Spirit in the Qumran Texts: 1QH 6:34-41

(After a short hiatus, I am picking up again with my series of period notes on the subject of the spirit [specifically, the use of the word jwr] in the Qumran texts.)

1QH 6, continued

(Unless otherwise noted, the translations of 1QH are my own.)

Lines 12-33 of column VI were discussed in the previous note. Most commentators recognize a new hymn beginning at line 34, and restore the initial word as i[dwa] (;d=oa), “I give you thanks/praise”, lit. “I throw you (thanks/praise)”, to reflect this. Even if this division is correct, it is still difficult to know if (or how far) the hymn extends beyond line 41. It may well have continued on into the missing lines (1-10f) of column VII; the DJD editors (p. 99) suggest that the hymn concludes with VII.20.

As for the certain portion we have (VI.34-41), it begins with lines of thanksgiving and praise to YHWH:

“[I throw] you (praise), my Lord,
according to (the) great(ness) of your strength
and (the) abundance of your wonders,
from (the) distant (past) even to (the) distan[t (future)—
abundant in (act)s of lov]e and great in [(deed)s of kind]ness,
granting forgiveness to (those) turning back (from) a breach (of trust),
yet dealing with (the) crookedness of (the) wicked
[…]
in (the) willingness of their [heart].
But you hate crookedness unto (the) end!” (ll. 34-36a)

In the next portion, the hymnist reflects on how YHWH has dealt with him personally, identifying himself as a faithful servant (dbu) of God, much in the manner that we have seen in the prior hymns:

“And I [i.e. as for me], your servant, you have favored me with the spirit of knowledge, (so as) to [choose fir]mness [and right]ness, and to abhor every way of crookedness [i.e. crooked way]” (ll. 36b-37a)

This repeats a typical theme of the Hymns—namely, a recognition (by the author/protagonist) that one’s ability to remain faithful to YHWH is due to a favor (root /nj) granted to the individual by God Himself. This favor comes in the form of a spirit (j^Wr) given by God. It is thus a Divine spirit, in that it comes from God and reflects His own nature and character. We have seen this use of the noun j^Wr in the previous hymns we have examined.

Also, according to the prior usage, j^Wr occurs in a construct expression (i.e., “spirit of…”), where the qualifying term (noun or adjectival substantive) defines the particular Divine attribute or characteristic in focus. Here the term is tu^D^, “knowledge”, emphasizing that it is Divine knowledge that the spirit brings to the protagonist. This was stated earlier in 5:36:

“And I, your servant, know by the spirit that you have given me…”

It is Divine knowledge, which allows the individual to discern the will and purpose of YHWH, and so to choose (vb rh^B*) the right path and to reject (lit. “abhor,” vb bu^T*) the wrong. The right path fundamentally means faithfulness to YHWH. This is expressed by a traditional pair of terms—tm#a# and qd#x#.

The noun tm#a#, which is often translated flatly as “truth”, actually has a much wider range of meaning. It derives from the root /ma, which denotes being firm; thus tm#a# fundamentally means “firmness”, often in the sense of being sound, secure, trustworthy. The parallel root qdx denotes what is “straight” or “right”. The derived noun qd#x# is typically translated “justice” in the social-ethical sphere, and “righteousness” in the religious-moral sphere; I tend to render it more fundamentally as “right(ness)”. The contrast with what is “firm” and “straight/right” is, naturally enough, lw#u*, meaning “crookedness” —i.e., bending or deviating from the right norm.

The use of the construct expression “spirit of knowledge” here may be inspired by its occurrence in Isa 11:2, along with the related constructs “spirit of wisdom” and “spirit of understanding”, which also appear in the Qumran texts. There is a strong noetic and sapiential emphasis to the use of j^Wr in the Qumran writings, as there is, indeed, in the New Testament Scriptures. As we proceed in these notes, certain more precise parallels will be mentioned. Other occurrences of the expression “spirit of knowledge” (tud jwr) are found throughout the texts (e.g., 1QS 4:4; 1QSb 5:25; 4Q161 8-10 12), and will be looked at in turn.

