mologe/w, which literally means “give account as one”, here refers to being in agreement with (and publicly affirming/confessing) a particular statement—viz., that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (“Yeshua [the] Anointed having come in [the] flesh”). According to the author, the opponents denied or refused to affirm this statement (v. 3).

The precise Christology of the opponents has been much debated over the years, and there is as yet no consensus among commentators; a particular problem complicating the interpretation is how the confessional statement in 4:2f relates to the earlier one in 2:22f. I have discussed the matter at length in recent supplemental notes on each passage—i.e., on the opponents’ view as expressed in 2:22f (Pts 1, 2 & 3) and 4:2f (Pts 1, 2 & 3), respectively.

The main point for our study here is that the opponents’ false view of Jesus is a sign that they do not possess the Spirit of truth, but speak from a false/deceiving spirit, and are thus false believers. In verse 3b, the author again refers to them by the term a)nti/xristo$ (antíchristos), which literally means “against [a)nti/] the Anointed [Xristo/$]”. This term, used earlier in 2:18, 22 (cf. also 2 Jn 7), draws upon the eschatological tradition of false Messiahs who will appear at the end-time (Mk 13:6, 21-22 par; cf.  2 Thess 2:1-12); on the tradition of end-time false prophets, cf. above. For a detailed study on the significance and background of the term a)nti/xristo$, cf. my earlier article “The Antichrist Tradition” (Pt 1, 2, 3). Here, as in 2:18-27, the description “against the Anointed” is particularly appropriate, since the false view of Jesus by the opponents, according to the author, truly is “against Christ”. Moreover, it is inspired by the spirit of Antichrist:

“…and this is the (spirit) of (the one) against the Anointed, (of) which you (have) heard that it comes, and now is already in the world.” (v. 3b)

This echoes what the author said earlier in 2:18, and indicates that, from the author’s standpoint, the presence and activity of these false believers is a particular sign that the end is near (“it is [the] last hour”). The word “spirit” (pneu=ma) is not actually used here in v. 3b, but the neuter noun is implied by the neuter article to/, and can be glossed in translation (i.e., “the [spirit] of…”).

Verses 4ff emphasize the opposition (indicated by the prefix a)nti-, “against”) between the true and false believers. It is reflected specifically by the conflict and crisis involving these ‘opponents’ who have separated, according to the author, from the Community (of true believers). This conflict is very much part of the end-time period of distress which believers face (cf. Mk 13:9-13 par, etc); in particular, there is the real danger that even believers may be led astray by these “false prophets” (2:26; cf. Matt 24:24). In spite of this danger, the author assures his readers that the Spirit within them (believers) is greater than the false/lying spirit(s) at work in the world:

“You are of [e)k] God, (my) dear offspring, and have been victorious (over) them, (in) that [i.e. because] greater is the (One) in you than the (one) in the world.” (v. 4)

In the Johannine writings, the pronouns and verbal subjects are often ambiguous or unspecified, as is the case here. We may thus ask to whom precisely does the first relative pronoun o% (“the [one] who”) refer? The context of our passage, which contrasts the Spirit of God with the spirit of Antichrist strongly suggests that God (the Father) is the principal reference. However, from the Johannine theological standpoint, God the Father is present in believers through the Son (Jesus), and the Son, in turn, is present through the Spirit. Thus God, who is Spirit (Jn 4:24), is present in believers (“in you” [e)n u(mi=n]) through the Spirit (cf. 3:24). By contrast, the one “in the world” is Antichrist, and, specifically, the false/lying spirit of Antichrist (“that is now already in the world,” v. 3). That the false believers have gone out “into the world” (v. 1) is an indication of the evil spirit at work “in the world”.

The “world” (o( ko/smo$), in the Johannine writings, fundamentally represents the domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. Jesus was sent “into” the world, but does not belong to (i.e. is not “of”) the world; the same is true of believers; on this important theme, see especially the chapter 17 Prayer-Discourse in the Gospel (vv. 6, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 20-21, 23-25), also 15:18-19; 18:36-37. The Johannine writings regularly use the pronoun e)k (“out of”) with a special dual-significance: (a) origin, i.e., born out of [i.e. from]; and (b) belonging, i.e. being of someone/something. Thus, when the author here says that his readers (as true believers) are “out of [e)k] God” it means that they belong to God, and have come to be born (vb genna/w) from Him, as His offspring (te/kna); on the latter, cf. Jn 1:13; 3:3-8; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. They belong to God, not to the world; it also means they belong to the truth (Jn 18:37; 1 Jn 3:19), since they have been born of the Spirit (Jn 3:5-6, 8; cf. 4:24) who is the truth (1 Jn 5:6).

By saying that the opponents have gone out “into the world”, the author means this in a double-sense. First, as “false prophets,” they are engaged in a missionary effort, which is a false and antithetical version of the mission of believers (and of Jesus himself), cf. above. Based on the information in 2 Jn 7-11, we can say that the conflict between the opponents and the author’s circle reflects, in an early Christian milieu, the missionary work (of visits and letters) involved in sustaining a unified network of congregations over a geographical region. Second, by leaving the Community (of true believers), the opponents have truly gone into the world, in the decidedly negative (Johannine) meaning of the term ko/smo$ (cf. above). The departure of Judas in the Gospel narrative (13:21-30, see esp. verse 30) may be said to symbolize false believers such as the opponents. As false believers, they belong to the world, not to God; cf. how the author explains this in 2:19.

Because true believers belong to God, and abide in Him through the Spirit, being children of God, in union with Jesus the Son, they are victorious over the world, and need not be led astray by those who belong to the world (i.e., the opponents). The verb nika/w (“be victorious [over someone/something”) is practically a Johannine keyword; of the 28 NT occurrences, all but 4 are in the traditional Johannine writings—once in the Gospel (16:33), 6 in 1 John, and 17 in the book of Revelation. The use of the perfect tense here (nenikh/kate, “you have been victorious [over]”) reflects the earlier use in 2:13-14: “you have been victorious (over) the evil”. The object to\n ponhro/n, as a substantive (“the evil”), is understood by most commentators in a personal sense—the evil one, i.e., the Satan/Devil, referred to elsewhere in the Gospel as “the chief/ruler of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou/tou), 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. If this reading is correct, then in 2:13-14, the author is effectively saying that the (true) believers have been victorious over the world and its “chief” (i.e., the Devil). This reflects precisely the wording of Jesus at the climactic moment of the Last Discourse (16:33):

“In the world you have distress, but take courage—I have been victorious (over) the world [e)gw\ neni/khka to\n ko/smon]!”

The perfect tense typically refers to a past action (or condition), the effect of which continues into the present. In this context, the past action is the mission of Jesus (spec. his sacrificial death) and believers’ trust in it. Through his death and exaltation, the power of the “chief of this world” was overcome and destroyed (Jn 12:31; 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8); the effect of this continues in the present because of believers’ union with Jesus through the Spirit. The life-giving power and efficacy of Jesus’ death is communicated to us spiritually, through the Spirit (cf. 1:7; and the context of Jn 6:51-58, 63; 19:30, 34). However, this victory is realized only for true believers, who have a true and genuine trust in Jesus Christ. This emphasis, with regard to the occurrence of the verb nika/w, in 5:4-5, will be discussed in the next article in this series.

