Spiritualism and the New Testament – Next Step Bible Study

August 13: 1 John 2:20

1 John 2:20

Having considered the use of the title “the holy (one) of God” in Jn 6:69 (the confession by Peter, cp. Luke 9:20 par) in the previous note, I wish to examine now the same title (“the holy [one]”) in 1 John 2:20. In the previous discussion, I had mentioned that, within the Johannine theological context, the title “holy one of God” in Jn 6:69 contained an allusion to the important association between the Son (Jesus) and the holy Spirit of God. It is worth giving further consideration to the point by examining the evidence in the Gospel.

First, we have the Paraclete-saying in 14:25-26, in which the Spirit-Paraclete is specifically referred to as “the holy Spirit” (v. 26). In point of fact, the adjective a%gio$ is rather rare in the Gospel of John, occurring just five times. In addition to Peter’s confession (here, 6:69), and one occurrence in the Discourse-Prayer of Jesus (17:11, addressing God the Father), it is only used in three references to the Spirit (with the full, qualifying expression “[the] holy Spirit”, [to\] pneu=ma [to\] a&gion).

It is significant the way that these three Spirit-references frame the Gospel narrative, in relation to the ministry of Jesus (the incarnate Son of God) on earth:

- 1:33—at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, part of the Johannine version (cf. also verse 26) of the saying by the Baptist (cp. Mark 1:8 par), alluding to the promise of Jesus’ giving the Spirit to believers: “(he) is the (one) dunking [i.e. baptizing] in (the) holy Spirit”.
- 14:26—the Johannine narrative of Jesus’ ministry is structured around the great Discourses, culminating in the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), in which Jesus gives the final teaching to his close circle of disciples (and true believers); the Paraclete-sayings deal with the coming of the Spirit, following Jesus’ teaching to this effect in the earlier Discourses—cf. the Spirit-references in 3:5-8, 34f; 4:10-15 [7:37-39], 23-24; 6:63.
- 20:22—at the end of Jesus’ ministry, following the fulfillment of his mission (and his exaltation), Jesus finally gives the Spirit to his disciples (the first believers).

It is only natural that holy one of God (Jesus) would give the holy Spirit of God, particularly since the Son (Jesus) possesses the fullness of the Spirit, having received it from the Father (3:34-35). This Christological dynamic makes the use of the title “holy (one)” in 1 John 2:20 particularly intriguing:

“But you hold (the) anointing [xri=sma] from the holy (one) [o( a%gio$], and you have seen [i.e. known] all (thing)s.”

There is some debate among commentators as to whether the title o( a%gio$ (“the holy [one]”) refers specifically to Jesus (the Son) or God the Father. In the previous note, I discussed the use of the title “holy one” (in Hebrew, the use of the substantive adjective vodq* corresponds with a%gio$ in Greek). In the Old Testament Scriptures, almost exclusively it is used as a title for God the Father (YHWH)—particularly in the expression “the Holy One of Israel” (most frequent in the book of Isaiah)—and only very rarely is applied to human or angelic beings as God’s consecrated servants (Num 6:17; Psalm 106:16; Dan 8:13); the same usage is attested in the subsequent Jewish writings from the first centuries B.C./A.D.

By contrast, in the New Testament, “[the] holy one” ([o(] a%gio$) is predominantly a title, with Messianic significance, that is applied to Jesus—Mark 1:24 [par Lk 4:34]; Acts 2:27 and 13:35 [citing Ps 16:10]; Rev 3:7, and of course in John 6:69 (cf. also 10:36); the Messianic context of these references was discussed (and established) in the previous note. Only in Rev 16:5 is the title used in its more traditional religious-historical aspect, as an epithet of YHWH. Interestingly, as I had mentioned, the adjective a%gio$ is actually rather rare in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters), occurring just five times in the Gospel and once (here) in 1 John. In the Gospel, once it is applied to Jesus the Son (6:69), once to God the Father (17:11), and three times to the Spirit (i.e., “[the] holy Spirit,” 1:33; 14:26; 20:22).

Overall, the New Testament and Johannine usage favors o( a%gio$ (“the holy [one]”) here as a title of Jesus Christ (the Son).

Rather more certain, in my view, is the conclusion that the term xri=sma (“anointing”) here (and in v. 27) refers to the presence of the Spirit. The noun xri=sma occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, so there is little opportunity for comparative examination of word-usage. However, for reasons I detailed in the earlier article on 2:18-27, the anointing which believers received (v. 27) is best understood as a reference to the Spirit. Most likely, in common with other early Christians, the Johannine churches viewed the believer’s baptism as representing the moment when he/she received the Spirit (cf. Jn 1:33); to view the baptism as an ‘anointing’ by the Spirit was natural, drawing upon the type-pattern of Jesus’ own baptism (cf. especially the Lukan emphasis of 4:18ff, in light of 3:22; 4:1, 14). Also significant and influential are the Prophetic passages referring to God ‘pouring out’ the Spirit on His people in the New Age (cf. the Introduction to this series for the key passages).

But does the believer receive the Spirit from Jesus (the Son) or from God (the Father)? The immediate evidence from 1 John (3:24; 4:2ff, 13; 5:6-8ff) indicates the latter—that it is God the Father who gives us the Spirit. However, the Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ role in giving the Spirit (cf. above). According to the framework of the Johannine theology—expressed clearly in the Gospel, and only alluded to in the Letters—the Son (Jesus) receives the Spirit from the Father, and then, in turn, gives the Spirit to believers. The Father is the ultimate source, but the Son is the immediate giver; thus, there is a certain variability and interchangeability with how this is expressed in the Johannine writings (cf. for example, the variation in the Paraclete-sayings, in 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7b, 13-15).

The focus in 2:18-27 is on the person of Jesus—the Anointed One (xristo/$) and Son of God—and this would tend to confirm the point of reference for the title “holy one”. It also corresponds with the Messianic (and Christological) significance of the title in Jn 6:69, as was discussed in the previous note.

Yet in verse 27, the Divine subject, in relation to the anointing (xri=sma), is expressed more ambiguously:

“But (as for) you, the anointing which you received from him, it remains in you, and you do not have a need that any (one) should teach you; but, as his anointing teaches you about all (thing)s, and is true and is not false, and even as it (has) taught you, you must remain in him.”

The phrase “the anointing which you received from him” seems to allude back to verse 20; if the title “the holy one” refers to the Son (Jesus), then it is most likely that the pronoun of the prepositional expression “from him” (a)p’ au)tou=) also refers to Jesus. Turning ahead to verse 28, where Jesus is clearly the implied subject of the second clause, the implication is that the pronoun of the expression “in him” (e)n au)tw=|), at the end of v. 27 and beginning of v. 28, likewise refers to Jesus; certainly, there is no obvious indication of a change of reference. For the same reason, it would be simplest to interpret the qualifying subject “his anointing” (to\ au)tou= xri=sma) as meaning the anointing received from Jesus.

In other words, all the third person singular pronouns in vv. 27-28, refer primarily to Jesus Christ (the Son). It is he who gives the anointing (i.e., the Spirit) to believers, having himself received it from God the Father. As noted above, the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit, but it is given through the mediation of the Son. Just as it was promised that the Jesus would baptize believers in the Spirit, so he anoints them, pouring out the Spirit upon them. Yet the anointing does not simply come from without, like physical liquid poured out on a person, but abides within; this is the clear significance of the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”)—both here and throughout the Johannine writings. The anointing (i.e., the Spirit) remains within (cf. 3:24; 4:13; Jn 14:17), and is the means by which believers remain in the Son; and, in turn, it is through the presence of the Son that we remain in the Father (and He in us). This is the essence of the Johannine theology; even though it is expressed more clearly and precisely in the Gospel, the theology is equally present, in an implicit and allusive fashion, throughout 1 John.