The idiom of God favoring someone with a spirit, using a collocation of the verb /n~j* (with suffix) with the noun j^Wr, also occurs in other texts—1QSb 2:24; 1QHa 8:27; 4Q504 4 5; 11Q5 19:14. The ability of the chosen individual, so favored by God, to hate crookedness, as a result of his portion in firmness (truth) and rightness, is emphasized (in comparable terms) in 1QS 4:24. Cf. Tigchelaar, p. 190.

In line 37b, the hymnist goes on to express his love for YHWH, recognizing (again) that his ability to remain faithful (and choose to follow the right path), is because of the way that the Creator God has shown him favor, in His gracious mercy and love. Another important theme that we have encountered in these hymns is an emphasis on the weakness and mortality of the created being, which requires a special gift from God in order to know and understand the truth. This is expressed in lines 38-39f, though the final two fragmentary lines (40-41) are a bit difficult to interpret.

As we turn to column VII, the first 11 lines are almost completely missing, so it is impossible to know for certain whether the hymn of 6:34-41 continues into the next column (or how far it might extend). A new hymn certainly begins at line 21, but the status of the prior lines 12-20 is less clear. Line 12 may begin a new section, and the DJD editors (cf. also Schuller/Newsom) interpret it this way, restoring the opening words of the line (according to my translation) as: “Blessed are you, Mighty (One) Most High who by…”.

Whether or not 7:12-20 belongs to the same hymn as 6:34-41, there is a continuation of theme, as the hymnist praises God again for the knowledge and understanding He has given. The specific term used here in line 12 lkc (vb lk^c*, Hiphil), denoting a practical kind of wisdom or understanding, often translated (in ethical terms) as “prudence”, or noetically as “insight”. The nouns lk#c# and tu^D^ are paired in line 15. The noun “spirit” does not occur here, but it may perhaps be inferred from the expression “spring/fountain of your strength”, water-imagery being traditionally applied to the Spirit of God in Old Testament and Jewish tradition.

People who have not been so chosen (and favored) by God, are not able to understand the wondrous things that He has done (lines 14ff). But the chosen ones, recognizing what God has given to them, are quite aware, and feel compelled to praise Him fully (thus these Hodayot hymns).

In lines 17-20, the protagonist positions himself as belonging to a community of the faithful. These elect/chosen ones are identified as those having knowledge (lit. “knowing [one]s,” <yudy), and who are instructed by God. Almost certainly, the Community of the Qumran texts is in view, with the hymnist/protagonist likely identifying himself as a lyk!c=m^ for the Community (cf. line 21)—viz., one who is specially gifted by God to instruct and guide the other members in the way of God’s wisdom. The reference in line 18, to the Community “recounting together the knowledge of God”, may allude to the communal worship setting of these very hymns.

Like the chosen individuals, the Community of such persons is to be distinguished from the rest of humankind. Only they are able to understand and to walk in the knowledge of God. This is expressed in line 19:

“…in the assembly of[…] and our offspring you have made to understand…in the midst of the sons of man”

Schuller/Newsom = Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa, Early Judaism and Its Literature Number 36 (Society of Biblical Literature: 2012)
DJD XL = Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Vol. XL: 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f, by Hartmut Stegemann with Eileen Schuller, translations of texts by Carol Newsom (Clarendon Press: 2009).
Tigchelaar = Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity, Ekstasis series, eds. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison (De Gruyter: 2014)

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 87

Psalm 87

Dead Sea MSS: No surviving manuscripts.

This short Psalm is arguably among the most obscure and difficult in the Psalter. The awkward phrasing, abrupt shifts in language and wording, and—most notably—the apparent ambiguities of thought and expression in vv. 4-6, have all led commentators to theorize that the MT as it has come down to us is corrupt and in a disorganized state. Some have attempted to reconstruct and reorder the lines to produce a more coherent poem (see Kraus, pp. 184-85f). Others (e.g., Dahood, Hossfeld-Zenger) are unwilling to take such a step, or do not feel the need, and attempt instead to make sense of the MT as it stands (with only minor modifications).

Unfortunately, Psalm 87, perhaps due to its brevity, is not preserved among the surviving Dead Sea Psalms manuscripts, so there is no way to confirm whether (or to what extent) the MT may be corrupt. Nor is much clarity to be found in the LXX and other ancient versions, which seem to struggle just as much as modern scholars in making sense of the Hebrew text. I have chosen to work from the Masoretic text, keeping closely to it, and adopting only modest changes in vocalization and line divisions, at several points.