Here, in verse 5, the author makes clear again that the opponents (as false believers) do not belong to God, but to the world:

“(But) they are of [e)k] the world, (and) through this [i.e. for this reason] they speak out of [e)k, i.e. from] the world, and the world hears them.”

This wording very much resembles Jesus’ statement to Pilate in Jn 18:37, where he summarizes his mission, which is also essentially the mission of believers:

“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 [e)k] the truth hears my voice.”

Cf. also the theological propositions in Jn 3:31, 34:

“…The (one) being of [e)k] the earth is out of [e)k, i.e. belongs to] the earth and speaks out of [e)k, i.e. from] the earth.”
“For the (one) whom God sent forth speaks the words of God.”

The same kind of language features prominently in the Sukkot Discourse (chaps. 78); cf. especially 8:47:

“The (one) being of [e)k] God hears the words of God; (and) through this [i.e. for this reason] you do not hear, (in) that [i.e. because] you are not of [e)k] God.”

True believers both hear and speak the truth, which comes from God and His Spirit (which is the truth, 5:6); the false believers who belong to the world (and not to God) do not hear/speak the truth, but only the false/deceiving word, which is opposed to the truth and comes from the world. According to the author’s reasoning, the true believer will accept the truth as spoken by other true believers, which comes from the teaching of the Spirit. The author, in his rhetorical strategy, has positioned both himself and his audience as true believers, with the implicit assumption that they, as true believers, will agree with his view (of Jesus Christ), rather than that of the opponents:

We are of [e)k] God, (and) the (one) knowing God hears us, (but) the (one) that is not of [e)k] God does not hear us. Out of [i.e. from] this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of going/leading astray [pla/nh].” (v. 6)

The author’s view of Jesus, as he presents it, corresponds with the earliest Gospel tradition, going back to the first disciples and the time of Jesus himself (cf. the prologue, 1:1-4). An important principle in his line of argument is that the inner teaching of the Spirit will, and must, correspond with the truth of this historical tradition (as preserved in the Gospel). If we read between the lines, we can see that, in the author’s view, the opponents have departed from this established tradition—regarding the reality, and the significance, of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. Their Christological understanding thus cannot be true, and cannot represent the teaching of the Spirit.

In the next article, on 5:5-12, we will develop this interpretation further, considering in more detail how Christology and pneumatology are related for the author of 1 John. It is my contention that, for the author, the opponents not only have an erroneous Christology, but have distorted the Johannine spiritualism as well.

June 14: 1 John 4:2-3 (2)

1 John 4:2

“In this [i.e. by this] you (can) know the Spirit of God: every spirit [pa=n pneu=ma] that gives account as one [o(mologei=] (of) Yeshua (the) Anointed [Ihsou=n Xristo/nhaving come [e)lhlu/qonta] in (the) flesh [e)n sarki/] is out of [i.e. from] God [e)k tou= Qeou=]”

As discussed in the previous note, the confessional statement in verse 2 is fundamental for an understanding of the nature of the conflict/crisis within the Johannine Community, as the author sees it, posed by the opponents. This conflict is, at its heart, Christological; this can be seen by the statement here, focused as it is upon the person of Jesus Christ. The author established the Christological emphasis from the very beginning of his work, in the prologue (1:1-4, cf. the earlier notes on these verses).

I have highlighted the key components of this statement in bold (cf. above). Each of the components will be discussed in turn.

every spirit
pa=n pneu=ma

The expression “every spirit” must be understood in light of the author’s opening words here in v. 1:

“Loved (one)s, do not trust every spirit, but give consideration to [i.e. examine] the spirits, (to see) if it is out of [i.e., from] God, (in) that [i.e. because] many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

The expression “every spirit”, in connection with use of the plural “spirits” (pneu/mata), suggests that the author has a multitude of spirit-beings in mind, comparable to what we find, for example, in the Qumran texts. However, while the author may have recognized the existence (and activity) of such spirit-beings—especially with regard to the evil spirits that are under the control of the Evil One (i.e., the Satan/Devil)—I do not think this is at all his focus here. Rather, “spirits” refers primarily to the the two opposing spirits—the Spirit of God and the spirit of Antichrist—as they are manifest in individual human beings. In this regard, there are as many “spirits” as there are people; each person is either influenced by the holy Spirit of God or by the evil spirit of Antichrist.

This strong dualism, evidenced throughout the Johannine writings, is similar, in some respects, to the dualism in the Qumran texts. In a number of these writings, the contrast, between the righteous (i.e., the faithful ones of the Community) and all others in the world, is defined by the juxtaposition of two opposing spirits. The most notable example of this spiritual dualism is found in the so-called “Two Spirits” treatise (3:13-4:26) of the Community Rule document (1QS):

“He created man to rule the world and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are the spirits of truth [tm#a#] and of injustice [lw#u*]…” (3:17b-19a)
[Translation García Martínez & Tigchelaar, except for the final word which I render as “injustice” rather than “deceit”]

The contrast of these two spirits generally corresponds to the contrast in v. 6, which is parallel to the opening words here in v. 2:

“In [i.e. by] this you (can) know the Spirit of God…” (v. 2)
“…Out of [i.e. from] this we know the Spirit of Truth [a)lh/qeia] and the spirit of going astray [pla/nh]” (v. 6)

The expression “Spirit of Truth” is essentially synonymous with “Spirit of God” (4:6; 5:6; Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. 4:23-24). The Spirit that abides in the true believer will speak the truth, and, certainly, anything the Spirit says regarding Jesus will be true. Every other spirit is false, and will not speak or teach what is true. In fact, there is really only one other spirit, to be identified with the “spirit of Antichrist”, called here in v. 6 the “spirit of going astray”. The noun pla/nh literally means “wandering, going astray” (vb plana/w); however, it can also be understood in the active (causative) sense of leading someone astray, and, as such, pla/nh can often connote “deceit” or “deception” —cf. above on this aspect of the corresponding Hebrew lw#u* in 1QS 3:18.

The opponents, as false believers, speak from this evil spirit of pla/nh, and not from the holy Spirit of Truth. Whether or not they intend it so, their (false) teaching leads people astray, and might even lead believers astray; the author warns of this danger at several points, most notably in 2:26: “I (have) written these (thing)s to you about the (one)s leading you astray” (cf. also 3:7). The verb plana/w is specifically used in an eschatological context, of the false prophets, etc, who would lead people astray in the end time—cf. Mark 13:5-6 par; Matt 24:11, 24; 2 Tim 3:13, and note particularly the repeated occurrences in the book of Revelation (2:20; 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10). The noun pla/nh similarly occurs in 2 Thess 2:11, in a context very close to the Johannine idea of a “spirit of Antichrist”; cf. also the eschatological context of 2 Pet 2:18; 3:17; Jude 11.

All of this is in accord with the author’s belief that the opponents are a manifestation of the deceiving “false prophets” of the end-time, inspired by the spirit of Antichrist, rather than by the holy Spirit of God.

