Category: Studies on the Spirit

Exegetical and Theological studies on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and Christian Tradition. A specialized repurposing of the Saturday Series feature.

Studies on the Spirit, The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 24)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 24: The FLesh (Part 4)

In the previous study, we examined the use of the word sa/rc (“flesh”) in the first four chapters of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Much of the distinctive Pauline understanding of “the flesh” is presented in these passages. We now turn to the occurrences of sa/rc (and the flesh-concept) in the final two chapters.

Sa/rc in Galatians (chapters 5-6)

Eight of the ten occurrences of the noun sa/rc in chaps. 5-6 are found in the main Exhortation (exhortatio) section (5:1-6:10), with the remaining two in the Epistolary Postscript (6:11-18 [vv. 12-13]).

In chapters 3-4, Paul provided arguments in support of his central proposition (propositio, 2:16-21), arguing that believers in Christ (and, particularly, non-Jewish or ‘Gentile’ believers) are no longer bound by the terms (viz., the Torah regulations) of the old covenant. Instead, in Christ there is a new covenant—one that is no longer defined by the “letter” (i.e., a written law-code), but by the Spirit, as Paul argues in 2 Cor 3:6-18. The old covenant, which is closely related to the old order of the things (i.e., the created order), is fundamentally characterized by “flesh” (sa/rc), which is why, in Paul’s mind, there is such a close relationship between the Law (i.e., the Torah) and sin. Believers in Christ have been freed from the old order of things (i.e., they/we are a “new creation”, 6:15; cf. 2 Cor 5:17)—which means being set free from both the enslaving power of sin and the binding power of the Torah (see the exposition in chaps. 3-4 [esp. 3:19-22ff] and the discussion in Romans 7). Paul restates this important principle of freedom at the beginning of the Exhortation:

“For freedom (the) Anointed (One) has set us free! You must stand, then, and must not again be held in (bondage) by a yoke of slavery.” (5:1)

The “slavery” (doulei/a) refers to both sin and the Torah regulations. Believers in Christ (particularly, the non-Jewish Galatian believers) must not put themselves back in bondage to the Torah (viz., its regulations as binding requirements), as Paul makes clear again (emphasizing the representative rite of circumcision) in vv. 2ff. At the same time, they/we must not become (effectively) enslaved again to the power of sin. The Exhortation deals with both these points, but the heart of it has more particularly the latter in view. In this regard, the first occurrence of the noun sa/rc (“flesh”) is at the center of the principal issue, as Paul states:

“For you (have) been called upon freedom, brothers—only, th(is) freedom (must) not (be) toward a rushing away to the flesh, but (rather) through the love you must be a slave to each other.” (5:13)

The noun a)formh/ literally means a “rushing” (o(rmh/) “from” (a)po/) one thing toward another. In this case, Paul is describing a situation where believers are quick to rush away from their new identity (i.e., new creation) in Christ and (back) toward the old order of things (i.e., the “flesh”). Insofar as believers are to become ‘enslaved’, it is not to the way of sin nor to the way of the Torah regulations, but only to “the love” —i.e., the love that is realized for us in Christ, summarized and epitomized by the ‘love command’ (vv. 14f; 6:2ff), whereby by we show love to one another, selflessly and in a sacrificial manner (according to Jesus’ own example). Essentially, this is the only ‘command’ from the Torah regulations that remains for us as believers, all the other commands and regulations being subsumed under it.

This focus on love helps us to understand what Paul has in mind, especially, when warning believers about “the flesh”. He is primarily referring to selfish and self-centered behavior that is harmful or detrimental to others (see v. 15). As it turns out, the ‘love command’ is not a written command that we (as believers) obey; rather, it is driven by the presence and power of the Spirit as a guiding force. Indeed, in the famous section that follows in vv. 16-25, Paul explicitly juxtaposes the Spirit and “the flesh”, setting them in contrast. This was already done earlier in the probatio (chaps. 3-4, cf. the previous study), but now Paul is applying the principle laid out in his proposition (2:16-21) to the life of the believer; he is presenting some of the results and consequences of the freedom that believers now have in Christ. As believers, we are free from the enslaving power of sin, and also free from the binding power of the Torah regulations (which includes ethical rules and commands). What does this mean? What is the dynamic now for believers under the new covenant?

Paul expounds this memorably here in the Exhortation, particularly in vv. 16-25. There is a careful symmetric-chiastic structure to this section, which I have already outlined in earlier studies; it is worth providing this again:

    • Exhortation: “walk [peripate/w] in the Spirit” (v. 16)
      • Conflict for believers: “flesh against the Spirit” and “Spirit against flesh” (v. 17)
        • Affirmation for believers: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Law” (v. 18)
          • Works of the flesh (vv. 19-21)
          • Fruit of the Spirit (vv. 22-23a)
        • Affirmation for believers: If the fruit of the Spirit is present, “there is no Law” (v. 23b)
      • Resolution of conflict: the flesh has been crucified (with Christ) (v. 24)
    • Exhortation: “walk [stoixe/w] in the Spirit” (v. 25)

There are three concentric pairs (vv. 16-18, 23b-25) surrounding the central lists of vices (“works of the flesh”) and virtues (“fruit of the Spirit”). These pairs may be summarized thus:

    • Exhortation (vv. 16, 25)
    • Conflict—Flesh vs. Spirit (vv. 17, 24)
    • Affirmation regarding freedom (vv. 18, 23b)

Each of these will be discussed, briefly, in turn.