August 12: John 6:69

John 6:69

Verse 69 represents the second part of Peter’s confession (on the first part, v. 68, see the previous note), which forms the climactic point of the great Bread of Life Discourse-Narrative in chap. 6. It holds a place in the Johannine Gospel similar to that of the more famous confession in the Synoptics (Mk 8:29 par, cf. below). The two parts are related syntactically as comprising a single confessional statement:

- “You hold (the) utterances of (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]
  and
- we have trusted and have known that you are the holy (one) of God.”

The verbs pisteu/w (“trust”) and ginw/skw (“know”), though commonly used by early Christians (in a religious and theological sense), are especially prominent in the Gospel of John. The verb pisteu/w occurs 98 times (out of 241 in the entire NT), while ginw/skw is used somewhat less frequently (57 out of 222 NT occurrences). There is a special emphasis on knowing the truth (8:32, etc), which is defined in the Christological sense of trusting in Jesus (as the Son of God)—in this way, one “knows” the Son, and, through him, knows God the Father as well (7:28-29; 8:14ff, 19, 28; 10:14-15, 27, 38; 14:4-7ff, 20; 15:15; 17:3, 7-8, 23ff).

Peter’s confession of trust in Jesus is centered on the title “the holy (one) of God” (o( a%gio$ tou= qeou=). In the Old Testament Scriptures, “holy (one)” (vodq*) is used almost exclusively as a title of YHWH (Job 6:10; Prov 9:10; Hos 11:9, 12; Hab 1:12; 3:3; Ezek 39:7), where it typically occurs within the expression “the Holy (One) of Israel” (2 Kings 19:22; Psalm 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; Jer 50:29; 51:5). It is used most frequently in the book of Isaiah (1:4; 5:19, 24; 10:20; 12:6, et al.), while in later Jewish writings the substantive “Holy One” continues to be used almost entirely as a Divine title (e.g., Sirach 4:14; 23:29; 43:10; 47:8; 48:20; Baruch 4:22, 37; 5:5; 2 Macc 14:36; 1 Enoch 1:2; 93:11; 97:6). The title itself relates to the fundamental attribute of holiness (Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 2:2), which Israel, as God’s people, must maintain as well (Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Deut 7:6, etc).

Only on rare occasions in the Old Testament is the substantive “holy (one)” applied to a human being, in reference to the consecrated priests (Num 16:7; Psalm 106:16), while in Dan 8:13 vodq* refers to a heavenly (angelic) being. In Prayer of Azariah 12, the title “holy one” is applied to Israel. In Old Testament and Jewish tradition, it was common to refer to both heavenly beings and righteous Israelites as “holy ones”; the Qumran texts make a good deal of this parallelism, identifying the Community as the “holy ones” on earth, who act in consort with the “holy ones” in heaven—both groups functioning as end-time representatives of God.

The only Old Testament parallel to the specific title “the holy one of God” is found in Psalm 106:16— “(the) holy (one) of YHWH” (hwhy vodq=)—referring to the special status of the high priest Aaron. The adjective ryz]n`, which similarly denotes a consecrated individual, separated out for special service to God, has comparable meaning when used as a substantive “consecrated [i.e. holy] (one)”. In Judg 13:5, 7 and 16:17, we find the expression <yh!ýa$ ryz]n+ (“consecrated [i.e. holy] one of God”), which is quite close to the corresponding Greek here in Jn 6:69. Most English versions transliterate ryz]n` (i.e., “Nazir[ite]”) rather than translate it; on the Nazirite vow, cf. the regulations in Numbers 6 (cp. Amos 2:11-12).

Thus, for the historical background of the expression “holy one of God”, we find two lines of religious tradition: (a) the sanctified status of the (high) priest, and (b) those set apart for service by the Nazir(ite) vow. In the New Testament, the latter is related to John the Baptist, where, in the Lukan Infancy narrative, it refers to his eschatological/Messianic status, fulfilling the figure type of the prophet Elijah (Lk 1:15-17; cf. also vv. 76ff). In the Gospel of John, as elsewhere in the Gospel tradition, it is Jesus, rather than John the Baptist, who fulfills the Elijah figure-type (1:21, 25); for more on this subject, cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Other occurrences of the title “holy (one)” in the New Testament confirm its significance as a Messianic designation that is applied to Jesus. It occurs once in the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 1:24 / Lk 4:34), in the context of Jesus’ miracle-working power—as a sign that he fulfills the role of Messianic Prophet (in the manner of Elijah, cf. the references in Lk 4:24-27, in the context of vv. 18ff). In Acts 2:27 and 13:35, the expression “holy one” in Psalm 16:10 (where the Hebrew adjective is dys!j* rather than vodq*) is clearly intended as a Messianic reference, applied specifically to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. vv. 24, 30-31ff, 36). The title also has a Messianic (Davidic) significance in Rev 3:7.

These factors, taken together, make it all but certain that here, in v. 69, Peter similarly uses the title “the holy one of God” in a Messianic sense—though it is not immediately clear which Messianic figure type is primarily in view. The immediate context of the Feeding Miracle (vv. 1-14) suggests a Messianic Prophet (like Elijah); however, the Bread of Life Discourse (as well as the wider literary context of the Johannine Gospel) indicates that a Prophet like Moses is intended. Yet the reference in verse 15 also raises the possibility that a royal (Davidic?) Messiah may be in view as well. In any case, the Messianic identity of Jesus is very much the focus of Peter’s confession in the Synoptic Gospels:

“You are the Anointed (One) [i.e. the Messiah]”
(Mk 8:29)

The Lukan version corresponds generally with the Johannine tradition here:

“You are the Anointed (One) of God” (Lk 9:20)
“You are the Holy (One) of God” (Jn 6:69)

From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, the title “holy (one)” also refers to Jesus’ identity as the (pre-existent) Son of God, sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. This gives to the Messianic title a deeper Christological significance, as is suggested by Jesus’ statement in 10:36:

“…(the one) whom the Father made holy [vb a(gia/zw, i.e. set apart, consecrated] and sent forth into the world”

This statement is connected with a more direct declaration of his essential identity as God’s (eternal) Son: “I am [e)gw\ ei)mi] (the) Son of God”. The Johannine theological and literary context (esp. in the Prologue) clearly connects this Divine Sonship with a strong pre-existence Christology, rather than the earlier Christology which explained the Sonship almost entirely in terms of Jesus’ exaltation (to God’s right hand in heaven) following his death and resurrection. In the Johannine writings, the confession of the true believer combines both titles— “Anointed One” and “Son of God” —with this distinctive Christological understanding, giving new meaning to the older forms.

In this regard, the main Johannine statement (in the Gospel) is not the confession by Peter, but the one by Martha in 11:27:

“I have trusted that you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God, the (one) coming into the world.”

The Gospel concludes with a similar confessional statement, in 20:31 (cp. 17:3; 1 Jn 1:3; 3:23; 5:20). The combination of titles, of course, also resembles the Matthean version of Peter’s confession, as representing a comparable (theological/Christological) development of the Synoptic tradition:

“You are the Anointed (One), the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16; cf. 26:63ff)

Finally, I would suggest that, from the Johannine theological standpoint, the title “holy one of God” also alludes to Jesus’ association (and identification) with God’s holy Spirit. In addition to the immediate context of the Spirit-saying in v. 63 (the Christological significance of which has been examined, in detail, in recent notes), there are other aspects of the Johannine writings (Gospel and First Letter) which seem to bear this out, including the intriguing use of the title “holy one” in 1 John 2:20. I will discuss this verse in the next daily note.