In the next daily note, we will look further at the author’s emphasis on Christological confession as prophecy, when we consider the next component of the statement in v. 2, with the use of the verb o(mologe/w.

May 18: John 16:12ff

John 16:12-15

The Paraclete-saying in vv. 8-11 (discussed in the previous notes) continues in verses 12-15. Some commentators would treat these as two distinct units, however I prefer to consider vv. 7b-15 as a single Paraclete-unit. The main reason is that, in the prior three sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27), the statement on the coming of the “one called alongside” (para/klhto$) is followed by a reference to the parákl¢tos as “the Spirit of truth” (or “the holy Spirit”). Here, the parákl¢tos is called the “Spirit of truth” in verse 12, which strongly indicates that vv. 12-15 represents a continuation of the saying in vv. 7b-11, and that vv. 7b-15 constitutes a single saying, albeit expanded and more complex, according to the pattern in the Last Discourse.

The Spirit’s role and function was described in vv. 8-11: he will expose the world (o( ko/smo$), showing it to be wrong; this is fundamental meaning of the verb e)le/gxw, as previously discussed. The Spirit will show the world to be wrong on three points, each of which was discussed in some detail in the prior notes: (1) about “sin” (a(marti/a, note), (2) about “right[eous]ness” (dikaiosu/nh, note), and (3) about “judgment” (kri/si$, note). That the Spirit’s witness is aimed primarily at the disciples (believers), rather than directed at the world, is indicated by what follows in vv. 12-15. The world’s understanding of sin, righteous, and judgment is shown to be wrong, mainly for the benefit of believers. At the same time, believers (esp. the disciples) give witness toward the world, and the Spirit’s witness enables and guides them in this mission (cp. the Synoptic tradition in Mark 13:9-13 par, and throughout the book of Acts).

Thus it is that in vv. 12-15 the focus shifts back to the teaching function of the Spirit, emphasized in the second Paraclete-saying (14:25-26), an emphasis that is also reflected in the third saying (15:26f). In the articles on those sayings, I brought out the important point that the Spirit continues the mission of Jesus with his disciples (and future believers), and that Jesus is present, in and among believers, through the Spirit, continuing to speak and teach. This aspect of the Paraclete’s role is made particularly clear here in vv. 12ff, where Jesus begins:

“I have yet many (thing)s to relate to you, but you are not able to bear (them) now”

The verb he uses is basta/zw, which has the basic meaning of lifting something up and holding/supporting it. The disciples’ inability to “bear” Jesus’ teaching means that they are not yet ready to hear and understand what he has to say. The failure of the disciples to understand during the Last Discourse (e.g., 14:5, 8, 22) is part of a wider misunderstanding-motif that features throughout the Johannine Discourses. Jesus’ hearers are unable to understand the true and deeper meaning of his words. Only after the disciples have received the Spirit, will they be able to understand. Jesus still has “many (thing)s” to tell them, and he will communicate this further teaching through the Spirit:

“…but when that (one) should come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you on the way in all truth; for he will not speak from himself, but (rather), as many (thing)s as he hears, he will speak, and the(se) coming (thing)s he will give forth as a message to you.” (v. 13)

The statement that the Spirit will guide believers “in all truth” corresponds to the claim  that the Spirit will teach them “all things”. In this regard, the identification of the Spirit-Paraclete by the title “the Spirit of truth” is particularly significant. The author of 1 John would take the connection a step further, declaring that the Spirit is the truth (5:6). For more on the expression “Spirit of truth,” cf. the article on the first Paraclete-saying.

Some commentators would limit these Paraclete-sayings in application to the original disciples, but such a restriction runs counter to the overall thrust of the Last Discourse, as well as to the Johannine theological-spiritual understanding. The Spirit continues to teach believers “all things”, as is clear from 1 Jn 2:20, 27 (to be discussed in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”). The focus in the narrative is, however, primarily upon the original disciples of Jesus, who are the first believers to receive the Spirit and to continue Jesus’ mission on earth.

The (correlative) neuter plural pronoun o%sa (“as many [thing]s as”) relates back to the neuter plural adjective polla/ (“many [thing]s”) in v. 12. The Spirit will hear the “many (thing)s” that Jesus has to say to believers, and will then speak them, on Jesus’ behalf; effectively, Jesus will be speaking through the Spirit, even as he will be present alongside believers through the Spirit. Interestingly, the statement in v. 12 (cf. above) seems, on the surface, to contradict what Jesus said in 14:30; note the formal similarity in expression:

    • not yet [ou)ke/ti] many (thing)s [polla/] will I speak [lalh/sw] with/to you” (14:30)
    • “yet [e&ti] many (thing)s [polla/] I have to say [le/gein] to you” (16:12)

This is another example of double-meaning in the Johannine discourses—where Jesus’ words can be understood on two different levels, or in two different ways. On the one hand, Jesus will not yet speak “many things” to his disciples, since he will not be present with them (on earth) much longer; but, on the other hand, he will yet say “many things” to them through the Spirit.

This chain of relation, between the Son (Jesus) and the Spirit, is given in verse 14, expressed very much in the Johannine theological idiom:

“That (one) will show me honor, (in) that he will receive out of th(at which is) mine and will give (it) forth as a message to you.”

The Spirit receives the words from Jesus, and gives them along to believers. This corresponds to the relationship between Father and Son, whereby the Son (Jesus) receives from the Father, and then gives it, in turn, to believers. The Spirit represents, in one sense, a further link in this chain; at the same time, Jesus himself is manifest in the Spirit, just as the Father is personally manifest in him (the Son). An important emphasis throughout the Gospel is how Jesus speaks the words he receives from the Father; in this regard, he is functioning as a dutiful son learning from his father and following the father’s example—i.e., the Son says (and does) what he hears (and sees) the Father saying (and doing). On this important theme, see esp. 3:31-34; 5:19ff, 30ff; 7:17-18; 8:26, 28, 38ff; 12:49f; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8, 14.

The Son speaks only what he hears from the Father; similarly, the Spirit speaks only what he hears from the Son. The precise expression is that he will receive “out [i.e. from] of th(at which is) mine” (e)k tou= e)mou=). Since the Father has given “all things” to the Son (3:35; 17:7, etc), the words of God which the Spirit receives come from the Son, and belong to him. In my view, the neuter plural participle (verbal noun) ta\ e)rxo/mena (“the coming [thing]s”) in v. 13 refers, not to news of future events, but simply to the words/teachings that are “coming” to the Spirit from the Son (the verb e&rxomai tends to have this Christological focus in the Gospel of John). The neuter plural has a general and comprehensive meaning, corresponding to the plural adjective poll/a (“all things”) in v. 12 (cf. above).

The disciples’ receiving of the Spirit marks the final stage of Jesus’ exaltation. The process of the Son being honored (vb doca/zw), which began with his Passion (cf. 12:23, 28), culminates in his receiving the Spirit from the Father to give to believers. The entire narrative of exaltation, from Jesus’ earthly suffering to communicating the Spirit from heaven, is characterized by the verb doca/zw (cf. 7:39; 12:16, etc).