Exhortation for believers—Gal 5:16, 25 [detailed note]

These two exhortations are similar and closely connected:

    1. 16: “But I relate (to you): walk about in the Spirit and you will not (at all) complete the impulse of the flesh”
    2. 25: “If we live in the Spirit, (so) also we should walk in line in the Spirit”

The expression “in/by the Spirit” in Greek is the dative form pneu/mati—there is no preposition. On the basis of other instances in Paul’s writings (Rom 2:29; 8:9; 9:1; 14:17; 15:16; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 6:1; Col 1:8), it may be filled out as e)n pneu/mati, “in the Spirit”, though this ought to be understood primarily in an instrumental sense, i.e. “in the (power) of the Spirit”, or “through the Spirit”, “by the Spirit” —by the power and guidance, etc., of the Spirit. Of the seven uses of this form in Galatians, all but one occur here in the Exhortation (5:5, 16, 18, 25 [twice]; 6:1)—in other words, the Christian manner of life and behavior, etc, is (to be) governed by the Spirit.

The verbs peripate/w (“walk about”) and stoixew (“go/walk in line”) are parallel—part of an ancient and traditional path/walking idiom, whereby a person’s characteristic and regular/habitual behavior is referenced in terms of “walking”. The first of these verbs (peripate/w) is a common verb, which may, of course, be taken in the concrete, literal sense of physically walking/moving about an area; however, it is frequently used in a more abstract philosophical and ethical sense of a regular/habitual mode of behavior, lifestyle, etc. (as mentioned). This is how it is used in much of the New Testament, especially in the letters; it occurs 32 times in the Pauline letters, with this particular imperatival form also appearing in Col 2:6; 4:5 and Eph 5:2, 8. Consider also, for comparison, the other uses of the imperative form peripatei=te, parallel to peripatei=te pneu/mati here, “walk about in the Spirit“:

    • Colossians 2:6— “walk about in him [i.e. in Christ]”
    • Colossians 4:5— “walk about in wisdom“
    • Ephesians 5:2— “walk about in love“
    • Ephesians 5:8— “walk about as offspring [i.e. children] of light“
    • Note also the one non-Pauline occurrence, in John 12:35 (Jesus speaking): “walk about as (ones) holding the light“

The verb stoixe/w is a more precise and forceful verb to use, i.e. “walk/step in line, in an orderly manner”. If peripate/w in verse 16 refers to believers’ “walk” generally, here stoixe/w likely indicates a “walk” that is properly governed and regulated by the Spirit. The first verb in v. 25 (zw=men, “we live”) is a present indicative form, suggesting the current reality of believers’ situation; on the other hand, stoixw=men (“we should walk in line”) is a present subjunctive form, i.e. “we should…”, “we ought to…”, etc. A life regulated and guided by the Spirit still requires something from us—a willingness to allow and accept the Spirit’s guidance, and so to “walk” in it.

The noun sa/rc is used in the specific expression e)piqumi/an sarko\$ (“impulse of the flesh”). I translate the Greek work e)piqumi/a as “impulse [upon/toward something]” (cf. the use of o(rmh/ in v. 13, above); however, in anthropological terms, it often covers a similar range of meaning as “heart” and “mind”, the verb e)piqume/w being frequently rendered, “set (one’s) heart/mind upon (something)”. We have already seen how this terminology was used by early Christians, in an anthropological and ethical-religious sense. There is an “impulse” in the “flesh” of believers which, if followed, can lead a person toward (and into) sin. In this regard, the “flesh” (and its “impulses”) is part of the older order of creation; believers are freed from it, but there remain vestiges of the old way of things in a person’s human nature (“flesh”). Cf. James 1:14-15; 1 Pet 1:14; 2:11; 4:2f; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:18; 3:3; Jude 16, 18; 1 Jn 2:16-17.

This way of expressing the conflict/struggle that believers face is thus hardly original to Paul, but he developed it and gave to it a much deeper (and clearer) theological and anthropological outline. Exactly half (38) of the 76 New Testament occurrences of e)piqumi/a are in the Pauline letters; this demonstrates the importance of the term for Paul. Believers have been set free from the power of sin, but there remain impulses toward sin in the “flesh” (i.e., created human nature, viz., the old creation) of the believer. It is against these “impulses” that believers must still struggle, as they/we have not (yet) been set free from “the flesh”. This aspect of Paul’s theology (and anthropology) will be discussed further in the upcoming study on the use of sa/rc in Romans.

Conflict for believers (Flesh vs. Spirit)—Gal 5:17, 24 [detailed note]

This conflict is expressed two different ways by Paul: (1) the current conflict (v. 17), and (2) its resolution (v. 24).

Verse 17:

“aFor the flesh sets (its) impulse against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh—bfor these lie (stretched out) (one) against the other, so that you might not do the (thing)s which you might wish (to do).”

Here, in verse 17, we find the related verb e)piqume/w (cf. on the noun e)piqumi/a, above), which I have translated by way of conflating two valid renderings: (a) “have an impulse toward (something)”, and (b) “set (one’s) mind/heart upon (something)”. The principal statement is 17a, which juxtaposes “flesh” and “Spirit”, setting them against each other. Previously in Galatians kata\ sarko/$/pneu/mato$ meant “according to the flesh/Spirit”, here it means, more precisely and fundamentally, “against the flesh/Spirit”. The opposition and mutual incompatibility (even hostility), indicated throughout Galatians, is here expressed directly.