* * * * * *

Textual Note on Jn 6:69—There is some variation in the manuscripts (and versions) with regard to the text of title in Peter’s confession (cf. above). The text followed above, o( a%gio$ tou= qeou= (“the holy [one] of God”), would seem to have decisive manuscript support, representing the reading of Ë⁷⁵ a B C* D L W al. In other witnesses, the title was expanded in various ways, most likely as a harmonization with the Matthean form (16:16) of the Synoptic version of Peter’s confession (cp. Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20), or with the local Johannine confessional statements in 1:49; 11:27. Cf. the brief note in the UBS/Metzger Textual Commentary (4th revised edition), p. 184, and in the various exegetical-critical commentaries (ad loc).

August 10: John 6:68

John 6:68

Having discussed in detail the saying by Jesus in Jn 6:63 (over a set of eight daily notes), let us turn briefly to consider the confessional statement by Peter in v. 68, which essentially affirms, as a statement of faith, what Jesus has said in v. 63.

The difficulty posed by the teaching in the Discourse (see v. 60) proved to be a test and turning point for those following Jesus; at that time, apparently, many turned away and ceased following him (v. 66). Jesus had already made clear that some of those following him where not true disciples (i.e., believers): “But there are some of you that do not trust” (v. 64). The group of disciples was reduced considerably; the implication in the narrative is that only the Twelve remained. To them Jesus asks: “You do not also wish to go away(, do you)?” (v. 67).

This sets the stage for the confession by Peter, which, in certain respects, holds a similar place in the Gospel of John as that of the more famous Synoptic confession in Mark 8:29 par. Indeed, it has been suggest that the Johannine and Synoptic traditions, at this point, are drawing upon the same underlying historical tradition. Before considering that critical question, here is Peter’s initial response in verse 68:

“Lord, toward whom shall we go away? You hold the utterances [r(h/mata] of (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]”

The question is rhetorical and hypothetical: even if we were to go away from [a)po/] you, toward [pro/$] whom else could we go? The question assumes a negative response: there is no one else we can go to, in place of you. Peter, speaking for the Twelve (that is, the eleven true disciples, vv. 64, 70-71), recognizes that there is something truly unique and special about Jesus; he may not yet understand completely Jesus’ teaching (in the Discourse), but he recognizes that the words have a special Divine inspiration.

Peter uses the same plural r(h/mata (“things uttered, utterances”) that Jesus does in v. 63. In an earlier note, I discussed how, in the Gospel of John, plural r(h/mata and singular lo/go$ can be used almost interchangeably (see v. 60)—referring to specific sayings or teachings by Jesus. Thus Peter essentially affirms the connection between Jesus’ sayings/teachings (“words”) and life (zwh/), very much as in verse 63. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, the noun zwh/ in the Johannine writings virtually always refers to the Divine/eternal life possessed by God—and to His life-giving power. Peter affirms the life-character of Jesus’ words through a genitival expression:

“(the) utterances [r(h/mata] of (the) life [zwh=$] eternal [ai)wni/ou]”

Above, I translated ai)wni/ou as “of the Age(s)”; however, it is an adjective, which here modifies the genitive noun zwh=$ (“of life”); therefore, to avoid complicating the genitive relationship, I have rendered it here as “eternal”.

Syntactically, the expression could be read either as a subjective or objective genitive. In the first instance, “eternal life” would be an attribute or characteristic of Jesus’ words; in the second instance, it would most likely refer to what Jesus’ words give or bring about. Both aspects are appropriate to the Johannine theology, in context; indeed, Jesus mentions both in v. 63:

- Subjective: His words are life
- Objective: His words (as Spirit) make live (vb zwopoei/w, i.e. give life)

Whatever Peter may have understood, precisely, at the historical level, in the literary context of the Gospel his confession combines together both of these theological aspects. It thus serves as a suitable conclusion to the entire Discourse-narrative of chapter 6. Anticipating the fuller understanding (for believers) that would come after Jesus’ exaltation (cf. the allusion to this in v. 62), Peter’s confession affirms two important theological points—points which are developed further (and more fully) elsewhere in the Gospel:

- The Divine/eternal character of Jesus’ words (r(h/mata), since he himself (as the eternal Son of God) is the Divine Word (lo/go$) incarnate (1:14).
- His words give eternal life. Since God is Spirit (4:24), His word possesses the life-giving power of His Spirit, clearly indicated by role of His Word in creation (1:3-4). The Son shares the same Divine Spirit, receiving it from the Father (3:34-35); his words thus have the same life-giving power, communicating (through the Spirit) the Divine/eternal life of God. As the Living Word, the Son’s words naturally bring life.

In the next daily note, we will look at the continuation of Peter’s confession in verse 69.

August 9: John 6:63 (8)

John 6:63, concluded

“…the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.” (v. 63b)

In this final note on Jn 6:63, we will examine the second part of the verse (b) in terms of the second Christological difficulty (related to the Bread of Life Discourse, cf. the disciples’ reaction in v. 60) outlined in the prior notes—namely, the idea that is necessary to eat Jesus (as “bread from heaven”). The first Christological difficulty—viz., Jesus’ claim of having come down from heaven (i.e., his heavenly origin)—in relation to v. 63b, was discussed in the previous note.

(2) The need to eat Jesus (as “bread from heaven”)

This aspect of the Discourse (see vv. 27, 32f, 35, 48ff, 50, 51ff) has been discussed in the prior notes, including its specific relation to the statement in v. 63a. Now, we will be looking at v. 63b: “…the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.”

In applying this statement to the idea of eating Jesus, the most obvious implication is that Jesus’ words in the Discourse to that effect must be understood (and interpreted) in a spiritual manner. If his words (r(h/mata) are Spirit, then they can only be understood correctly in a spiritual way. From the Discourse itself, it is clear that “eating” Jesus means trusting (vb pisteu/w) in him (i.e., as the one sent by God the Father from heaven). This is indicated clearly in vv. 29, 35f, 40, 47; even so, Jesus’ hearers at the time (including his disciples) would have found it difficult to understand the connection. His words became particularly “harsh” (v. 60) once Jesus began to explain this eating in terms of eating his flesh (v. 51). Some of those who heard him naturally asked, “How is this (man) able to give us [his] flesh to eat?” (v. 52).

Modern commentators continue to be “tripped up” (v. 61) over this point, but for a different reason—as many take more or less for granted that the eucharistic language in vv. 51-58 refers to a physical eating of the (sacramental) bread (i.e., in the Lord’s Supper ritual). Against this understanding, verse 63 suggests that a spiritual interpretation of the Supper is intended.

The shift from the motif of “bread” to “flesh” represents a narrowing of focus—from the Son’s incarnate “stepping down” (to earth as a human being) to the fulfillment of his mission through his death (as a human being). While the idiom of eating is the same in both instances, the emphasis of the “bread” motif is on Jesus’ heavenly origin (“bread from heaven”), while that of “flesh” (and “blood”) is on his sacrificial death. In both instances, “eating” refers to trust in Jesus (cf. above)—i.e., trust in his heavenly origin (“bread [from heaven]”) and trust in his sacrificial death (“flesh [and blood]”).

Trust results in receiving the Spirit, which the Son gives/sends to believers, having himself received it from the Father (3:34f). Only when the believer has come to be born “from above” (3:3-8)—that is, from the Spirit—is he/she able to recognize the heavenly origin and spiritual nature of Jesus’ words (cf. 3:31ff), and to begin to grasp their true meaning. Spiritual words can only be understood in a spiritual way (cp. 1 Cor 2:13ff).