“All (thing)s [pa/nta], as many as [o%sa] the Father holds, are mine; through this [i.e. for this reason] I said that he receives out of th(at which is) mine and will give (it) forth as a message to you.” (v. 15)

Verse 15 summarizes the theological message of the passage, stating quite clearly the key points of the Johannine theology which I have noted above. The neuter plural adjective pa/nta (“all [thing]s”) corresponds to the polla/ (“many [thing]s”) in v. 12, and the (correlative) neuter plural pronoun o%sa (“as many [thing]s as”) is repeated from v. 13. The adjective pa=$ (“all, every”) plays an important theological role in the Gospel; special attention should be given to other occurrences of the neuter (“every [thing], all [thing]s”)—cf. 1:3; 3:31, 35; 5:20; 6:37, 39; 10:4; 14:26; 16:30; 17:2, 7, 10; 18:4; 19:28.

May 10: John 16:8

John 16:8-11

This set of daily notes, on John 16:8-11, is supplemental to the current articles on the Paraclete-sayings in the Johannine Last Discourse, part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament,” focusing on the Johannine writings. Verses 8-11 are part of the final Paraclete-saying (vv. 7b-15), which comprises the first section of the third (and final) discourse division (16:4b-28) of the Last Discourse.

The para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), literally “(one) called alongside,” is referred to by the title “Spirit of truth,” as also in the first (14:17) and third (15:26) sayings. As I have discussed, in the Johannine theological context, “truth” (a)lh/qeia) refers principally, and most specifically, to the truth about who Jesus is. This Christological emphasis came out clearly in the third saying (cf. the discussion in Part 3), where the role of the Spirit is as a witness (vb marture/w) about (peri/) Jesus (“about me [peri\ e)mou]”). This witness-motif, with the emphasis on the Spirit as a witness, is further expounded here in the final saying, where the key statement regarding the Spirit’s role is given in verse 8.

John 16:8

“…and, (hav)ing come, that (one) will show the world [ko/smo$] (to be wrong), about a(marti/a, and about dikaiosu/nh, and about kri/si$.”

The Spirit’s witness here is described by the verb e)le/gxw, which has a relatively wide semantic range and can be difficult to translate with precision. The original denotation of this verb is something like “bring into contempt, expose to shame”. In the LXX and the New Testament, however, two specific contextual aspects of meaning are emphasized: (1) the judicial aspect of proving someone to be wrong (or guilty), in the sense of convicting and judging/condemning, etc; and (2) the disciplinary aspect of rebuking or chastising a person for their wrongdoing, or ‘convicting’ someone of sin, etc, with the hopes of bringing the person to repentance.

All of these aspects relate generally to the idea of exposing a person, and/or showing them to be in the wrong. In translating e)le/gxw here in verse 8, I have kept to this general meaning, which, I believe, also best captures the sense of the verb as it is used in context. This would seem to be confirmed by the other occurrences of e)le/gxw in the Johannine writings (here in the Gospel, 3:20; 8:46).

Thus, the Spirit will expose the world, and show it to be in the wrong. Jesus’ words in 3:20 are instructive in this regard:

“For every (one) doing base (thing)s hates the light, and does not come toward the light, (so) that his works should not be shown (to be evil) [e)legxqh=|].”

Jesus’ use of the light-motif clearly indicates that the idea of exposing evil (i.e., of it being exposed by the light) is in mind with the use of e)le/gxw. Since the “light”, in this case, is the truth about who Jesus is—viz., the pre-existent Son (and Light) sent into the world by the Father (v. 19; cf. also 1:4-9; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46)—the usage of e)le/gxw in 3:20 is contextually very close to that of 16:8. In both discourse-passages, the world is exposed and shown to be wrong by the truth of who Jesus is.

The other occurrence of e)le/gxw is found in 8:46, in a statement by Jesus that is part of a long and complex discourse-sequence, spanning chapters 7-8. It comes toward the conclusion of that sequence. In 8:12-20, a number of the earlier themes expressed in 3:16-21 (cf. above) are reprised, including a number of points of emphasis that are specifically relevant to the Paraclete sayings:

    • Jesus as the light, which reveals the truth and exposes the evil in the darkness
    • God the Father as a witness to Jesus’ identity (as the Son)
    • The judgment that comes about for those who reject this witness

Then, in vv. 21-30, we find several key themes and motifs which take on prominence in the Last Discourse:

    • The idea of Jesus going away (i.e., his impending departure)
    • The witness of who Jesus is “from the beginning” (v. 25)
    • The theme of the Father sending Jesus to declare the truth
    • The idea that Jesus still has much to say, to his followers and to the world (v. 26)

In verses 31-38  that follow, we find the key theme of disciples abiding (vb me/nw) in Jesus’ word, and in the truth; this is a theme that features prominently in the Last Discourse. This abiding results in freedom from sin (vv. 34-35).

Finally, verses 39-47 allude to the idea, so important in the Last Discourse (and the chapter 17 Prayer-discourse), that believers belong (as children) to God the Father. The world, by contrast, does not belong to God, but has the Devil as its father. It is the truth of the witness (regarding who Jesus is) that reveals this identity for the world, and for believers. In v. 45, Jesus states that the world—represented by his hostile public audience in the discourse—does not trust in him specifically because he speaks the truth. He follows this with a rhetorical challenge in verse 46:

“Which one of you shows [e)le/gxei] me (to be wrong) about [i.e. regarding] sin? If I relate the truth (to you), for what (reason) do you not trust in me?”

The use of the verb e)le/gxei with the indirect object peri\ a(marti/a$ (“about sin”) is precisely parallel with the usage in 16:8-9.

Before proceeding to discuss verse 9, it is first necessary to address two further points of interpretation in verse 8:

    1. The use of the word ko/smo$ (“world”), specifically in regard to the special Johannine theological usage of the term, and
    2. The parallelism between the prepositional triad (“about sin…”) and the earlier “about me” (i.e., about Jesus, the Son) in the third Paraclete-saying.

These will be addressed in the next daily note.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: John: The Paraclete (1)

The Johannine Paraclete Sayings

As we continue through the Johannine writings in this series, we turn now to the Paraclete-statements by Jesus in the Gospel. There are five of these—14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-13ff—which all occur within the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), presented in the narrative as occurring on the night of the Last Supper, prior to Jesus’ arrest. In these statements, the Spirit is referred to by the descriptive noun para/klhto$, from the verb parakale/w (“call alongside”), and thus denoting someone who is “called alongside” to give help and assistance to another.

The semantic range of this word makes it difficult to translate into English, as there is no single English word that corresponds. The noun para/klhto$ can carry a technical legal meaning, referring to an advocate or defense attorney, who argues (presenting evidence and calling witnesses) on behalf of a defendant. Thus, in the Gospel, the noun is sometimes translated “advocate”, but this is much too narrow, capturing only one aspect of the word’s meaning in context. Another connotation of the verb parakale/w, is of offering comfort or consolation to another; and para/klhto$ has often been translated in the Gospel as “comforter,” a rendering that is perhaps influenced by the use of the related noun para/klhsi$ (for example, in Luke 2:25). However, this, again, is far too narrow, and is misleading regarding the description of the Spirit’s role.