As might be expected, the meter of the Psalm (in the MT) is quite irregular, and, probably to some extent, unreliable. I discuss the rhythm/meter only in a few places below.

This Psalm is attributed to “(the) sons of Qorah”, as were the prior Pss 84-85 and 87. These follow the earlier collection of Pss 42-49; on the Qorah-tradition, cf. the study on Ps 42-43. These Korahite Psalms share a number of themes and motifs, including the Zion-emphasis that we find here in Ps 87. They also deal with the relationship between Israel/Judah and the nations, reflecting certain eschatological emphases or points of reference that indicate a measure of affinity with Prophetic oracles and poems of the exilic (and post-exilic) period. For more on the the relation of Ps 87 to the Korahite corpus, cf. the discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 385-8.

The structure of this Psalm is indicated, in this instance, by the Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker, following vv. 3 and 6. The first section (vv. 1-3) is a short hymn of praise for Zion, and for its special place as the chosen dwelling of YHWH; God’s love for the site of Jerusalem/Zion is particularly emphasized. The second section (vv. 4-6) draws upon aspects of the Prophetic nation-oracles, according to the thematic emphasis of the poems in the exilic (and post-exilic) period which offer the promise that, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the surrounding nations will join Israel in worshiping YHWH on mount Zion. The enigmatic verse 7 concludes the Psalm.

Verses 1-2

“Founded by Him on (the) mountains of holiness,
YHWH is loving (you), O gates of ‚iyyôn,
(more) than all (the) dwelling-places of Ya’aqob.”

The Psalm begins in an unusual manner, with (it seems) an orienting subordinate clause (v. 1b) that modifies the object of the central statement (v. 2a) (“[the] gates of Zion”). I take the initial word to be a verbal noun, a passive participle with 3rd person singular suffix (of agency); cf. Dahood, II, p. 299. It is a feminine form (hd*Wsy+), which presumably refers to the city of Jerusalem (the noun ryu! being feminine); the expression “gates of Jerusalem” in the central line stands for the implied object noun, specified in v. 3, “city of the Mightiest” (i.e., city of God, Jerusalem).

Cities were often personified as women in the ancient Near East, a tendency that goes beyond the grammatical gender here of ryu!. The feminine personification of Zion is perhaps best known through the expression “daughter of Zion” (or “daughter Zion”), frequent in the Prophetic texts (cf. also Psalm 9:14).

The plural “mountains” may be intended as an intensive plural (like <yh!l)a$), as a way of identifying the fortified hilltop site of Zion as the holy mountain of YHWH’s dwelling. In Semitic (and Canaanite) religious tradition, any mountain or hill can serve as a local manifestation of the great cosmic mountain where the Creator (El-YHWH) resides. Such hills are thus holy (vdq), since God has chosen to reside there. Jerusalem was founded by YHWH (vb ds^y`) on this holy site.

The central statement in v. 2a declares that YHWH loves (vb bh^a*) the site that he has chosen, and the city that is built there. The idea of God’s love for Jerusalem (and the Temple) is implied in many Scriptural passages, but only rarely stated directly. Psalm 78:68 is the most notable example, indicatin that His love extends beyond the site of mount Zion to the entire tribe/territory of Judah. There can be little doubt that the Judean royal theology informs this language and imagery a good deal. YHWH’s love is implicit in the fact that He chose Judah and Jerusalem for His dwelling-place (i.e., the Temple sanctuary).

The expression “gates of Zion” refers both to the city (Jerusalem), but also, specifically, to the Temple precincts built on the ancient fortified hilltop-location. The gates are mentioned, along with the feminine representation of Zion (as “daughter”) in Psalm 9:14; see also Lamentations 1:4. On God’s specific love for the Temple sanctuary, cf. Malachi 2:11.

The participle bh@a) may be meant to indicate the regular and continual nature of this love, being part of YHWH’s essential character and His abiding relationship to His people. The fact that YHWH chose Zion/Jerusalem over all the other “dwelling-places” in Israel (Jacob), is an indication that He loves it more than those other sites.