In 4:10-15, the very idiom of eating/drinking is applied to the idea of believers receiving the Spirit, as the parallel in 7:37-39 makes clear. It is fair to assume that the “living bread” in chap. 6 (vv. 51) has a correspondingly similar meaning as “living water” in 4:10f; 7:38. In both instances the living (zw=n) nourishment is given by Jesus (4:10, 14; 6:27, 33, 51), just as he gives the Spirit (1:33; 16:7b; 20:22; cf. also 3:34f). Elsewhere in the Gospel, it is life (zwh/) that the Son (Jesus) gives (5:21, 26; 6:33, 57; 10:28; 17:2, etc). There is certainly a very close connection between Life and the Spirit, as stated here in v. 63.

Thus, what the believer takes in (i.e., ‘eats’ or ‘drinks’) is the Spirit, which is also living (zw=n)—which refers to the Divine/eternal life (zwh/) that God possesses. The Son gives life, but so does the Spirit (according to v. 63a); the implication is that the Son gives life through the Spirit. However, in the Bread of Life Discourse, the “living” bread is not just given by the Son, it is identified with the person of the incarnate Son (Jesus) himself. From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, this is best understood by the principle that the Son (Jesus) is present in the believer through the Spirit. Thus, one “eats” Jesus by trusting in him, and thus receiving the Spirit, which gives eternal life that the believer possesses (“holds”) within; the eternal Son (Jesus), who is life (1:4; 14:6), is also personally present through the indwelling Spirit. In so doing, one also eats/drinks the “flesh/blood” of Jesus, meaning that the life-giving (and cleansing) power of his death is communicated to believers, through the Spirit (cf. the earlier note on 1 Jn 1:7ff).

But what relation does this have to the specific words (r(h/mata) uttered by Jesus? In a sense, the believer also ‘eats’ these words, though in the Johannine idiom this is expressed more properly through the idea of the word(s) abiding within the believer, utilizing the key-verb me/nw (“remain, abide”). As discussed in the previous note, the singular noun lo/go$ can refer both to (1) a specific saying or teaching by Jesus, and (2) to the living/eternal Word of God (of the Johannine Prologue, 1:1-2, 14) with whom Jesus (the Son) is personally identified. In 1 John 1:1, these two aspects are blended together with the traditional use of lo/go$ to refer to the “account” of Jesus (i.e., the Gospel). The words abide through the presence of the abiding Word, though the repeated exhortations (in the Gospel and First Letter) indicate the importance of believers holding firm to the teachings (and example) of Jesus which they received. For the key Johannine references in this regard, using the verb me/nw, cf. 5:38; 6:27, 56; 8:31; 14:17; 15:4-10; 1 Jn 2:14, 24, 27-28; 3:9, 24; 4:12-13, 15-16; 2 Jn 2, 9. The words give life because the abiding Word gives life; both are Spirit, and must be understood and recognized according to the Spirit.

In the next daily note, we will look briefly at the confessional statement by Peter in verse 68.

August 8: John 6:63 (7)

John 6:63, continued

“…the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.” (v. 63b)

Having conducted an examination of the first part of verse 63(a) from a Christological standpoint (cf. the previous note, and the note prior), we now shall do the same for the second part of the verse (b). The Christological examination has proceeded according to the two main points of difficulty that Jesus’ disciples would have had with the teaching in the Bread of Life Discourse (see v. 60): (1) the claim by Jesus that he has come down from heaven (i.e., his heavenly origin), and (2) the idea that people need to eat Jesus (as “bread from heaven”). Let us now consider verse 63b from the standpoint of each of these Christological aspects.

(1) Jesus’ heavenly origin

The idea expressed by Jesus in v. 62 is that, once the disciples observe his exaltation (“stepping [back] up” to the Father in heaven), then they will realize that he, indeed, has “stepped down” to earth from heaven. It is this heavenly origin of Jesus (as the eternal Son of God) that underlies the type-image of the manna as “bread from heaven”; Jesus fulfills the figure-type in his own person, showing himself to be the true and living bread that has “come down from heaven”.

From a Christological standpoint, Jesus’ identity as the eternal (and pre-existent) Son of God means that he, like God the Father, possesses the fullness of the Spirit, along with the Father’s life-giving power. If God the Father is Himself Spirit (4:24), then so also is the Son, having received the full measure of the Spirit from his Father (3:34f). The creative, life-giving power of God is also possessed by the Son, being intrinsic to his identity; the Son receives everything that belongs to the Father, including His life-giving power—on this important theme in the Gospel, see esp. 1:4ff; 5:26; 6:57; 14:19.

These attributes of Spirit (pneu=ma) and Life (zwh/) are things which the Son (Jesus) possesses, and which he, in turn, is able to give to believers. He communicates them directly to believers by his presence in/with them through the Spirit. And a principal idiom of this communication is that of the word, of speaking. As the Paraclete-sayings, in particular, make clear, Jesus speaks to believers through the Spirit (see esp. 16:12-15).

From a theological standpoint, if the Son shares in the Divine Spirit (as God, 1:1; 4:24; 10:30), having received the fullness of God’s Spirit (3:34f), then also his words are Spirit; Jesus says as much here: “the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit”. This can be understood several ways, according to several specific implications of the theological premise:

- The Son’s words have a spiritual source. The Divine/heavenly origin of Jesus’ words is expressed quite clearly in 3:31ff, and in v. 34 the connection between the Son’s speaking and the Spirit is explicit:
  “For the (one) whom God (has) sent forth speaks the utterances of God, for not out of a measure does He give the Spirit.” (cp. 8:47)
  Elsewhere in the Gospel we find the repeated theme of the Son saying what he has heard from the Father (7:17; 8:26, 28, 38, 40; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 15:15), implying that his words ultimately come from God the Father (who is Spirit, 4:24).
- The Son’s words have a spiritual nature. This is explained best in terms of the association between the Spirit and life; in the Gospel of John, the noun zwh/ almost always refers to the Divine/eternal life possessed by God, but this can also be related to the physical motif of resurrection-life (as in chaps. 5 and 11). The life-giving (i.e., Divine/Spiritual) power of the Son’s words is most clearly expressed in 5:21, 24-29, but the implication is also present in 5:39-40; 8:31-32; 10:10, 16; 12:50; 17:2-3, 14, and elsewhere.
- The Son’s words must be received and understood in a spiritual manner. This principle is implicit throughout the Gospel Discourses, in which Jesus’ words always have a true and deeper meaning that goes beyond the apparent meaning. The audience typically misunderstands the key sayings or statements of Jesus, which utilize images and motifs from tradition or the natural world; this provokes questions which lead to further explanation/exposition by Jesus. The exposition, which points to the true (spiritual) meaning of the sayings, is of a Christological nature, focusing on Jesus’ self-identity as the (eternal) Son and his relationship to the Father (including the mission for which the Father sent him to earth from heaven). Only a person who has been “born from above”, from the Spirit, is able to see/know the true meaning of the Son’s words (3:3-8; cf. also the Paraclete-sayings 14:26; 15:26; 16:7ff, 13-15).

Along with these points, there is the fundamental theological theme of the Prologue, identifying Jesus, the eternal Son, also as the eternal Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God (1:1-2, 14). The close connection between the Divine Word (lo/go$) and the Divine Life (zwh/) is also a central theme of the Prologue (v. 4), assuming the theological tradition of the role of God’s Word (and Wisdom) in creating life (v. 3).