A similar translation, better for being more general, is “helper,” but this, too, is inadequate. For all these reasons, many translators and commentators choose to leave para/klhto$ untranslated, or to transliterate the word—parákl¢tos—usually anglicized as “paraclete”. I prefer to translate according to the fundamental meaning and etymology of the word, rendering it as “(one) called alongside,” allowing the context to determine the specific role and function(s) of the Spirit as a figure “called alongside” to assist believers.

I would divide the great Last Discourse into three distinct, interconnected discourses, with an introduction and conclusion that relate more directly to the literary (and historical) setting of the Last Supper scene (chap. 13):

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

The first two Paraclete-sayings occur in the second half of the first discourse (14:15-31), which may be summarized as containing Jesus’ words (teaching) for his disciples. I divide this teaching into two main parts—(1) instruction regard love and the commandments, and (2) and exhortation, in light of Jesus’ impending departure:

    • Instruction to the Disciples: Love and the Commandments (vv. 15-24)
    • Exhortation for the Disciples: Farewell Promise of Peace (vv. 25-27)
Saying 1: John 14:15-17

The first Paraclete-saying occurs as part of the instruction in vv. 15-24; indeed, it represents the first statement of the instruction, according to my expanded outline:

    • Instruction to the Disciples: Love and the Commandments (vv. 15-24)
      —Initial statement: Promise of the Spirit (vv. 15-17)
      —Instruction: Relation of the Disciples to Jesus and the Father (vv. 18-21)
      —Question by the disciples [Judas] (v. 22)
      —Jesus’ response: The disciples and the world in relation to Jesus and the Father (vv. 23-24)

The statement regarding the coming of the Spirit (vv. 16-17) is prefaced by a conditional clause (v. 15):

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

The noun e)ntolh/ is typically translated, rather flatly, as “command(ment)”; however, this can be misleading, especially in terms of how the word is used within the Johannine writings. The fundamental meaning is of a charge or duty that is placed on a person, and which the person is obligated to complete. The noun is used in the Johannine writings in both the singular (e)ntolh/) and plural (e)ntolai/) with no real difference in meaning. It often refers to the duty (or mission) which God the Father gave the Son to complete; but here, of course, Christ is the one giving to his disciples a duty to complete.

The principal sense of this duty is that they will follow in his footsteps, completing the mission which he began. There are two aspects to their duty, which can be understood as two distinct ‘commands’, or as a single dual (two-fold) charge. This dual command is summarized neatly in 1 John 3:23-24: (a) trust in Jesus, and (b) love—that is, of believers following Jesus’ example in showing (sacrificial) love to one another. It is the latter aspect—i.e., the ‘love command’ —that is emphasized in the Last Discourse, but the motif of trust is firmly present as well.

If the disciples keep watch (vb thre/w) over their duty—trust and love—so as to fulfill it, then Jesus declares that:

“I will ask the Father, and He will give to you another (one) called alongside [para/klhto$], (so) that he may be with you into the Age, the Spirit of truth…”

There are four main points that we may isolate in this statement by Jesus.

1. First, we have the origin of the para/klhto$: he is sent by God the Father, at the request (vb e)rwta/w) of the Son (Jesus). The one “called alongside” thus has a heavenly origin, being sent—like Jesus himself—to the disciples from God the Father. The verb used is di/dwmi (“give”), a common word which has a special place in the theological vocabulary of the Gospel. The Father gives to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives to believers. Foremost of what is thus given is Life and the Spirit. The essence of this fundamental chain of relation is perhaps best expressed by considering three statements in the earlier discourses:

    • “The (one) whom God se(n)t forth speaks the words of God, for (it is) not out of a measure (that) He gives the Spirit. The Father loves the Son, and has given all (thing)s in(to) his hand.” (3:34-35)
    • “For, just as the Father holds life in Himself, so also (has) He given life to the Son to hold in himself.” (5:26), and the Son “gives life” to whomever he wishes (v. 21)
    • “Just as the living Father se(n)t me forth, and I live through the Father, (so) also, (for) the (one) eating me, he also shall live through me.” (6:57)

This dynamic of giving becomes especially prominent in the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17, in which the verb di/dwmi occurs 17 times. See especially the formulation in verse 22:

“And I, the honor [do/ca] which you have given to me, I have given to them, (so) that they may be one, even as we (are) one.”

2. The second point to be noted in the Paraclete-saying is the designation of the Spirit as another (a&llo$) para/klhto$. The implication is that Jesus himself was also such a para/klhto$—one called (by God) to be alongside the disciples, teaching and helping them. This is confirmed by the reference to Jesus as a para/klhto$ in 1 John 2:1. The sense, then, is that the Spirit continues the work of Jesus alongside the disciples (believers). The impending departure of Jesus (back to the Father) requires that another be present with them while he is in heaven with the Father. At the same time, Jesus remains himself personally present with believers through the Spirit, though this point is not emphasized here in the Discourse.

3. The purpose and role of the para/klhto$, in this first saying, is to be with (ei)mi + meta/) believers until the end of the Age. This reflects the fundamental meaning of para/klhto$, with the prefixed preposition para/, indicating a close presence alongside someone. This idea is picked up and expanded at the close of verse 17:

“…you know him, (in) that he remains alongside [para/] you, and he will be in [e)n] you.”

The verb me/nw (“remain”) is a Johannine keyword, occurring 40 times in the Gospel, 24 times in 1 John, 3 in 2 John (and once in Revelation)—more than half of all occurrences (118) in the New Testament. It is used to express the idea of the abiding presence of God (and Christ) in believers, and, correspondingly, of believers in God/Christ—a uniting presence that is realized through the Spirit.

4. Finally, the para/klhto$ is also identified by the expression “the Spirit of truth” (to\ pneu=ma th=$ a)lhqei/a$). On the one hand, this is simply another way of referring to the Spirit of God, since truth (a)lh/qeia) is a fundamental characteristic and attribute of God. Beyond this, truth has a special place as a theological keyword and theme in the Johannine writings. The noun a)lh/qeia occurs 25 times in the Gospel, 9 times in 1 John, 5 in 2 John, and 6 in 3 John—nearly half (45) of all NT occurrences (109). It is referenced as a fundamental Divine attribute that is manifested in Jesus the Son of God—cf. 1:14, 17; 4:23-24; 8:32, etc. The essential predication declared by Jesus earlier in the Discourse (14:6) is of particular significance, in relation to the Paraclete-saying here, given the formal parallel in 1 John 5:6:

    • I am…the truth…” (Jn 14:6)
    • “the Spirit is the truth” (1 Jn 5:6)

If Jesus represents the truth of God on earth to his disciples, then the Spirit (Paraclete) must do the same for believers.