Metrically, vv. 1-2, as they stand, read as a slightly irregular 3-beat tricolon.

Verse 3

“Worthy (thing)s are being spoken in you,
O city of (the) Mightiest!”
Selah

Following the MT, the sense of this verse (3+2 couplet) is not clear. The referent for the passive (Niphal) feminine plural participle (todB*k=n]), in particular, is ambiguous. Dahood (II, p. 299) would parse the lines differently, reading the participle as modifying the plural noun tonK=v=m! (“dwelling-places”), with which it agrees. He also revocalizes MT lK)m! (“from all,” with comparative /m!, i.e., “more than all”) in v. 2b to read lk@m@ (Hiphil participle of the verb ll^K*)— “(the One) completing”. By this approach, vv 2b-3 form a 4-beat (4+4) couplet:

“(the One) completing (the) glorious dwellings of Jacob
is speaking in you, O city of (the) Mightiest”

For commentators who prefer to follow the MT, the participle todB*k=n] is typically understood as referring to things (i.e., words of praise, etc) that are spoken. It is thus rendered as a substantive adjective “weighty (thing)s” (i.e., worthy, honorable, glorious things). Who is it that speaks these things? The context suggests that it is YHWH. Since He resides on mount Zion, in the Temple sanctuary, it is natural that He would be speaking there. In this sense, Jerusalem is, indeed His city (“city of the Mightiest”, i.e., city of God).

Verse 4

“I mark (down) Rahab and Bab-il—
(they belong) to (those) knowing me;
see Pelešet and ‚ôr (along) with Kûš—
‘This (one) was born there’.

The next unit of the Psalm (vv. 4-6) is difficult to interpret, leading to a variety of approaches by commentators. Though the language and poetry (as it stands in the MT) is awkward, these lines seem to express the idea that, in the (near) future, the surrounding nations will join with Israel in worshiping YHWH, becoming (in a sense) part of God’s people.

This reflects a longstanding line of Prophetic tradition which developed throughout certain oracles and poems of the exilic and post-exilic periods. It is tied to the promise of the restoration of Israel. In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the nations will be forced to submit, and they will send representatives to Jerusalem to pay homage and to give worship to Israel’s God YHWH. The classic passage expressing the ideal of the nations coming to join Israel/Judah on mount Zion is Isaiah 2:1-5 (par Mic 4:1-5). The motif of the nations coming to Jerusalem features prominently in the Deutero- and Trito-Isaian poems, along with a universalistic message portending that the nations will find blessing and salvation in the knowledge of YHWH—e.g., 42:1-6; 49:6, 22f; 56:1-8; chap. 60; 66:18-24; cf. also 11:10ff. Another famous (post-exilic) example of this theme is found at the close of Zechariah (14:16-21). The relation of the nations to Zion is also a recurring theme in other Korah Psalms (e.g., 46-48).

I regard verse 4 as comprised of two thematically parallel couplets. In the first line of each couplet, YHWH (or His prophet) makes special note of certain representative nations—Egypt (“Rahab”) and Babylon (line 1); then Philistia, the city-state of Tyr, and Cush (line 3). The name Raha» is a mythopoeic term for the dark/chaotic primeval waters, personified as a sea-monster (cf. Psalm 89:11[10]; Job 9:13; 26:12; Isa 51:9), which YHWH (as Creator) subdued, thus bringing order to Creation (for the mythological background of this imagery, cf. my earlier article). The name Rahab is applied to Egypt also in Isa 30:7.

The guiding verb of the first line, rk^z` denotes having something in mind; in the Hiphil (causative) stem, the force is can be either “bring to mind” or “keep in mind”. Here it seems to be used in the special sense of noting something—that is, marking it down or recording it; the participle ryK!z+m^ is used as the title of an official or scribe who acts as a recorder.

In the second line of each couplet, the nations are being treated as though they belonged to God’s people and were citizens of the holy city of God (Zion/Jerusalem). In line 2, I take the prefixed preposition –l of the participial expression yu*d=y)l= in the sense of “belonging to”; the single word thus forms a distinct phrase, indicating that these nations belong (or will belong) to “(the one)s knowing me” —those who know (and worship) YHWH. In line 4, this same idea is expressed in terms of belonging to the holy city; the people of the nations will be treated like citizens born in the city (“this [one] is born there”).