Verse 17b expounds the essential statement with two, related, explanatory clauses:

    1. “for these [i.e. flesh and the Spirit] lie out (one) against the other…” —The verb Paul uses is a)nti/keimai, “to lie (stretched out) against”, as two opposing animals or armies, etc; the preposition a)nti, like kata, means “against”, but in the more precise sense of two opponents facing each other.
    2. “…so that you might not do the (thing)s which you might wish (to do)”—The subordinating conjunctive particle i%na could indicate either a purpose or a result clause, i.e. “so (in order) that…” or “so that (as a result)…”; formally, a result clause is more appropriate, however, there is clearly the sense of a will being imposed, whether that of the opposing forces, or the overriding will/purpose of God (or both). The two verbs—qe/lhte and poih=te—are both subjunctive forms (“might wish”, “might do”); in other words, each opposing force obstructs and resists the will and action of the other.

Anyone familiar with Paul’s letters will recognize the similarity between verse 17 and Romans 7:15-25. Even though, by consensus of most commentators, in Romans 7, Paul is dramatizing the situation of human beings prior to faith in Christ, while Galatians 5 relates specifically to believers as they live in Christ and by the Spirit, the dynamic he describes in each letter is very similar. The main difference, I believe, is that, in Romans 7, the flesh is additionally bound up under the enslaving forces of the Law and sin; in Galatians 5, on the other hand, only the flesh (the “impulse of the flesh”) is involved. The believer, as Paul teaches repeatedly in Galatians (and in Romans, for that matter) is free from both the Law of the old covenant and the “law of sin”.

Verse 24:

“But the (one)s of (the) Anointed [Yeshua] have put to the stake [i.e., crucified] the flesh (together) with the sufferings and impulses (it brings)”

If the conflict (between flesh and Spirit) was stated in verse 17 (above), the way of resolution to the conflict (if believers are willing to accept it) is presented in verse 24. The idea of “putting to the stake” (e)stau/rwsan, “they have put to the stake”) refers again to the believers’ identification with, and symbolic/spiritual participation in, the death (crucifixion) of Christ; this was already stated, famously and most powerfully, in 2:19f:

“…I died away to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been put to the stake (together) with the Anointed…”

Through identification with the crucifixion (at the spiritual level), believers are freed from the Law, and, with it, from the power of sin (the “curse” of the Law, cf. 3:10-14). This freedom is expressed vividly in terms of dying—becoming dead to the Law; in Col 2:13-14, we find the even more dramatic image of the Law (and sin [debt/trespass]) itself dying, being nailed to the cross. The conjunction su/n, “(together) with” also appears in Gal 2:19, but prefixed to the verb stauro/w (“put to the stake”) in the compound form sustauro/w (“put to the stake [together] with”). There the conjunction connects the believer with Christ; here, in a different, opposite direction, it connects the flesh with its “sufferings and impulses”

As indicated above, while Paul declares that, in Christ, believers are free from the Law and the power of sin, he never goes so far as to extend this freedom to the flesh. As he indicates repeatedly in his letters, and specifically here in Gal 5:17 (cf. above), believers face a regular conflict and daily struggle against the “impulse(s) of the flesh”. This is an important implication for the language of verse 24, when Paul states that believers (“the ones of Christ“) have put to death (crucified) the flesh—in other words, it does not happen automatically (or magically) as a result of Christ’s death; it requires involvement by the believer, in at least two respects:

    • Identification/participation with the crucifixion at the symbolic/spiritual level, through faith and the work of the Spirit—see esp. Gal 2:19-20 (cf. above)
    • The daily life of the believer, whereby the flesh—both its “impulse” and its “works” —are regularly “put to death” in a practical, habitual sense, cf. Rom 6:6ff; 8:13; Col 3:5; also Gal 6:8-9, 14; and note Jesus’ words in Mark 8:34 par. In traditional theological language, this is sometimes referred to as (self-)mortification.

Just as we are exhorted to “walk” in the Spirit (even though we already live in the Spirit), so we are exhorted to put the flesh to death (i.e. “crucify” it), even though we have already been “crucified with Christ”.

Affirmation for believers (regarding Freedom)—Gal 5:18, 23b [detailed note]

Here, again, Paul makes specific reference to freedom from the Law, which is the primary theme running throughout the letter. The two verses, looked at in tandem, are:

    1. 18: “But if you are (being) led in the Spirit, you are not under (the) Law”
      V. 23b: “…(but) against these (thing)s [i.e. the fruit of the Spirit] there is no Law“

A casual reading of vv. 16-25 might easily miss the connection between these statements, the parallel being as much conceptual as it is formal. A close examination, however, demonstrates that Paul is making very similar claims; we can best see this by dividing each verse into two parts—the first presenting a conditional clause or phrase involving the Spirit, and the second being a conclusive affirmation regarding believers and the Law. The fundamental point Paul makes is that believers are guided by the Spirit, and not by the Torah (or any other external code of laws/rules). Believers act in (and by) the power of the Spirit, being guided (willingly) by the Spirit; note in this regard:

    • Believers, through faith in Christ, receive the Spirit from God and begin “in the Spirit” (3:2-3, 14; 4:6)
    • God works in believers through the Spirit (3:5; 4:6)
    • We live in the Spirit (5:25)

There is a close formal parallel between v. 18a and 25a:

    1. ei) pneu/mati a&gesqe, “if we are led in the Spirit, (then)…” (v. 18a)
      ei) zw=men pneu/mati, “if we live in the Spirit, (then)…” (v. 25a)

Both, I believe, represent actual conditions, reflecting the reality of the Spirit in the lives of believers. In this regard, let us turn to verse 23, which, as I indicated, is not precisely a conditional clause. In fact, it is dependent upon vv. 22-23a, the list of “fruit of the Spirit” (karpo\$ tou= pneu/mato$, cf. below)—the demonstrative pronoun toiou=to$, “these (thing)s”, refers to the nine items representing the “fruit”. Effectively, Paul is establishing a condition—i.e., if you exhibit the “fruit” of the Spirit, if the Spirit is working and you allow yourself to be led and guided by it, then know that “against these things…” The use of the preposition kata (“against”) is significant, as it reflects the conflict for believers described in vv. 17 and 24. Throughout Galatians, Paul has mentioned three associated forces related to this conflict: (1) the flesh, (2) the Law, and (3) the power of sin.

18: ou)k e)ste\ u(po\ no/mon (“…you are not under Law”)
V. 23: ou)k e)stin no/mo$ (“…there is no Law”)

This is, for Paul, perhaps the fundamental message he wishes to deliver to the Galatians, an affirmation of Christian identity, stated simply, and by way of negation. In verse 18, this relates back to the condition, “if you are led in the Spirit…”, and indicates the result: “…(then) you are not under the Law”. It is hard to imagine a simpler, more definite statement that believers are no longer bound and obligated to observe the commands of the Old Testament/Jewish Law (Torah). This is especially so when one considers the normal view of Torah precisely as (authoritative) instruction, a set of rules and precepts by which one is led and guided in the way of truth and to fulfill the will of God. For believers, it is rather the Spirit which provides the guidance traditionally ascribed to the Torah.

The “Works of the Flesh” and the “Fruit of the Spirit” (5:19-23a)

The statement in verse 23 is especially interesting by comparison, as it has to be understood in the context of vv. 22-23, providing a conclusion to the list of the “fruit of the Spirit” — “against these things [i.e. the fruit] there is no Law”. At first glance, it is not entirely clear what Paul means by this statement. Contextually, and upon examination, one may consider it according to the following aspects:

    1. There is no law against the fruit of the Spirit since they are all good and holy and, practically speaking, there is no law against doing good.
    2. The Law is principally about doing, i.e. “works” (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10-13), but the fruit of the Spirit are not works (as contrasted with “works of the flesh”).
    3. For believers the conflict is now between the Spirit and the flesh (cf. throughout Gal 5:1-6:10)—we are dead to the Law (2:19-20) and freed from its commands (2:4; 3:13, 23-25; 4:1-7, 21-31; 5:1ff), so it no longer applies.
    4. The guidance believers receive (from the Spirit) in governing or regulating attitudes and behavior in ethical (and religious) matters is not “Law” in the sense that the Torah commands are considered “Law”

Arguments can be made in favor of each of these viewpoints; however, I would say that the last two best capture Paul’s meaning and intent.

At the heart of this section (and the Exhortation as a whole) is the contrasting list of “the works of the flesh” (ta\ e&rga th=$ sarko/$) and “the fruit of the Spirit” (o( karpo\$ tou= pneu/mato$), patterned after the traditional Greco-Roman and Jewish ‘virtue and vice lists’ (cf. Betz, pp. 281-3). It is noteworthy that, as alluded to above, the “flesh” is associated with specific kinds of behavior (“works”, i.e., deeds/acts), while the Spirit is not; instead, the “fruit” of the Spirit refers to personal characteristics and attributes, which are manifest in a person’s actions but are not limited or defined by them. Each list provides important information about what Paul has in mind, specifically, when he used the term “flesh” (sa/rc), and how the Spirit relates to believers’ struggle against the “impulses of the flesh” (cf. above).

Here is a thumbnail of the “works of the flesh” (vv. 19-21):

    • pornei/a—denoting involvement in acts of prostitution, but typically used more broadly as a reference to different kinds of illicit/immoral sexual conduct (or symbolically so, for idolatry and false religion).
    • a)kaqarsi/a (“uncleanness”)—impurity, (and spec. acts that are impure or which lead to impurity) whether in a physical-ritual or ethical-moral sense.
    • a)se/lgeia—referring to licentious and unrestrained behavior; it is often used in a sexual context, but it can refer to a wide range of inappropriate conduct (and speech).
    • ei)dwlolatri/a—lit., “service provided to images [i.e., idols]”, as a term for the worship/veneration of deities other than the true God, and, by extension, for false or inappropriate religious practices in general.
    • farmakei/a—use of drugs/potions (with the implication of a poisonous or dangerous quality), but the term can be applied to a range of magical/occult practices.
    • e&xqra (“hostility”), plural—acts of hostility toward another person.
    • e&ri$ (“fighting, quarrelling, strife”)—as a general kind of behavior or tendency.
    • zh=lo$—being “hot” (hot-tempered, etc.), particularly with regard to anger or jealousy (toward another).
    • qumo/$ (cf. on e)piqumi/a, above), plural—impulses (and impulsive acts) toward anger, etc.; the behavior exhibits violent emotions and passions that drive a person to act.
    • e)riqei/a, plural—denoting work for hire and, thus, to a person that hires him/herself out; a mercenary self-interest is implied, which can be manifested in contentious behavior and scheming.
    • dixostasi/a, plural—denoting “standing in two (parts)” and referring here, specifically, to behavior that promotes division (and divisiveness) or leads to it.
    • ai%resi$, plural—literally, “choosing”, viz., one side or viewpoint over another; the term can imply holding positions that differ or diverge from the majority (and thus can lead to dissension and strife), but it can also be used specifically for false/aberrant religious views (and adherence) [thus our word “heresy” comes from hairesis].
    • fqo/no$, plural—acts or manifestations of envy and jealousy.
    • me/qh, plural—instances of drunkenness (spec. from wine, but other intoxicants as well).
    • kw=mo$, plural—instance of feasting, with tendency toward drunkenness and other excessive or unrestrained behavior.