The expression “Spirit of truth” does not occur in the Old Testament, though truth (tm#a#) is certainly regarded as a fundamental Divine attribute which would also characterize God’s (holy) Spirit—e.g., Psalm 25:5; 43:3; 86:11; Isa 45:19; 65:16, etc. However, the corresponding Hebrew expression (tma[h] jwr) does occur a number of times in the Qumran texts (e.g., 1QS 3:18-19; 4:21), and scholars have pointed this out as a parallel (and possible source) for the title in the Gospel. In the Qumran texts, there many many instances of expressions following the pattern “(the) spirit of {attribute}”. Typically, the reference is to a positive (divine) attribute (possibly influenced by the sequence in Isa 11:2), but there are also instances where it is a negative (evil) characteristic being referenced. The expression “Spirit of truth,” as it occurs in 1 John 4:6, is closer to the Qumran usage than are the occurrences in the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus in the Gospel (also in 15:26; 16:13). I will be discussing the Qumran spirit-references in an upcoming series of notes (part of the “Spotlight on the Dead Sea Scrolls” feature).

It is the identification of the Spirit (Paraclete) with truth that defines the contrast in v. 17 between Jesus’ disciples (believers) and the world (o( ko/smo$). In the Johannine writings, ko/smo$ (“world-order”) is another theological keyword, occurring 78 times in the Gospel, 23 times in 1 John, and once in 2 John (also 3 times in Revelation)—well over half of all NT occurrences (186). It tends to be used a point of stark contrast, a dualistic juxtaposition, between the light and truth of God and a world, dominated by darkness and evil, that is opposed to the things of God.

Here is how Jesus frames the contrast, in relation to the Spirit/Paraclete, in verse 17:

“…the Spirit of truth, which the world is not able to receive, (in) that [i.e. because] it does not look on him or know (him); (but) you know him, (in) that he remains alongside you and will be in you.”

The verb lamba/nw (in the sense of “receive”) is yet another common word that takes on special theological meaning in the Johannine writings. In the Gospel, to “receive” Jesus (and what he gives) essentially means trusting in him (as the Son sent by God the Father), and then experiencing the gift of life through the presence of the Spirit. This is clear enough from the first occurrence of the verb in 1:12 (cp. paralamba/nw in v. 11), parallel with the final occurrence in the Gospel (20:22), when Jesus gives the Spirit to the first believers (his disciples), saying: “Receive [la/bete] (the) holy Spirit”.

The reason why the disciples know the Spirit is because they know God, and also know (= trust) in Jesus as the Son of God (10:4-5ff)—even though they may not have a full awareness of his identity until after his death and resurrection (8:28ff). This is an important theme in the Last Discourse, including the immediate context of this first Paraclete-saying (14:7-9ff, 20ff), and takes on even greater prominence in the Prayer-Discourse of chap. 17 (vv. 3, 7-8, 23-26). The world does not know Jesus the Son nor God the Father (7:28ff; 8:19, 55; 15:21; 16:3; 17:25-26), and so cannot possible know the Spirit either. Only believers—those elect/chosen ones who belong to God (17:2, 6ff, etc)—can recognize the presence of the Spirit.

The next part of this article will examine the second Paraclete-saying, in 14:25-26.

Note on the Johannine “Paraclete” passages

This is a supplement to the recent daily note, the last of a series exploring the development of traditions regarding the Spirit of God within early Christianity. Given the special character of the “Paraclete” passages in the Johannine writings, I felt it was best to discuss them separately. I will not be presenting a detailed critical and exegetical analysis of them here, as that has been done in earlier notes and studies. Instead, the focus will be along the lines of the recent note on the Johannine references to the Spirit, considering how these passages relate to the development of the early Christian belief.

The term “Paraclete” is a transliteration of the noun para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), used as a title four times in the Johannine Last Discourse of Jesus (13:31-16:33)—at 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. It also occurs at 1 John 2:1, but nowhere else in the New Testament (nor in the LXX), essentially marking it as a distinctive Johannine term. The noun is derived from the more common verb parakale/w (“call alongside”), often used in the sense of calling someone alongside to give help. This help can be understood various ways, including the more technical sense of serving as a (legal) advocate. The relatively wide semantic range has led New Testament translators to render para/klhto$ variously as “advocate”, “counselor”, “comforter”, all of which can be misleading and are not entirely accurate. A safer route would be to transliterate the noun as a title in English—i.e., Paraclete—as many translators and commentators have done. The best solution, however, is to adhere to the literal, fundamental meaning of “(one) called alongside” (i.e. to give help). A related noun, para/klhsi$ (parákl¢sis), more common in the New Testament, refers properly to the help that is given by the person “called alongside”.

In each of the four references in the Last Discourse, Jesus first mentions the para/klhto$, and then subsequently identifies it with the Spirit (pneu=ma):

    • 14:16-17— “And I will make a request of the Father, and He will give to you another (one) called alongside [para/klhto$], (so) that he would be with you into the Age, the Spirit of truth…”
    • 14:26— “…but the (one) called alongside [para/klhto$], the holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, that (one) will teach you all (thing)s…”
    • 15:26— “When the (one) called alongside [para/klhto$] should come, whom I will send to you (from) alongside the Father, the Spirit of truth who travels out (from) alongside the Father, that (one) will give witness about me”
    • 16:7, 13— “…if I should not go away, the (one) called alongside [para/klhto$] will not come toward you; but, if I should travel (away), (then) I will send him toward you. …. And, when that (one) should come, the Spirit of truth, he will lead the way for you in all truth…”

This has led to all kind of interesting speculation as to whether the Last Discourse material may originally have referred only to the para/klhto$, and that the identifications with the Spirit were introduced in a subsequent stage of editing. I do not find such theories very convincing; in any event, within the overall framework of the Gospel as we have it, there can be no doubt that the “Paraclete” and the Spirit are identical.

In three of the references, the expression “Spirit of truth” is used, while “holy Spirit” is found in 14:26 (though some manuscripts there read “Spirit of truth” as well). It should be noted that “holy Spirit” is quite rare in the Johannine writings; apart from a traditional reference in the baptism scene (Jn 1:33), presumably inherited as part of the wider Gospel tradition, the expression occurs only in the episode where Jesus gives the Spirit to his disciples (20:22), and does not occur in the Johannine letters at all. Also, it is worth noting that there is no other reference to the Spirit in the Last Discourse, apart from these four “Paraclete” references.

It is perhaps best to begin with the use of the word para/klhto$ in 1 John 2:1, as in some ways it is the key to a correct understanding of the term in the Last Discourse as well. There the author assures his readers that, if any believer happens to commit sin, “we hold (one) called alongside [para/klhto$] (for us) toward the Father—Yeshua (the) Anointed, (the) just/righteous (one)”. In his role as para/klhto$, Jesus speaks before God on our behalf, much like a legal advocate in front of a judicial court. This implies the exalted position of Jesus (following his resurrection), standing at the “right hand” of God the Father, in accordance with the exaltation-Christology that dominated the earliest period of Christianity.

The main point to note, however, is that it is Jesus who is identified as the para/klhto$, a fact which helps to explain the use of the expression “another para/klhto$” in Jn 14:16. Jesus himself was the first para/klhto$, one called by God to be alongside believers (i.e. his disciples) during his time on earth. He quite literally spent time alongside (para/) them, having previously been alongside (para/) the Father. In his ministry, Jesus gave all sorts of help and guidance to his disciples, teaching them about God the Father and instructing them in the way of truth. The Spirit continues this same work of Jesus, remaining alongside the disciples (believers) and “leading the way” for them “in all truth” (16:13). This association of the Spirit with the truth of God is a key Johannine theme, expressed most clearly elsewhere in John 4:23-24 and 1 John 4:6; 5:6 (“the Spirit is the truth”); cf. also Jn 1:14ff; 8:32, 44; 14:6; 17:17-19; 18:37; 1 Jn 1:8; 2:4; 3:19.