In 6:63 (also v. 68), the plural r(h/mata (sing. r(h=ma) is used; often translated “words”, r(h=ma properly refers to something spoken or uttered (i.e., “utterance”). In the Gospel of John, r(h=ma is always used in the plural, referring to specific things said by Jesus (the incarnate Son) during his time on earth. However, there can be no real doubt about the relationship between these “words” (r(h/mata) and the eternal Word (lo/go$) of the Prologue. The noun lo/go$ has a broad semantic range that resists easy or consistent translation in English. It can refer to a specific saying or teaching, as by Jesus, cf. 2:22; 4:41; 7:36, etc. This is how it is used by the disciples here in their complaint: “This word [lo/go$] is hard…” (v. 60).

At times, lo/go$ in reference to the saying(s)/teaching of Jesus, hints at the deeper theological meaning of lo/go$ in the Prologue. Of particular importance in this regard is the statement in 5:24:

“the (one) hearing my word [lo/go$], and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me, holds (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]” (cp. 17:3)

Another Johannine theme is of the Son’s word (lo/go$) abiding/remaining in the believer, being kept/held within—8:31, 37, 51ff; 12:48; 14:23-24; 17:6, 14ff; on the theme in 1 John, cf. 1:10; 2:5ff, 14. It is hard to separate this from the related idea of God’s eternal Word, identified with the person of the Son (Jesus), abiding within (and among) believers; cf. this important theological use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) in the Gospel and Letters of John. Particularly in 1 John, the twin ideas of God’s word (identified with the Gospel and teaching [of Jesus]) and of God Himself (through the Son) abiding in the believer can scarcely be separated; cp. the use of lo/go$ in 1:1 with the me/nw-passages in 2:14, 24, 27-28; 3:6, 9, 14-15, 24; 4:12-13, 15-16.

It is understandable that the disciples, unable to discern the true meaning of Jesus’ words, or recognize their spiritual nature, or comprehend their Christological significance, would complain of their difficulty (6:60). Moreover, in the context of the Johannine theology, it is quite appropriate that they would declare “this word [lo/go$] is hard!”

In the next daily note, the last of this series, we will examine v. 63b in the light of the second Christological point of difficulty (cf. above). At the same time, in conclusion, we will consider v. 63 in relation to the confessional statement by Peter in v. 68.

August 6: John 6:63 (6)

John 6:63, continued

“The Spirit is the (thing) making (a)live, the flesh does not benefit anything!” (6:63a)

As I have discussed, there are two aspects of Jesus’ teaching in the Bread of Life discourse which would have caused difficulty for his disciples (v. 60): (1) the claim by Jesus that he has come down from heaven (implying a heavenly origin) [v. 41f], and (2) the idea that people need to eat Jesus (as “bread from heaven”) [v. 52]. Both points can only be understood from the standpoint of the Christology of the Gospel. In the previous note, we looked at the contrastive (Spirit/flesh) statement in v. 63a in terms of the first Christological aspect; today we will consider the second aspect.

Even without verses 51-58, the idea that people need to “eat” Jesus would have been difficult to understand (see the reaction in v. 41f). When one includes the eucharistic language of vv. 51-58, and the specific image of eating (human) flesh and drinking (human) blood, the concept would have seemed especially grotesque and offensive (see v. 52). The disciples’ response (in v. 60) surely indicates something of the same reaction.

When Jesus’ declaration in v. 63a is considered in relation to this particular difficulty (stated rather clearly in v. 52), the Spirit/flesh contrast takes on a different level of significance. In an earlier article (cf. also the supplemental note), I discussed this verse in the particular context of the Johannine understanding of the Eucharist (i.e. the Lord’s Supper rite). When verse 63 is read in relation to the eucharistic language of vv. 51-58, it strongly suggests a spiritual (rather than sacramental) interpretation of the Supper. We shall now follow up on this discussion, looking at the matter from a Christological standpoint.

If, from a Christological standpoint, “Spirit” (pneu=ma) designates the Divine nature and status of Jesus (as the eternal Son of God), then “flesh” (sa/rc) refers to the Son’s (incarnate) life and existence as a human being; cf. the discussion in the previous note. The implication, then, of the statement in v. 63 (“the flesh does not benefit anything”) is that one does not actually, physically, eat Jesus’ human flesh. I would maintain that this premise extends even to the physical consumption of the eucharistic bread (symbolizing the flesh). It is only the Spirit, not the flesh, that has life-giving power.

Why, then, is it necessary to eat Jesus’ flesh? It is important to understand the connotation of the terms “flesh” (sa/rc) and “blood” (ai!ma) in the theological context of the Discourse. As indicated above (and in the previous note), sa/rc refers to the Son’s life and existence as a human being; the term ai!ma (“blood”) takes this point further, by referring specifically to Jesus’ death (as a human being). This conceptual terminology is relatively rare in the Johannine writings, but, where it does occur, it has a vital significance that is emphasized by the author—Jn 19:34f; 1 Jn 1:7; 5:6-8; cf. also Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 19:13. It is also a sacrificial death, which possesses the cleansing (and life-restoring) power of a sacrificial offering for sin (1 Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5; cf. Jn 1:29). This idea is expressed or alluded to repeatedly in the Bread of Life Discourse—especially in vv. 53-58.

According to the principle expressed in v. 63a, the efficacious power of Jesus’ sacrificial death (his “blood”) is communicated to believers by the Spirit. There are two components to this teaching:

(1) It is communicated to believers

In the Discourse, “eating” the living bread of Jesus means trusting (vb pisteu/w) in him; this is clearly stated or expressed throughout the discourse—vv. 29, 35f, 40, 47.

(2) It is communicated by the Spirit

The clearest indication of this, apart from v. 63 itself, is the parallel between the motif of “living bread” (v. 51) and the “living water” of 4:10-15; 7:37-39. In each instance, the motif refers to something, given by Jesus, which the believer consumes (eats/drinks), and which has the Divine/eternal attribute of “living” (zw=n). Since the Gospel writer understands the living water as referring to the Spirit, almost certainly the living bread has the same point of reference. The Son possesses the fullness of the Divine Spirit, having received it from the Father (3:34f); just as God the Father is Spirit (4:24), so also is His Son. The Life he possesses from the Father, the Son is able to communicate to believers (1:4ff; 5:26; 14:19, etc). This is expressed most clearly in the Discourse by the statement in verse 57:

“Just as the living [zw=n] Father sent me forth, and I live [zw=] through the Father, (so) also the (one) eating me—even that (one)—will live [zh/sei] through me.”

At the physical level of human existence (“flesh”), life is given/maintained through the eating of material food (“bread”); similarly, at the Divine level (of the Spirit), life is given (and preserved) through the eating of spiritual food. One “eats” the bread/flesh of Jesus himself, in a spiritual way, through the Spirit. This corresponds precisely with the contrast in 3:3-8, between an ordinary (physicial/biological) human birth and spiritual birth (“out of [i.e. from] the Spirit,” e)k pneu/mato$).

Once the believer receives the Spirit, it abides/remains (vb me/nw) within, functioning as a continuous source of (eternal) life which the believer possesses, even during his/her existence (as a human being) on earth. For this language and imagery here in the Discourse, cf. vv. 27, 35, 53, 55-57; elsewhere in the Gospel, esp. 3:34-35; 4:14; 7:38f; 14:17; cf. also 1 Jn 3:24; 4:13.

In the next daily note, we will examine the second part of verse 63[b], according to the same two Christological aspects by which we examine v. 63a.