Verse 5

“Indeed, for of ‚iyyôn it is said,
‘(This) man and (that) man has been born in her’ —
and He, (the) Highest, sets her firm.”

The initial –w is emphatic and explicative, building upon the previous line to explain the significance of the declaration “This (one) is born there”. It refers to the record of a person’s citizenship—that is, the place of his/her birth—specifically, of belonging to the city of God (Zion/Jerusalem).

The final line here, however, remains difficult. What is the precise meaning of the verb /WK in context? Fundamentally, the verb means make/set (something) firm, establishing it as being fixed and secure, etc. The feminine suffix (h*-) presumably refers again to the city (personified as female), and probably alludes back to the idea that YHWH founded Jerusalem upon the holy mountain(s) (see on v. 1 above), thus setting the city on a firm foundation. Possibly this imagery is meant to extend here to a person’s citizenship—that belonging to the city of God is made firm and secure (by YHWH Himself).

Verse 6

“YHWH (Himself) makes an account,
in (His) inscribing (of the) peoples:
‘This (one) was born there!’
Selah

This final tricolon reiterates the message of vv. 4-5, stating it now more directly (and less ambiguously). YHWH Himself does the recording of the nations (here, “peoples”), granting to them citizenship in the holy city of God. On an ethnic-religious level, this refers (as noted above) to the Prophetic tradition of the nations coming to Jerusalem (Zion) to pay homage to Israel/Judah and to acknowledge and worship YHWH. It can also be interpreted in a spiritual sense, whereby the “city of God” refers, not to a geographical location, but to one’s relationship (in heart/mind/soul) to God Himself.

Verse 7

“And they are singing as they twirl:
All my springs (are) in you!”

The Psalm ends, abruptly and enigmatically, with this obscure couplet, the exact meaning (and translation) of which is anyone’s guess. For lack of any better option, I have kept quite literally to the MT as we have it.

The reference to singing and dancing seems out of place, but it is fitting to the context of the Psalm itself—as a musical composition (romz+m!) and a poem to be set to music and sung (ryv!). It may imply a liturgical (worship) setting in the Temple precincts, and perhaps this is meant to relate, however tangentially, to the idea of “worthy things” being spoken within the gates of Zion (v. 3, cf. above). Kraus (p. 185), in his reconstruction of the Psalm, has verse 3 follow verse 7, with both occurring in the middle of the composition.

What is the meaning of the final line? Does it represent the words that the performers sing? Is there an allusion to the eschatological image in Zech 14:8, or to a correspondingly similar tradition? Is “my springs” even the correct way to understand and render yn~y`u=m^ here? (cf. the very different explanation by Dahood, II, p. 300). Overall, in keeping with the (eschatological) theme of the conversion/salvation of the nations, it is perhaps best to maintain (cautiously) the idea that the people of God (including members of the nations) will enjoy the blessings provided by YHWH—represented by fountains and streams of life-giving waters—in the holy city; cf. the brief discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 384-6.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

Saturday Series: John 19:11

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

John 19:11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 20: John 15:17

John 15:17

“These (thing)s I lay on you to complete—that you should love one another.”

With this declaration by Jesus in v. 17, the exposition of the Vine illustration, and the passage as a whole (15:1-17), comes to an end. It rather neatly summarizes the message of what it means for the branches (disciples/believers) to remain in the vine (Jesus). This state of remaining (vb me/nw), so vital to the illustration (the verb occurs 11 times in the passage), entails fulfilling the two duties (e)ntolai/) that Jesus places upon his disciples. Here the related verb e)nte/llomai is used, as in verse 14 (cf. the earlier note), for the act (by Jesus) of placing the duty on the disciples— “I lay on you to complete” (e)nte/llomai u(mi=n). This action mirrors the act by God the Father, in placing duties upon the Son (14:31). In fulfilling his duty, the Son (Jesus) remains in the Father, and in His love (14:10)—and believers are to follow this example (15:9-10).