Even more important, from the standpoint of the Last Discourses, is the idea that the Paraclete/Spirit represents the abiding presence of Jesus himself, after he has departed/returned back to the Father. This is part of a wider tendency in early Christianity, whereby the Spirit came to be understood as both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus. Paul uses “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” more or less interchangeably, though the latter is admittedly more rare. In prior notes, we examined the idea, best seen at several points in Paul’s letters, that, through his resurrection/exaltation, Jesus came to be united with God’s own Spirit. The Gospel of John, of course, expresses a much clearer sense of Jesus’ pre-existent deity; and his identity as the Son—both in the Gospel prologue and throughout the Discourses—must be understood in light of this Christological emphasis. Jesus the Son was present with the Father, in heaven/eternity, prior to his human life and ministry on earth. With his departure from his disciples, he returns back to the Father, leaving the Spirit in his place. Through the Spirit, Jesus remains with believers (the important Johannine use of the verb me/nw, “remain”); it is also the means by which Jesus shows the way for us to the Father. We are united with both Jesus the Son and God the Father through the presence of the Spirit.

Commentators have long noted the apparent ambiguity with regard to who it is that sends the Spirit, whether the Father or the Son, or the two of them together:

    • The Father gives the Spirit at Jesus’ request (14:16)
    • The Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name (14:26)
    • Jesus sends the Spirit from the Father (15:26; 16:7)

Ultimately, the Spirit comes from the Father, but this has to be understood in terms of the clear chain of relationship established and expressed repeatedly throughout the discourses: the Father gives all things to the Son, who, in turn, gives them to believers. The Spirit is certainly among those things that are given—indeed, it is the primary thing given by God to the Son (and then to us as believers). This is summarized and expressed most clearly in John 3:35:

“The Father loves the Son, and has given all (thing)s in(to) his hand.”

According to the prior verse 34, the Spirit is what is primarily in view in this statement:

“For the (one) whom God sent forth from (Himself) speaks the utterances of God, for (it is) not out of a measure (that) He gives the Spirit.”

To say that God does not give his Spirit “out of a measure” means that he gives it fully and completely—that is, here, fully and completely to the Son. The Son, in turn, is able to bestow God’s Spirit upon all who trust in him.

1 John 4:1-6

Finally, some light may be shed on the Paraclete passages from the discussion in 1 John 4:1-6, where the expression “Spirit of truth” is used. This passage has a strong eschatological orientation, whereby the author has set the conflict (in the Johannine Community) involving certain ‘false’ believers as part of the end-time appearance of “Antichrist” —a)nti/xristo$, literally “against the Anointed”. According to the author, these false Christians hold a false view of Jesus Christ, which, being false, cannot be inspired by the Spirit of truth—that is the Spirit of God and Christ. Instead, such “false prophets” are inspired by evil and deceitful spirits—the opposite of God’s own Spirit—characterized as “the spirit th(at is) against the Anointed” (i.e., spirit of ‘antichrist’). Part of the early Christian eschatology, inherited from the Judaism of the period, involved the expected rise of “false prophets” and Satanic-inspired figures during the time of distress (qli/yi$) which precedes the end of the current Age. For further study, cf. my three-part article “The Antichrist Tradition” in the series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament”.

This eschatological worldview was central to much early Christian thought, going back to Jesus’ own teachings, and received a distinctive expression within the Johannine writings. The presence of the Spirit marked the beginning of the New Age for believers in Christ. All of the anticipated future blessings of the New Age—resurrection, eternal life, abiding with God in heaven—were experienced by believers, through the Spirit, already in the present. This is the “realized” aspect of early Christian eschatology, and it is especially prominent in the Gospel of John. At the same time, the activity of the Spirit in the present offers a promise of what will be experienced fully in the future. For more on the Johannine eschatology, in terms of the Last Discourse and references to the Spirit, cf. my articles in the series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament”, along with the earlier notes, e.g., on Jn 16:7-15.

 

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 5:6-8 & the Trinitarian addition

1 John 5:6-8 (continued)

In the previous note, I argued that the expression “in/through water and blood” in 1 Jn 5:6 refers to two aspects of Jesus’ humanity (that is, his real humanity, against a “docetic” view of Christ): (1) his human birth and life, and (2) his sacrificial death (involving the shedding of blood). Both of these appear together at the time of his death (“blood and water”, Jn 19:34), and may be prefigured (i.e. water and wine [= blood]) in the episode at Cana at the beginning of his earthly ministry (2:1-11). It is Jesus’ very life (water and blood) which is poured out on behalf of humankind. If this interpretation is correct, then we must ask exactly how the Spirit relates to these two aspects, since, in vv. 6b-8, the Spirit is joined to “water” and “blood” to form a triad.

Let us first consider how this is introduced by the author:

“This is the (one) coming through water and blood—Yeshua (the) Anointed—not in water only, but in water and in blood; and the Spirit is the (one) giving witness (of this), (in) that [i.e. because] the Spirit is the Truth.” (v. 6)

There are two phrases involved. The first is:

“the Spirit is the (one) giving witness”
to\ pneu=ma/ e)stin to\ marturou=n

The basic meaning of this is clear enough: the Spirit gives witness (to believers) of Jesus’ coming “in/through water and blood”—i.e. of his real human life and sacrificial death. It may seem a bit strange for us today that there would be Christians who might deny or object to Jesus Christ as a real flesh-and-blood human being. In modern times, the opposite is more often the case—many people accept Jesus’ humanity and death on the cross, but object to the idea that he was divine or the “Son of God” in any real sense. The context of 1 John suggests a Christian setting which espoused a “high” Christology—i.e., Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God—but which was a distance removed from any memory of Jesus’ actual earthly life and ministry. Thus Johannine Christians could easily confess Jesus as the “Son of God” but have genuine doubts or questions about whether, or to what extent, he was actually a human being like us. The author of the letter goes out of his way, at several points, to emphasize this point. We see it already in the opening verses (1:1ff), where he speaks of Jesus as the “word of Life” which “we” (i.e. the apostles or an earlier generation of believers) have heard, seen with eyes, felt with hands, etc—Jesus was a real human being who walked and lived among us. Most scholars regard the Johannine Letters as addressed to a later (second or third) generation of Christians, dated c. 90-100 A.D., and this is likely to be close to the mark.