There is a tendency to think of “flesh” primarily in terms of sexuality (or sensuality), but this list clearly shows that such ‘carnality’ represents only a small portion; greater attention is given to contentious behavior and conduct that is otherwise disruptive to society and harmful to others (cf. verse 15).

Here is the “fruit of the Spirit” (vv. 22-23a):

    • a)ga/ph (“love”)
    • xara/ (“joy[fulness], gladness”)
    • ei)rh/nh (“peace”)
    • makroqumi/a—lit., “(being) long of impulse” (cf. on e)piqumia/, above), i.e., slow to anger, exhibiting patience, forbearance, and restraint.
    • xrhsto/th$—lit., “usefulness”, i.e., being useful and profitable (to others), often connoting virtues of goodness, kindness, gentleness, etc.
    • a)gaqwsu/nh (“goodness”), with specific connotations of benevolence, beneficence, etc.
    • pi/sti$ (“trust, faith”), including the specific attributes of “trustworthiness, faithfulness”.
    • prau+/th$ (“meekness, gentleness”)
    • e)gkra/teia—lit., “having strength/power in”, i.e., having control in regard to something, specifically having control over oneself (self-control), acting with restraint, etc.

To this list, a few manuscripts various add/include: (a) u(pomonh/ (“remaining under” [i.e., exhibiting patience and endurance] in hardship, etc.); and (b) a(gnei/a (“purity”, often in the specific sense of “chastity”).

The Exhortation in 6:8

Toward the end of the Exhortation (in 6:8), Paul again contrasts the “flesh” and the Spirit, using a different ethical-religious idiom (sowing/reaping) and exhorting the Galatians believers with a particularly stern warning (cf. verse 7; 5:21):

“(For it is) that the (one) scattering (seed) into/unto his own flesh out of his flesh shall harvest decay, but the (one) scattering (seed) into/unto the Spirit out of the Spirit shall harvest (the) Life of the Age(s)!”

The harvest metaphor strongly suggests an eschatological/Judgment orientation, which is rather clearly implied within the context (v. 9) and by the use of the expression “life of the Age(s)”; cf. Rom 6:20-23. The Spirit is associated with life (i.e., the Blessed/Divine and eternal life), while the “flesh” is connected with “decay” (fqora/)—that is, the decay (or corruption) and death that attends the human condition (and, indeed, all of the old order of creation). As noted above, “flesh” functions a kind of shorthand for the old order of things (i.e., the old creation), while the Spirit represents and signifies the new order (the new creation). Cf. the same associative juxtaposition of flesh/death vs. Spirit/life in Rom 8:6, 13.

The Epistolary Postscript (6:11-18 [vv. 12-13])

In the Postscript to the Letter (6:11-18), Paul reiterates his central proposition (and its implications), casting it in a polemic frame in vv. 12-13 (where the term sa/rc twice more occurs). Paul claims the people who would compel the Galatian believers to be circumcised (and to submit to the Torah regulations) are motivated by “the flesh”. On the surface, given the overall Pauline use of the term (see above), this means that they are driven by the old order of things (and the old covenant), not the new order/covenant of Christ and the Spirit. Yet he also implies that they are acting out of superficial and dishonest self-interest and thus reflect (by their conduct) a number of the “works of the flesh” (cf. the list above). Paul specifically states that they “…wish to have a good appearance [vb eu)proswpe/w] in (the) flesh”, and adds further that they act this way (at least in part) so that “they might not be pursued [i.e., persecuted] for the stake [i.e., cross] of the Anointed”. He probably has in mind a dynamic similar to the one described in 2:11-13f, whereby Jewish Christians feel cultural-religious pressure to conform to a strict Torah-observing milieu.

In verse 12, Paul seems to be referring to the “flesh” of the ‘Judaizers’ (i.e., the ones urging/compelling the Galatians to be circumcised), viz., that they are acting/responding according to the flesh. However, in the following v. 13, Paul presents this in terms of the Galatians’ “flesh” (appropriate in light of their becoming circumcised); it is claimed that these ‘Judaizers’ act so that they might boast in the Galatians’ “flesh”. In this instance, it is the (non-Jewish) Galatian believers who would be acting according to the old order of things (“the flesh”)—viz., by becoming circumcised and submitting to the binding authority of the Torah regulations. Paul goes on to state again, in the boldest possible terms, that believers belong to the new creation, in which the old order of things has passed away, and thus the old Torah regulations no longer have the same meaning (or force of Law):

“For, indeed, (the) cutting around [i.e., circumcision] is not anything, nor is (having) a foreskin—but only (being) a new formation [i.e., creation] (matters)!” (v. 15)

Paul’s terse phrasing (“only a new formation”) is difficult to render and requires some glossing (as above) to fill out and clarify the English translation. Whether a person has been circumcised (or not) means nothing; much the same could (and would) be said of all the other Torah regulations as well. The only thing that matters is being a “new creation” in Christ. The believer in Christ is part of this new creation, this new order of things, in which God’s Law is now fulfilled by following the (internal) guidance of the Spirit.