August 5: John 6:63 (5)

John 6:63, continued

The transitional, connecting point between the Bread of Life Discourse (vv. 22-59), and the sayings/teaching of Jesus in vv. 60-71, is the response by the disciples in v. 60, in which they complain of the harshness (and difficulty) of their master’s words. In the literary and theological context of the Discourse, there are, as I have noted, two main sources of difficulty: (1) the claim by Jesus that he has come down from heaven (indicating his heavenly origin), and (2) the idea that people need to eat Jesus (as “bread from heaven”). Both of these are significant in terms of the Johannine Christology that is expressed in the Gospel, and both Christological themes certainly relate to Jesus’ statement in v. 63.

Let us begin with the first theme—that of Jesus’ heavenly origin. This aspect of verse 63 was discussed in the previous note, particularly in relation to the question in v. 62, and the idea of the disciples seeing the exaltation (“stepping up”, vb a)nabai/nw) of Jesus. Now we turn to the Christological point proper—viz., that Jesus, as the Divine Son sent by God the Father, has come down (“stepped down”, vb katabai/nw) to earth from heaven. In the theological setting of the Gospel (expressed most clearly in the Prologue), this implies Jesus’ eternal pre-existence as the Son/Logos of God.

How does this Christology relate specifically to verse 63? Let us look again at the Spirit/flesh contrast in v. 63a:

“The Spirit is the (thing) making (a)live, the flesh does not benefit anything!”

In the Johannine Gospel (as also in 1 John), the term sa/rc (“flesh”) refers specifically to one’s life and existence as a human being. In 3:6 (cf. also 1:13), an ordinary human (physical/biological) birth is in view, while in 8:15; 17:2 sa/rc denotes the human condition (on earth) more generally. Only in 1 Jn 2:16 is the word used in the kind of negative religious-ethical sense so familiar from Paul’s letters. The overall Johannine usage strongly indicates that the Spirit/flesh contrast is not religious-ethical, but metaphysical and existential. It refers to the distinction between the Divine and the human.

Of particular importance is the Christological use of sa/rc in the Gospel prologue (1:14), followed by the confessional statement in the Letters (1 Jn 4:2 [par 2 Jn 7]):

“And the Word [lo/go$] came to be flesh and set up tent [i.e. dwelt] among us, and we looked at [vb qea/omai] his splendor, splendor as of an only (Son) alongside (the) Father…”
“…every spirit that gives account as one (of) [i.e. acknowledges/confesses] Yeshua (the) Anointed having come in (the) flesh is out of [i.e. from] God”

From a Christological standpoint, sa/rc here in 6:63 would refer to the (incarnate) existence of the Son as a human being (“in [the] flesh”, e)n sarki/). The Spirit (pneu=ma), by contrast, refers to the Divine nature and status of the Son, in relation to God the Father. Since God is Spirit (4:24), so is His Son. Elsewhere in the Gospel, the Son receives the Spirit from the Father—so stated in 3:34-35, and implied in other passages (cf. 5:26; 6:57; 14:16, 19-20, 26; 15:26; 16:7b, 14-15; 17:5). Given the theology of the Prologue, the reference in 3:34, to the Father giving (the Son) the fullness of the Spirit, cannot simply reflect the traditional motif of the descent of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism. The traditional (Messianic) Christology of the Baptism-scene is maintained, with no real attempt being made by the Gospel writer to harmonize this with the implications of the pre-existence Christology of the Prologue.

The Divine nature of the Spirit in 6:63 is especially clear by its characterization as “making (a)live” (vb zwopoei/w)—emphasizing the life-giving power of God’s Spirit. In the traditional exaltation-Christology among first-century believers, this Spirit-power was associated particularly with the resurrection of Jesus, mentioned most directly in the Pauline letters (cf. Rom 1:4; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Tim 3:16). From his exalted place at God’s right hand in heaven, Jesus shares in the Divine Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; cp. 6:17) and is able to communicate the Spirit to believers.

The Gospel of John gives special prominence to this idea of Jesus giving the Spirit to believers, enhancing the traditional Messianic and exaltational Christology with a distinctive pre-existence Christology. From this Christological viewpoint, Jesus possession of the Spirit is part of his essential identity as God’s eternal Son. This is why Jesus can speak as he does in verse 63, even prior to his “stepping (back) up” to the Father.

How, then, should the declaration in v. 63a be understood, in terms of the Johannine Christology? Even though the Son is present in the flesh (as a human being), it is still the Divine Spirit entirely that possesses the power to give life. The flesh, even the human flesh of Jesus—simply as flesh—can do nothing without the presence of the Spirit. The Johannine Gospel expresses this Spiritual presence at two different levels, which, as I noted above, are never completely harmonized within the narrative. This can be represented chiastically:

- Jesus’ eternal nature and identity as God’s Son
  - The Son’s incarnate existence on earth as a human being
- The exalted Son’s return to God the Father

The Gospel narrative, from Baptism to Exaltation (death/resurrection), with its framing Spirit-references (1:32-34; 19:30/20:22), covers the central (temporal/incarnational) phase, while continually alluding to the eternal dimension (of pre-existence and return).

After the Miraculous Feeding episode (vv. 1-14), it would be natural for people to respond to Jesus, in the flesh, as a special human wonder-worker. And so they did, according to verse 14, even recognizing him as a Messianic Prophet (on which, cf. Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). Jesus himself, however, eschewed the socio-political (human) aspect of this identification, and would not allow them to exalt him in a worldly/fleshly manner (v. 15). The same contrastive theme (implying a flesh vs. Spirit / world vs. God contrast) dominates his dialogue with Pilate (18:33-38). When the crowd meets up again with Jesus (v. 25), he discerns that their attraction to him is primarily the result of his providing them with physical food to eat (v. 26)—i.e., to satisfy their flesh. Instead, as the ensuing Discourse makes clear, the primary purpose of the physical food is as a symbol of the spiritual food that he offers to humankind.

In the next daily note, we will examine v. 63a in light of this second Christological aspect.

August 4: John 6:63 (4)

John 6:63, continued

The Christological emphasis of the question by Jesus in v. 62 was discussed in the previous note. In the narrative context, the question serves as a challenge to Jesus’ disciples in the moment—as to whether they would continue to trust in him—but also is a promise of what they would see (and come to understand) in the future (much like the earlier Son of Man saying in 1:51). The difficulty surrounding Jesus’ words in the Discourse primarily involves his claim of a heavenly origin—i.e., that he has come down (lit. “stepped down”, vb katabai/nw) from heaven. Fundamentally, then, verse 62 entails a Christological point—viz., the disciples can trust that the Son (Jesus) came down from heaven, because they will see him going back up (vb a)nabai/nw, “step up”) to heaven.

Before proceeding, it is worth mentioning briefly the specific wording used in v. 62. The expression “the Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) and the verb a)nabai/nw (“step up”), used in the special Johannine theological sense, have already been discussed. The verb qewre/w is one of several sight/seeing verbs used by the Gospel writer—again in the special theological/Christological sense of seeing = knowing = trust in Jesus that leads to knowledge/vision of God. The specific verb qewre/w denotes looking closely at something (vb qea/omai)—i.e., being an observer or spectator (qewro/$). The idea, then, is that the disciples will observe the “stepping up” of the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus), much like the promise of vision in the Son of Man saying of 1:51. The verb occurs 24 times in the Gospel (out of 58 NT occurrences), making it something of a Johannine keyword; for other instances with a clear theological/Christological significance, cf. 6:40; 12:45; 14:17, 19; 16:10, 16-17ff; 17:24.