As I have previously discussed, the two duties (e)ntolai/) for the believer are: (1) to guard the word(s) of Jesus, and (2) to show love to other believers, following the example of Jesus. Fulfilling these two duties means that we remain in Jesus’ word (8:31; cf. 15:7), and in his love (15:9-10)—and, in so doing, we remain in him. Or, it might be better to say: remaining in Jesus means that we will remain both in his word and his love, respectively:

A comparable paradigm is expressed syntactically here in verse 17, balancing the two duties—involving Jesus’ words and love—around the central idea of obedience to the duty he has given to us:

“these things”
(i.e. his words)		 e)nte/llomai “that you should love”

The i%na-particle, governing the clause “that [i%na] you should love”, can be read two different ways:

    • Epexegetical—it defines/explains the things that Jesus requires, i.e., love itself as the duty (13:34-35; 15:12f)
    • Purpose/Result—Jesus says these things (i.e., teaches them) so that his disciples may be able to love.

Both are valid, from the standpoint of the Last Discourse; however, the latter would seem to be what is intended here. The thrust and emphasis of the exposition was on the duty to love; Jesus’ words (“these [thing]s”), in this specific context, refer to the Vine-passage itself, allowing also for the broader application to the Last Discourse as a whole. His teaching is meant to show the importance of the duty to love (cf. 13:34-35), exhorting (and warning) his disciples to remain in this love. The symbolism of the foot-washing, in the narrative introduction of chap. 13, clearly refers to Jesus’ own example, demonstrating sacrificial love for those dear to him.

With this in mind, it may be necessary to adjust our interpretation of the “bearing fruit” motif. While this motif may refer to the mission (and duty) of believers generally, its principal point of reference may well prove to be the duty to show love.

November 18: John 15:16 (5)

John 15:16, concluded

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

“(so) that, whatever you would ask (of) the Father in my name, He should give to you.”
i%na o% ti a*n ai)th/shte to\n pate/ra e)n tw=| o)no/mati/ mou dw=| u(mi=n

The conclusion of verse 16 echoes the promise from v. 7b—namely, that the Father will give the disciples whatever they ask for in Jesus’ name (“in my name”). The promise in v. 7 was conditional, governed by the particle e)a/n:  “if you should remain in me, and my words remain in you…”. The condition of remaining (vb me/nw) in Jesus, and in his word[s] (cf. 8:31), corresponds here to the expression “in Jesus’ name”. It reflects the character and conduct of the true disciple (or true believer); on the verb me/nw (“remain”) in this regard, cf. the discussion in the previous note (and in notes prior).

A similar promise, regarding the disciples’ prayers being answered, occurs at two other points in the Last Discourse (14:13-14; 16:23-24, 26). In both instances, prayer is described as making a request or “asking” (vb ai)te/w) God (the Father); and the same qualifying/conditional expression, “in my name”, is used as well.

The context of v. 16 suggests that the disciples’ requests will be tied to their mission. Indeed, there is no real indication that these prayer-references in the Last Discourse involve request for personal needs; on the contrary, the entire thrust of Jesus’ instruction would seem to assume that the disciples will be praying for others, more than for themselves. The duty to show love, as defined (13:34-35; 15:12-13), virtually requires that prayer be focused on the needs and well-being of others.

This is equally true with regard to the duty of guarding Jesus’ words (“remain in my word”). Since, in the Gospel of John, the message of Jesus’ words, centering on his identity as the Son of God, has life-giving power (6:63, 68), the words thus give (eternal) life to those who receive them. The disciples/believers who “guard” this word (lo/go$) are faithful to the witness of Jesus, and share in his mission. We may assume that any request by a true believer, made “in Jesus’ name”, will have this mission and duty in mind.

The prayer-references in the Last Discourse are also connected contextually with the Paraclete-sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-15)—dealing with the promise of the coming of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit also occurs “in Jesus’ name” (14:26), and involves a request made to the Father (14:16). In this regard, one is reminded of the collection of teachings on prayer by Jesus in Luke 11:1-13, which climaxes with a promise that the Father will give the Holy Spirit (v. 13), suggesting that the coming of the Spirit represents the very goal and purpose of prayer. In the Johannine Paraclete-sayings, the role of the Spirit is very much centered on the disciples/believers’ mission—specifically, on witnessing to the truth of who Jesus is (15:26-27; 16:8ff, 13-15).