References above marked “Betz” are to Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1979).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 23)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 23: The FLesh (Part 3)

In the previous study, we examined the use of the word sa/rc (“flesh”) in the New Testament, surveying, in particular, the occurrences in the Synoptic Gospels (and Acts) and the Letters (outside of the Pauline corpus). We saw that the negative sense of the term was largely absent from the Synoptics and the book of Acts (including in the words/teachings of Jesus), but that it was present in the letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and (to a lesser extent) Hebrews. The usage in 1-2 Peter (and Jude) is similar in many respects to Paul’s use of sa/rc (and the “flesh”-concept). We may note the particular idea that there are “impulses” (e)piqumi/a) toward sin that reside in the “flesh”, and that the non-believer and the wicked follow such impulses, allowing them to govern their thought and behavior. See especially 1 Peter 4:1-3ff and 2 Peter 2:10, 18; cf. also 1 John 2:16.

Regardless of how one views the authorship of 1-2 Peter and Jude (as well as 1 John), there is general agreement among critical scholars that all of these letters post-date the undisputed Pauline letters. Indeed, it is fair to posit that Paul was the first Christian (whose works survive) to adopt and develop the negative aspects of sa/rc which we saw in evidence in a number of Jewish writings from the first centuries B.C./A.D. (discussed in Part 1 [Study 21])—esp. the writings of Philo, the sectarian texts from Qumran, and several of the Pseudepigrapha (such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). Paul’s letter to the Galatians is perhaps the earliest of his surviving writings that attests to this sense of sa/rc. The exact date for Galatians remains uncertain, but it is likely earlier than both 2 Corinthians and Romans, and may pre-date 1 Corinthians as well. In any case, we begin our study on Paul’s use of sa/rc with the occurrences in Galatians.

1. Sa/rc in Galatians—the first occurrences (in chapters 1-2)

The first occurrence of sa/rc in Galatians is in 1:16, where Paul uses the expression “flesh and blood” as a way of referring to a human being (cf. Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14), adopting traditional wording (the corresponding expression in the Hebrew Scriptures being “flesh and bone”). Frequently, as in this instance, sa/rc (or Hebrew rc*B*) is used to designate a human being specifically in contrast to God (cf. also 1 Cor 15:50; Matt 16:17). This fundamental dualistic contrast (viz., between a human being and God) informs the contrastive juxtaposition of “flesh” and the Spirit in Paul’s writings.

In the previous study, I outlined three regular Pauline expressions using the term sa/rc, two of which occur in Gal 2:16, 20:

    • pa=sa sa/rc (“all flesh”) [v. 16]—as a way of referring to humankind collectively, and generally, as also to human nature and the common human condition
    • [e)n] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”) [v. 20]—the condition of an individual human being, viz., one’s human life and bodily existence

For the most part, this represents a neutral usage of sa/rc, corresponding largely to the Scriptural and early Christian use of the “flesh” concept. A distinctively negative sense of sa/rc is introduced first in the probatio of Galatians (chaps. 3-4).

2. Sa/rc in the probatio of Galatians (chapters 3-4)

In the probatio of Galatians (chaps. 3-4), Paul develops and expounds his central proposition—stated and summarized in 2:15-21, to the effect that “a man is not made right from (the) works of (the) law, if not [i.e., but only] through trust of [i.e., in] Yeshua (the) Anointed” (v. 16). Even more boldly, Paul declares that, as a believer in Christ, he has “died to the law”, and thus is no longer bound by its regulations, etc. And, more to the point, the things which he “dissolved” (lit. “loosened down”)—namely, the Torah regulations, etc., as legally binding obligations to be fulfilled—if he were to “build them up” again (as binding regulations), he would make himself a transgressor of God’s very Law (v. 18).

For other Jewish Christians of the time (and no less today) this was a highly controversial and radical proposition. Paul defends and seeks to prove it through a series of arguments in chapters 3-4. The first of these arguments, in 3:1-5, is based on the nature of the believers’ conversion and their fundamental religious identity. He first issues a rebuke in v. 1, in which he suggests that the Galatian Christians have been ‘bewitched’ (by the evil eye); the ‘spell’ they are under is the belief that it is necessary for them to become circumcised and to observe/fulfill the other Torah regulations, etc. Paul makes his argument through a question that he poses (as a challenge) to the Galatians: “(was it) out of [i.e., from] works of (the) law (that) you received the Spirit, or out of [i.e., from] (the) hearing of trust?” (v. 2). Paul takes for granted that the Galatian Christians would understand and accept that it was through the hearing of the Gospel, and their trust in it, that they came to receive the Spirit.

Paul then builds upon their receipt of the Spirit, asking a follow-up question that is framed as a harsh rebuke:

“Are you so senseless (then), (that, hav)ing begun in (the) Spirit, you would now be made complete by (the) flesh [sarki/]?”

This is perhaps the earliest occurrence of the flesh/Spirit contrast in Paul’s writings. Here, the sense of the expression “in/by (the) flesh” (sarki/) differs significantly from the earlier occurrence in 2:16 (cf. above). It is not simply a reference to a person’s human life and bodily existence; instead, it refers to a mode/manner of existence (“in/by the flesh”) that is in direct contrast to life “in the Spirit”. It is clear from v. 2 that the phrase “(hav)ing begun in/with (the) Spirit” here refers to the believer’s receiving of the Spirit—usually (and traditionally) associated with the baptism ritual; at the very least, the baptismal rite symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ, entailing the receipt of the Spirit (cf. 3:27ff; 4:6-7).