What is that they will observe? The verb a)nabai/nw, in the special Johannine theological sense (and usage), refers to the exaltation of the Son (by God the Father); elsewhere in the Gospel, this is expressed by the verb u(yo/w (“lift high”), where it is specifically used in Son of Man sayings with a comparable meaning and significance to that of 6:62—cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34. The “stepping up” by the Son is thus a result of his being “raised/lifted high” by the Father. This ascent, within the context of the Johannine narrative, involves a process—viz., of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and return to the Father. The disciples of Jesus will, in different ways, observe this process. And, when they see him “stepping up” to God the Father, then they will truly understand and know that he has “stepped down” to earth from heaven.

The heavenly origin of the Son is also indicated here by the phrase “(the place) where [o%pou] he was [h@n] at the first [to\ pro/teron]”. The imperfect form of the verb of being (h@n, “he was”) has special significance in the Gospel of John, due to its repeated use in the Prologue (1:1-2, 4, 8-10, 15 [par 30]), where it refers to the eternal pre-existence of the Son (and Logos). Particularly in 1:1-2, the Son’s presence with the Father in heaven is clearly indicated. Jesus’ return to the Father’s presence (in heaven) is alluded to at a number of points in the Gospel (esp. in the Last Discourse), being stated most clearly in 14:28; 16:10, 28, and 17:5, 11, 13, 24. The expression to\ pro/teron (“the first”) is comparable to the use of a)rxh/ (“first, beginning”) in 1:1-2; 8:25; 1 Jn 1:1; 2:13-14; cf. also prw=to$ in 1:15, 30. Again, these terms have Christological significance, in reference to the pre-existence and deity of Jesus (as the Son of God).

Jesus’ statement in v. 63 follows after the Son of Man saying (question) in v. 62, and thus should be understood in light of the Christological emphasis of v. 62. But how, exactly, does v. 63 relate to v. 62? If the question, as both a promise and a challenge, involves seeing the exaltation (“stepping up”) of Jesus (the Son of Man), then it would stand to reason that the statement in v. 63 should be read in this immediate context:

“The Spirit is the (thing) making (a)live, the flesh does not benefit anything! (and) the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.”

The initial contrast, between the Spirit and the flesh (sa/rc), would then relate to the seeing of the exalted Son of Man—that is, one sees it through the Spirit, not through the ordinary eyes of the flesh. But how does one “see” through the Spirit? This is indicated by Jesus in the earlier Nicodemus Discourse:

“if one does not come to be (born) from above, he is not able to see [i)dei=n] the kingdom of God” (3:3)

As is clear from what follows in vv. 5-8, birth “from above” (which is also a new/second birth, via the dual-meaning of a&nwqen) means the same as birth “out of the Spirit” (e)c pneu/mato$). Elsewhere in the Johannine writings (esp. 1 John), the idiom is “coming to be (born) out of God [e)k qeou=]” (1:13, etc); but since God is Spirit (4:24), the two expressions are essentially equivalent—i.e., “out of God” = “out of the Spirit”. Once a person is born of the Spirit, he/she is able to see God and the things of God (“kingdom of God”); but it is spiritual, rather than physical, sight. Cf. the symbolism of the chapter 9 healing miracle, with the thematic motif of Jesus Christ as light (by which one sees, 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46; 1 Jn 1:5ff; 2:8ff).

The emphasis in 6:63 is on the Spirit giving life; however, in the Gospel of John, light and life are closely connected—with the light of Jesus Christ leading to eternal life for those who trust in him (1:4; 3:19ff [in the context of vv. 15-17]; 8:12; 11:9-10 [in the narrative context of resurrection/life]). Similarly, in the Bread of Life Discourse, those who “eat” Jesus (meaning trusting in him) will have eternal life (6:27, 33, 40, 47, 51-54, 58); this is the significance of the expression “bread of life” (vv. 35, 48) and “living bread” (v. 51). The Father gives this Divine/eternal Life to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives it to believers (v. 57; cf. also 5:25-26; 14:19).

The development of these Christological themes in the Bread of Life Discourse is complex, and vv. 62-63 represent the climax of this development. In the next daily note, we will continue with the current discussion, looking at some of the Christological aspects of verse 63 in more detail.

August 3: John 6:63 (3)

John 6:63, continued

Having considered, in the previous note, the parallels between the Son of Man sayings in 3:13ff and 6:62, we may now examine the enigmatic and provocative question posed by Jesus:

“(And) if, then, you should observe the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first…?” (v. 62)

This question is in response to the grumbling complaint by his disciples (some of them, at least), to the effect that his teaching in the Bread of Life Discourse (“this word”, o( lo/go$ ou!to$) is “harsh” (or “hard”, sklhro/$), v. 60. Jesus’ initial response is to ask “Does this trip you up?” (v. 61); then he continues with the question in v. 62.

Most commentators regard this as an elliptical question, consisting only of its conditional protasis, and thus left hanging—with its apodosis omitted or unspoken. Many translators take the simplest approach and fill out the question “…what then?” —i.e., “And if you were to see the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first, what then?” But this does not really explain the thrust of Jesus’ question—does it imply the possibility of greater understanding, or does it offer a rebuke to the disciples, or both?

If the difficulty of Jesus’ teaching for his disciples involved the idea that he had “stepped down” (vb katabai/nw) from heaven (implying his heavenly origin), then surely his “stepping (back) up” (vb a)nabai/nw) would demonstrate the truth of his words. The a)nabai/nw/katabai/nw verb pair was used in both of the prior Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13ff), as discussed in the previous note. Particularly in 3:13, the emphasis is on the heavenly origin of the “Son of Man”; in the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus indicates his own heavenly origin (vv. 35, 38, 41-42, 50f, 57-58), making it clear that he is identifying himself with the Son of Man figure (for more on this figure-type, cf. Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). The thrust of the question in v. 62, then, would seem to be:

“If you should see me going back up to the place where I was at first [i.e. with God the Father in heaven], then would you believe that I have come down from heaven?”

In the (theological) context of the Johannine narrative, the “stepping up” of the Son—i.e., his exaltation (vb u(yo/w, “lift high” [cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34], par. to a)nabai/nw)—refers to the process of his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. The circle of Jesus’ close disciples are witnesses to this process; thus, in a real sense, the question in v. 62 entails a promise to the disciples (i.e., of what they will see), much like the Son of Man saying in 1:51.

At the same time, it presents a challenge to Jesus’ followers in the moment—a moment of decision: will they continue to trust in him, despite the difficulty of his words, or will they turn away? According to v. 66, many of his followers turned away; verse 67 suggests that only the Twelve remained (of whom only eleven were true disciples, vv. 70-71). In any case, the clear implication is that the group of Jesus’ devoted followers was greatly reduced to a much smaller circle, and that his teaching (in the Bread of Life Discourse) played a role in this development.

The Christological focus of the challenge is perhaps to be implied by the use of the term lo/go$ in v. 60: “This word [lo/go$] is hard—who is able to hear it?” If the fundamental difficulty for the disciples involved Jesus’ claim of a heavenly origin, then an allusion to the Gospel Prologue, with its important use of lo/go$ (1:1ff, 14), is likely intended by the Gospel writer. This is only one aspect of the difficulty surrounding Jesus’ teaching (in the Discourse), but it is the primary focus of v. 62.