November 17: John 15:16 (4)

John 15:16, continued

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

“and (that you) should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain”
kai\ karpo\n fe/rhte kai\ o( karpo\$ u(mw=n me/nh|

Picking up on our discussion from the previous note, the idiom of bearing fruit (vb fe/rw + obj karpo/$), as it applies to the disciple of Jesus, refers principally to the fulfilling of the mission given to the disciple. As I discussed, in the Gospel context, this means the continuation (and extension) of Jesus’ own mission—the mission of the Son, for which the Father sent him from heaven (to earth). Within the framework of the Johannine theology, this mission is rooted in the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that Jesus has given to disciples/believers, which itself follows the duty that the Father gave to the Son. The two-fold duty is: (1) to guard the word(s) of Jesus (“remain in my word”, 8:31; 15:7), and (2) to show love to one another, following the example of Jesus (“remain in my love”, 15:9-10).

In the qualifying phrase that follows, here in v. 16, Jesus adds the purpose that the fruit the disciple ‘bears’ should remain (vb me/nw). This important Johannine keyword has been discussed repeatedly in prior notes; it is especially prominent in the Vine-passage (15:1-17), where it occurs 11 times (vv. 4-7, 9-10, 16). It defines the believer’s fundamental identity, as belonging to the Son (Jesus), and of being/staying in union with him. The verb, with its basic meaning “remain, abide, stay”, carries both the sense of residing and of enduring.

The Johannine use of the verb entails both sides of the believer’s relationship with the Son: the believer remains in the Son, and the Son remains in the believer. This aspect of reciprocity is very much emphasized in the Vine illustration—see esp. the formulations in vv. 4 and 7:

    • “You must remain in me, and I in you” (v. 4)
    • “If you should remain in me, and my words remain in you” (v. 7)

But what does it mean for the believer’s fruit to remain? There are two references elsewhere in the Gospel that may shed some light on this question. The first is the statement by Jesus in 4:36:

“The (one) harvesting receives a wage, and gathers together fruit unto (the) life of the Age [i.e., eternal life], (so) that the (one) sowing and the (one) harvesting might rejoice as one.”

This verse was examined in an earlier note, where I pointed out the eschatological background and orientation of these harvest illustrations in the New Testament. The time of harvesting, indeed, serves as a natural image for the end of the current Age. The expression “into/unto the Age” refers to this eschatological perspective (viz., the ushering in of the coming New Age), while the related expression “(the) life of the Age” ([h(] ai)w/nio$ zwh/) refers to the Divine/blessed life that the righteous will experience in the Age to Come.

The Gospel of John retains this eschatological point of reference, but gives to it a deeper theological and spiritual meaning. Now, the “life of the Age”, or simply the shorthand term “life” (zwh/), refers to the life (and life-giving power) that God Himself possesses, and which is communicated to believers through the Son (Jesus). The Son possesses the same life that belongs to God the Father, it being given to him by the Father (cf. 3:34f; 5:26; 6:57); the Son, in turn, is able to give the life to believers. This happens even in the present, prior to the end-time Judgment—the one who trusts in Jesus has already passed through the Judgment, and now holds eternal life (see esp. 5:24).

The passage 4:31-38 shares with 15:16 (and with the Last Discourse as a whole) the theme of the disciples (believers) sharing in the mission of Jesus, and continuing it. Through the proclamation of the Gospel message, and by following the teaching and example of Jesus, believers serve as a witness to who Jesus is—viz., the Son sent by God the Father, who makes the Father known. The Gospel is rooted in Jesus’ own words (in the Discourses, etc) regarding his identity, and by the witness of the earliest disciples (and subsequently, by other believers) that confirms his word. Believers who are faithful to this witness thus “remain in his word”. It is a message—the word of Jesus—that leads to eternal life for those who trust in it.

The second reference of note is the opening declaration of the Bread of Life Discourse (chap. 6):

“You must not work (for) the food th(at is) perishing, but (for) the food th(at is) remaining [me/nousan] unto (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life], which the Son of Man shall give to you” (v. 27)

The motif of ‘food that remains’ is clearly parallel to that of ‘fruit that remains’. Thus, there is good reason to conclude that this abiding fruit, like the abiding food, refers to the eternal life that the Son (Jesus) gives to believers. This life is possessed (“held”) by believers even in the present, but only if one remains in the Son will this life remain.