What, then, does Paul mean by “in (the) flesh” here in v. 3? The connection with the ritual observance of circumcision is obvious, since circumcision literally involves a cutting in the flesh, and represents a sign of the covenant that is materially present and visible in/on a person’s flesh. The Galatians were apparently acting under the thought that it was necessary for them, as believers, to adopt the rituals and regulations of the Torah—most notably, circumcision—even after having received God’s Spirit (upon faith and baptism in Christ). One thus “begins with” (vb e)narxomai) with the Spirit, but then finds completion (vb e)pitele/w) with “the flesh” —that is, circumcision, and fulfillment of the other requirements and obligations of the Torah. Paul’s terminology clearly indicates that “flesh” (sa/rc) here refers to performance/fulfillment of all the Torah requirements, and not simply to circumcision alone.

This might be taken to imply that the Torah is “of the flesh”, even though elsewhere Paul makes clear that it is spiritual (pneumatiko/$, “of the Spirit”), Rom 7:14. But it is not the Torah precepts, etc., that are characterized as “flesh”, but only the human performance and observance of the regulations (such as circumcision). In this regard, the “works of the Law” (2:16; 3:2, etc.) may be broadly categorized as “works of the flesh” (cf. 5:19), even though they do not represent sinful behavior per se. For the close association, in Paul’s thinking, between sin and the Torah regulations, see 3:19-22 and the more extensive discussion in Romans 7.

Later on, in the fifth argument of the probatio (4:12-20), Paul refers to the weakness (lit. “lack of strength”, a)sqe/neia) of his flesh that was apparent to the Galatians when he first proclaimed the Gospel to them (vv. 13-14). This probably refers to some kind of physical infirmity or disability, perhaps akin to Paul’s famous ‘thorn in the flesh’ (2 Cor 12:7). It was severe or notable enough that Paul refers to the “testing” (peirasmo/n) of the Galatians that it produced (or provoked). In spite of Paul’s conspicuous “lack of (physical) strength/vigor”, the Galatians did not “make him out to be nothing” (vb e)couqene/w), nor did they “spit him out” (vb e)kptu/w, i.e., reject him); rather, they accepted the Gospel that he proclaimed to them, with trust, as a message sent by God. The main point, in this use of sa/rc, is that the Galatians were not persuaded to trust in Christ because of Paul’s human “flesh” —his physical appearance and strength, personal charisma, persuasiveness and skill in speaking, etc. Instead, they were drawn by the Spirit and by the spiritual power of the Gospel itself (cf. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:17ff). Paul will further develop this aspect of the flesh/Spirit contrast in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (to be discussed).

The noun sa/rc occurs twice more in the final argument of the probatio, 4:21-31—an expository allegory of the Abraham traditions in Genesis 16-17, in which Hagar/Ishmael is contrasted with Sarah/Isaac, symbolizing the contrast of the flesh and the Spirit. Initially, in v. 23, the noun pneu=ma (“spirit”) is not used, but rather e)paggeli/a—viz., a message about something, usually in the context of an important (public) announcement, and often with the connotation of something that is promised (i.e., a “promise”). In Luke-Acts, the noun e)paggeli/a clearly refers to the Spirit (and to the coming of the Spirit)—cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33—while, here in Galatians, the point of reference is 3:14ff, identifying the promise with the Spirit, and then expounding it in terms of the promise(s) God made to Abraham (3:16-21).

Note the formulation of the contrast:

“Abraham had two sons: one (born) out of the servant-girl, and one out of the free (woman). But, the (one) out of the servant-girl has come to be (born) according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka], while the (one) out of the free (woman is) through (the) promise [di’ e)pagge/lia$].” (vv. 22-23)

This is arguably the earliest surviving occurrence for Paul’s use of the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to the flesh”). Here, he does not use the corresponding kata\ pneu=ma (“according to the Spirit”), emphasizing instead the coming of the Spirit as God’s promise to His people (“through the promise”). The proper contrast is made in verse 29, framed in terms of opposition and hostility—viz., between “flesh” and the Spirit:

“the (one hav)ing come to be born according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka] pursued [i.e., persecuted] the (one born) according to (the) Spirit [kata\ pneu=ma]”

This unquestionably entails a negative (and contrastive) sense of the term sa/rc, summarized for Paul primarily by the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to the flesh”). The non-believer lives and acts “according to the flesh”, while the believer does so “according to the Spirit”. But, more to the point of the message and rhetorical purpose of Galatians, “flesh” also refers to the Torah regulations (of the old covenant), while the Spirit designates the new covenant (cf. Paul’s exposition in vv. 24-25ff). Thus, the person who thinks and acts “according to the flesh”, in this context, means the one who lives according to the old covenant, realized through the performance and fulfillment of the Torah regulations, etc. By contrast, believers in Christ live according to the new covenant—that is, according to the Spirit.