In the chapter 6 narrative, there is a subtle and implied narrowing of the audience for Jesus’ words—from a large public crowd (vv. 22-25ff), to a smaller group of Jews in the synagogue (vv. 41ff, 52ff, cf. verse 59), to Jesus’ own disciples (vv. 60ff). Some commentators would attribute this to a complex authoring/editorial process, involving different layers and stages of composition for the Gospel. According to at least one theory (by U. C. van Wahlde in his 3-volume commentary [Eerdmans Critical Commentary series, 2010]), Jesus’ question here in vv. 61c-62 belongs to the third edition of the Gospel, along with the eucharistic verses 51-58 (V2: pp. 319-22, 330-2). According to his reconstruction, in the second edition of the Gospel, the Discourse concluded with vv. 47-50 (and the notice in v. 59), after which came the disciples’ grumbling response in v. 60; Jesus then responds (v. 61ab) with the Spirit-statement of v. 63, without any reference to the Son of Man question in v. 62.

While such theories are intriguing, they remain highly speculative. In any case, the last author/editor of the Gospel (i.e., van Wahlde’s third edition) certainly intended to emphasize the Christological aspect of the narrative, by adding/including the Son of Man question in v. 62. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the verse in its present context. And, in the present context, the Spirit-saying in v. 63, follows the Son of Man question in v. 62. The Spirit-saying thus relates specifically to the Christological emphasis that is brought to bear by the question in v. 62. We must keep this in mind, as we turn now to examine verse 63, which we will begin to do in the next daily note.

August 2: John 6:63 (2)

John 6:63, continued

This set of notes is examining the saying of Jesus in John 6:63, from a Christological standpoint—that is, in terms of the Johannine Christology, as expressed (primarily) in the Gospel. This Christological aspect is largely established by the immediate context of the verse—particularly, the words of Jesus in vv. 61-62. However, in order to understand the significance of the Son of Man saying in v. 62, we must first examine the earlier parallel in 3:13. Here again I give vv. 12-15 in translation (cf. the previous note):

“If I told you (about) the (thing)s on earth, and you do not trust, how (then), if should tell you (about) the (thing)s above (the) heavens, will you trust? (For) indeed, no one has stepped up into heaven, if not the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven—the Son of Man. And, just as Moshe lifted high the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to be lifted high, (so) that every (one) trusting in him should hold (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e., eternal life].”

There are several points of emphasis here that are clearly relevant to the context of 6:62f, and form distinct parallels in terms of the Johannine theology and mode of expression. Let us consider each of these.

1. Jesus’ self-identification as the Son of Man. Throughout the Gospel Tradition, Jesus frequently refers to himself as “the Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou), or identifies himself with that expression. In a number of the Son of Man sayings, the expression designates a heavenly figure, who functions as God’s chosen representative (in an eschatological setting), drawing upon a line of (Jewish) tradition based on Daniel 7:13-14. For more on this background, cf. Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed,” and the supplemental study on Dan 7:13-14 in relation to the Son of Man sayings. In other sayings, Jesus uses the expression in reference to his suffering and death. Both of these aspects are present in the Johannine sayings, including here in 3:13ff.

2. The use of a)nabai/nw/katabai/nw, in connection with the Son of Man figure. The Gospel of John regularly uses the common verbs a)nabai/nw (“step up”, i.e. come/go up) and katabai/nw (“step down,” i.e. come/go down) in a distinctive theological (and Christological) sense. The verb a)nabai/nw refers (or alludes) to the incarnation and mission of the Son—his “stepping down” to earth; similarly, the verb katabai/nw refers to the completion of his mission, and to his exaltation (“stepping up”) and return to the Father. Both verbs occur in the first Johannine Son of Man saying (1:51), and also here in 3:13ff. From a Christological standpoint, both verbs signify the heavenly origin of Jesus—as the Divine/eternal Son, sent to earth by God the Father. The use of the expression “Son of Man” conveys this aspect in traditional (eschatological and Messianic) language (cf. above).

3. Association with Moses traditions—fulfillment of the Moses figure-type. The context of 3:13 and 6:62, in each case, entails the application of ancient Moses-traditions to the person of Jesus. In 3:13ff, it is the ‘bronze serpent’ tradition (Num 21:9), while 6:62 (in its literary setting) is connected with the manna tradition(s) (Exod 16; Num 11:7-9; Deut 8:3ff), by way of the phrase “bread out of heaven” (6:31ff; Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40; Neh 9:15, 20). In each instance, the traditional motif and symbolism is applied to the person (and work) of Jesus, as the fulfillment of a type. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is associated, in a comparative way, with Moses (3:14; 6:32), indicating how he, as the true fulfillment of the figure-type, far surpasses Moses himself—cf. 1:17; 5:45-46; 7:19ff; 9:28-29. There are numerous other allusions, developing this same theme (comparing Jesus with Moses and/or the Torah); beyond this, the very conception of Jesus as the Messiah, in the Gospel of John, seems to be centered (primarily) on the Messianic Prophet figure-types (including Moses as “the Prophet” who is to come)—1:21, 25; 4:25ff; 6:14; 7:40; cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

4. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Tradition has the ultimate purpose of producing trust in him (leading to eternal life). This is clearly stated in 3:15 (continuing in vv. 16ff), and is equally prominent in the Bread of Life Discourse (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47f, 51ff, 57-58), leading up to vv. 62-63 (cf. also v. 68).

With these important parallels in mind, let us turn to 6:62. We must keep in view the immediate context; in response to Jesus’ teaching (in the Discourse), some of his disciples declared: “This word [lo/go$] is hard—who is able to hear it?” (v. 60). The adjective sklhro/$ is typically translated “hard”, but fundamentally means “dry” (vb ske/llw, “be[come] dry”). The basic connotation is of the harshness of dry ground, etc; here, in the context of the Moses/Exodus traditions (cf. above), it almost certainly alludes to Israel’s experience during the desert/wilderness journey, when the people grumbled (for lack of food and water, etc). Indeed, this allusion would seem to be confirmed by the use of the verb goggu/zw (“murmur, mutter,” often in the sense of complaining, i.e., “grumble”); cf. LXX Exod 16:7; Num 11:1; 14:27, etc:

“And Yeshua, having seen [i.e. known] (with)in himself that his learners [i.e. disciples] were muttering [goggu/zousin] about this, said to them: ‘Does this trip you up?'” (v. 61)

The verb skandali/zw is a bit difficult to translate in English; it essentially refers to a person falling into a trap (or snare, ska/ndalon), with the verb skandali/zw denoting the cause of falling. It is typically used in a generalized and figurative sense for anything that can ‘trip up’ a person. In the New Testament, it occurs almost exclusively (26 of 29 occurrences) in the Gospel sayings/teaching of Jesus—in the Gospel of John, only here and in 16:1; for use outside of the Gospels, see 1 Cor 8:13; 2 Cor 11:29.

What is it that “trips up” (skandali/zei) the disciples? In the literary context (of the Bread of Life Discourse), it can only be Jesus’ teaching identifying himself with the “bread from heaven” (cf. the discussion in the previous note). Two aspects of this identification would have been particularly problematic: (1) the implication that Jesus has come down (vb katabai/nw) from heaven, and thus has a heavenly origin; and (2) that, as the true bread, it is necessary for a person to eat Jesus. On the latter point, Jesus clearly, in the Discourse, explains this in terms of trusting in him; even so, it would have been difficult for people at the time to have understood this application of the idiom. Even more provocative is the eucharistic language in vv. 51-58, which further elaborates the problematic idea of eating Jesus (as bread) in terms of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. When viewed from the standpoint of the original historical context—i.e., teaching Jesus would have given to his disciples and others at the time (see v. 59)—this would have made no immediate sense whatsoever. The thought of consuming a person’s flesh and blood would, indeed, have struck many in the audience as harsh (and offensive).

One can certainly sympathize with the disciples’ response. Jesus’ own response, in turn, is seemingly ambiguous and enigmatic:

“(And) if, then, you should observe the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first…?” (v. 62)

This curious question will be examined in the next daily note.