An important point in the Last Discourse is that the Spirit/Paraclete will teach and instruct believers, giving witness of things both to them and through them (14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-15); in particular, 15:26f states:

“…that one [i.e. the Spirit/Paraclete] will give witness about me, and you also will give witness…”

Thus the first statement about the Spirit in 1 Jn 5:6 is fully in accord with the view of the Spirit presented in the Gospel, and is confirmed again in 2:26-27, with the idea that the Spirit (“the anointing”) instructs believers in all things. In the view of the author, true believers will hold a correct view of Jesus because they hold the Spirit who gives true witness about Jesus. This leads to the second statement:

“(in) that [i.e. because] the Spirit is the Truth”
o%ti to\ pneu=ma/ e)stin h( a)lh/qeia

In the Gospel, this is expressed by the title “Spirit of Truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) and also in 1 Jn 4:6. The Spirit is also associated closely with Truth in Jn 4:23-24, and also with the indwelling word/presence of God in 1 Jn 1:8; 2:4, etc. That Jesus and God the Father also also identified as Truth (Jn 1:14, 17; 14:6; 18:37, etc) simply confirms the basic Johannine idea that the Spirit is both the Spirit of God the Father and of Jesus (the Son). Interestingly, this statement in 1 Jn 5:6b seems to provide a belated answer to the question by Pilate in Jn 18:38:

    • Question: “What is (the) truth?”
    • Answer: “The Spirit is (the) Truth”

In the immediate context of the letter, however, the emphasis is on the truthfulness of the Spirit’s witness. Since the Spirit is Truth itself, it/he can only speak the truth, as indicated by Jesus in Jn 16:33: “…he will lead the way for you in all truth”.

While it might seem that the Spirit is sufficient to give witness for believers, in verses 7-8 the author of the letter turns to the ancient legal principle that testimony in a court of law must be confirmed by at least two witnesses (i.e. two or three witnesses). This is expressed a number of times in the Old Testament Law (cf. Deut 19:15, etc), and appears in the Johannine discourses of Jesus (5:30-46; 8:16-19). In Jn 5:30ff, Jesus cites four different sources of testimony that give witness about his identity (as the Son sent by the Father). Here the author of the letter cites three:

“(so) that the (one)s giving witness are three—the Spirit and the water and the blood—and the three are (together) into one.” (vv. 7-8)

This thematic formula of three-in-one certainly helps explain the trinitarian addition, found in some Latin (Vulgate) manuscripts, which, inappropriately, made its way into the 16th/17th century “Textus Receptus” editions of the New Testament (see spec. the KJV of vv. 7-8). It is, however, clearly a secondary addition (interpolation), as virtually all today commentators agree. We must avoid reading later theological concepts (from Nicene orthodoxy, etc) into the passage, and focus instead on the thought-world of the author and the (Johannine) congregations whom he is addressing. The main question is: how exactly does the Spirit relate to the “water” and “blood” which, as I have argued, symbolize the human life (and sacrificial death) of Jesus. There are are several avenues to explore:

    • The relationship of the Spirit to Jesus in the Johannine Gospel and Letters
    • The connection between the Spirit and water, especially as a symbol of birth and life for those who trust in Jesus
    • The connection between the Spirit and the death (i.e. blood) of Jesus

This will be done in the next note which will conclude our extended discussion on 1 John 5:6-8.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 14:25-26; 15:26-27

John 14:25-26; 15:26-27

In this note, I will be examining the second and third references to the Spirit in the Last Discourse. The meaning of the word para/klhto$ and its identification with the Spirit were discussed in the previous note (on 14:16-17), along with the primary significance of the “one called alongside”—the abiding presence of both Jesus (the Son) and God the Father in and with the believer, a presence which will last “into the Age”. In the three references which follow—14:25-26; 15:26-27 and 16:7-15—Jesus provides more detail as to the role and work of the Spirit/Paraclete, and the kind of help/assistance which the he will provide on behalf of believers. In discussing these two passages, I wish to explore two key aspects:

    1. The relationship between Jesus and the Father in the sending of the Spirit/Paraclete, and
    2. The specific role/action of the Spirit/Paraclete

1. With regard to this first point, there can be a good deal of confusion: is it the Father or Jesus (the Son) who gives/sends the Spirit? Let us look at how this is described in each of the passages, beginning with the two under discussion today:

    • “…the one called alongside [para/klhto$], the holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (14:26)
    • “…the one called alongside [para/klhto$], whom I will send (from) alongside the Father, the Spirit of Truth…” (15:26)

There is even more variation if we include all four passages:

    • “I will ask (of) the Father and He will give…” (14:16)
    • “the Father will send in my name…” (14:26)
    • “I will send (from) alongside the Father…” (15:26)
    • “I will send (him)…” (16:7)

How are we to understand this interrelated dynamic—the involvement of both Father and Son (Jesus) in sending/giving the Spirit? To begin with, the ultimate source of the Spirit/Paraclete is God the Father, as is clear from 15:26: “…the Spirit of Truth which travels out [e)kporeu/etai] (from) alongside the Father”. This is also confirmed by the progression indicated in the four passages:

    • The Father gives (at Jesus’ request)—sole/primary action of the Father
    • The Father sends in Jesus’ name—primary action of the Father
    • Jesus sends from the Father—primary action of Jesus
    • Jesus sends—sole/primary action of Jesus

This transference reflects the basic theological model in the Johannine discourses—the Father gives to the Son (Jesus), who, in turn, gives to believers. This is expressed most precisely in 5:26:

“For just as the Father holds Life in himself, so also he gave to the Son to hold Life in himself”

Life and the Spirit are virtually synonymous in the Gospel of John, and this same relational dynamic is expressed, in terms of the Spirit, in 3:34-35:

    • “The Father…has given all things in(to) the (Son’s) hand” (v. 35)
    • “The (Son) God (the Father) sent…gives the Spirit” (v. 34)

2. The role and work of the Spirit/Paraclete is expressed by Jesus in both of these passages, which are closely parallel with each other:

“These things I have spoken (while) remaining alongside you, but the one called alongside, the holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—that (one) will teach you all (thing)s and will put under your mind/memory all (the thing)s that I said to you.” (14:25-26)

“When he should come, the one called alongside, whom I will send to you (from) alongside the Father—the Spirit of Truth who travels out (from) alongside the Father—that (one) will give witness about me, and you also will give witness…” (15:25-27)

Thus there are two roles the Spirit/Paraclete will have for believers:

    • To teach them all things, and especially to help them remember the things which Jesus himself has taught them
    • To give/bear witness about Jesus—that is, through the disciples (believers), as is clear from verse 27 (cf. also Mark 13:11 par; Luke 12:12; Acts 4:8, 31; 6:10; 7:55, etc)

There is a tendency, perhaps, to limit these (esp. the first) to the disciples (apostles), but this is unwarranted; the Last Discourse, and, indeed, all of Jesus’ teaching in the discourses, can be taken as applying to all believers. The role of the Spirit teaching believers “all things” is confirmed by the similar (Johannine) statement in the first Letter (1 Jn 2:27):

“And the anointing which you received from him [i.e. Jesus] remains on/in you, and you have no business [i.e. need] that any one should teach you; but (rather), as the anointing (from) him teaches you about all things and is true, and is not a lie, and even as it/he taught you—remain in him.”

This corresponds precisely with what Jesus says of the Spirit/Paraclete in 14:26. The function of bearing witness will be developed further in the final passage in the Last Discourse (16:7-15), to be discussed in the next note.