It is possible, I think, to isolate three distinct strands of meaning that inform the motif of bearing “fruit that remains” in v. 16:

    • It is an extension of the broader concept of the believer remaining in Jesus, and Jesus in the believer. Through this abiding union with the Son, believers are also united with the Father, realizing their/our identity as His offspring (1:12-13, etc).
    • In particular, it refers to the eternal life from the Father that is granted to believers through the Son, being communicated by the Spirit.
    • It also relates to the discipleship-theme of believers’ role in continuing the ministry of Jesus—witnessing to the message (the words and example) of Jesus that leads to eternal life for all who trust in him.

November 16: John 15:16 (3)

John 15:16, continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 15: John 15:16 (2)

John 15:16, continued

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

“and I set you…”
kai\ e&qhka u(ma=$

The first part of verse 16, discussed in the previous note, deals with the idea of Jesus having chosen his disciples. The verb used to express this was e)kle/gomai (“gather out”). The next phrase describes the subsequent action by Jesus, using the common verb ti/qhmi (“set, put, place”). Often this verb is used in the ordinary, concrete sense of putting a physical object in a particular place—11:34; 19:19, 41-42; 20:2, 13-15, cf. also 2:10.

However, in the Gospel of John, ti/qhmi can also carry a deeper meaning, as part of the Johannine theological vocabulary and idiom. I discussed the relevant references in the previous note on verse 13; they all relate to the idea of Jesus’ sacrificial death—using the specific idiom of “setting (down) one’s soul” (i.e., laying down one’s life). This sacrificial action is done for the sake of (lit. “over,” u(pe/r) another person. This is how the verb is used in 10:11-18 (vv. 11, 15, 17-18), and also in 13:37-38 and 15:13. In the latter two references, it applies to the willingness of believers (disciples) to lay down their life for others, following the example of Jesus himself.

Here in verse 16, the specific meaning of ti/qhmi seems to be different; however, the aforementioned usage strongly suggests that the specific theological significance in those references applies here as well. On the surface, the verb in v. 16 is being used in the more general figurative sense of placing a person in a position of leadership, service, etc (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 12:28). The statement by Jesus, “I set you”, refers to the historical tradition of the call of the (Twelve) disciples (Mark 3:13-19 par), whereby Jesus appointed these specific twelve men to be in a special position, as his close associates and missionary representatives. As I discussed in the previous note, the Synoptic/Markan account uses a sequence of three verbs, the first two of which are:

    • proskale/w (“call toward”)—Jesus calls the disciples to him
    • poie/w (“make, do”)—he made (the) twelve of them to be his special representatives

The verb ti/qhmi here in v. 16 corresponds to poie/w in Mk 3:14. However, in the Johannine context of the Last Discourse, Jesus’ address is not limited to the Twelve, but is given to all of his true disciples; cp. 6:67-71, which represents the Johannine version of the tradition in Mk 3:13-14ff par. Indeed, the Last Discourse (and the Discourse-Prayer of chap. 17) has in view not only Jesus’ disciples, during the time of earthly ministry, but all true believers.

In the theological context of the Last Discourse, the willingness to lay down one’s life (“set down [vb ti/qhmi] one’s soul”), in obedience to Jesus’ example of sacrificial love, is a distinguishing mark of the true disciple. This is established at the beginning of the Last Discourse (13:34-35), and continues as a theme throughout. It is especially prominent in the exposition of the Vine-illustration (vv. 9-14), as we have seen. Thus, when Jesus says here that he “set” them as his chosen disciples, he has in mind that they will fulfill the duties (e)ntolai/) of the (true) disciple. As for these duties, there are essentially, and fundamentally, two: (1) to guard the word(s) of Jesus (“remain in my word”); and (2) to demonstrate love to fellow believers, according to the example of Jesus (“remain in my love”). The latter assumes a willingness to “set” down one’s life for the sake of others.

November 14: John 15:16

John 15:16-17

Verse 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

November 13: John 15:15

John 15:15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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