Believers in Paul’s day, just like many Christians today, struggled with this fundamental doctrine of the new covenant and the believer’s freedom from the Torah, and how this is to be understood. The effective elimination of the Torah regulations, etc., as binding obligations for the believer has certain ethical and moral consequences. Paul deals with these in the exhortatio (exhortation) section of the letter (5:1-6:10), including his famous contrast between the “fruit of the Spirit” and the “works of the flesh”. Paul’s use of sa/rc in these passages, as well as in the concluding 6:11-18, will be discussed in our next study (Study 24 [Part 4]).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 22)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 22: The FLesh (Part 2)

The early Christian use of the term sa/rc (“flesh”) generally corresponds with the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish usage (discussed in the previous study).

1. Sa/rc in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts

It is notable in this regard how rare the noun sa/rc is in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, with just 14 occurrences combined (two of which [Mk 10:8a; Matt 19:5] are from a common quotation of Gen 2:24).

For the most part, the early Christian usage of sa/rc follows the range of connotative and contextual meaning for rc*B* (and ra@v=) in the Hebrew Scriptures (translated by sa/rc in the LXX):

    • When paired with o)ste/a (“bones”, Heb. <x#u#), it designates the entire physical being of a person (i.e., “flesh and bones”, Luke 24:39); the term sa/rc alone can also be used for the same purpose (Mark 14:38; par Matt 26:41; Acts 2:26 [quoting Ps 16:9], 31). Cf. also “flesh and blood [ai!ma]” (Matt 16:17).
    • It can be used to refer to the physical (i.e., ethno-genetic) relationship between people; in particular, it is mentioned by Jesus in regard to the marriage bond (“one flesh”, quoting Gen 2:23-24) in Mark 10:8; par Matt 19:5-6 (cf. also 1 Cor 6:16), with an allusion to sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
    • It can be used for humankind generally, or for any/all persons (Mark 13:20; par Matt 24:22; Luke 3:6 [quoting Isa 40:5]; Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 3:1 [2:28]).
    • It can specifically refer to the creaturely limitations (spec. weakness and mortality) of human beings (esp. in comparison with God), cf. Mark 14:38 par; Matt 16:17.

It is striking that in the Synoptic Gospels (recording the words and teachings of Jesus) and the book of Acts there is scarcely a trace of the negative sense of sa/rc (as also for rc*B*) that we saw in a number of contemporary Jewish writings (of the first centuries B.C./A.D.)—in the writings of Philo, the Qumran (sectarian) texts, and also in several key books of the Pseudepigrapha. Jesus’ relatively rare usage of the term (in the Synoptics), as well as that of the Gospel writers, more closely follows the general/traditional usage found in the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Gospel of John

There is more evidence of negative connotations for sa/rc in the Gospel of John (and the Johannine Discourses of Jesus), which we will examine in an upcoming study. These are particularly significant because of their connection with the Spirit—1:13; 3:6; 6:51ff, 63. Even so, the occurrences are relatively few, and, on the whole, do not go much beyond the Old Testament (LXX) usage:

    • References to the physical being of a person (1:13-14; 3:6; 6:51ff), including the idea of a physical (i.e., ethno-genetic) relationship between people (1:13; 3:6).
    • Used for humankind generally, or for any/all persons (17:2)
    • Specific reference to the creaturely limitations (esp. weakness and mortality) of human beings (esp. in comparison with God), cf. 1:13; 3:6; 6:63; 8:15. This particular aspect of meaning allows for the contrast between flesh and Spirit as a natural extension of the semantic domain.
2. Sa/rc and the “flesh”-concept in the letters of Paul and the other New Testament Epistles

It is in the letters of Paul that we find the negative aspects of sa/rc (and the “flesh” concept) utilized and expounded most prominently. This usage represents a distinctive development (and application) of tendencies in contemporary Judaism (as discussed in the previous study), which, in turn, derive from certain seminal connotative patterns of meaning in the Old Testament Scriptures. Consider, again, the three primary aspects of meaning for sa/rc (elsewhere in the New Testament):

    • References to the physical being of a person, including the idea of a physical (i.e., ethno-genetic) relationship between people.
    • Used for humankind generally, or for any/all persons.
    • Specific reference to the creaturely limitations (esp. weakness and mortality) of human beings (esp. in comparison with God).

These generally correspond to three expressions used frequently by Paul:

    • [e)n] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”)—the physical being of a person
    • pa=sa sa/rc (“all flesh”)—humanity, the common human condition
    • kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—the creaturely limitations of a human being (esp. weakness and morality, but also sin), in contrast to God (and His Spirit).

This Pauline usage, as a development of the “flesh”-concept, and as a key expression of Paul’s theology, will be discussed in considerable detail in the upcoming studies.

In order to provide a backdrop for the aspects of Paul’s usage that are distinctive, it is worth surveying briefly the occurrences of sa/rc in the other New Testament epistles.

The Letter of James

The noun sa/rc occurs just once in the letter of James (5:3)—an eschatological reference describing the coming end-time Judgment upon the world, and particularly upon the rich (who are traditionally identified with the wicked). In the Judgment, the corrosive (i)o/$, vb katio/w, i.e., corrupt) nature of their wealth will consume the physical being (“flesh”) of the wicked themselves (cf. Rev 17:6; 19:18). This is clearly a reference to the weakness and mortality of the human condition, but it also alludes to the corruption (and sinfulness) of human nature, much as we saw emphasized in the Qumran texts.

First Peter

The idea of human nature (“flesh”) as corrupt and sinful is also expressed several times in First Peter:

    • 3:21—In describing the nature and effects of the baptism rite, there is a reference to the “filth/dirt [r(u/po$] of the flesh”. It is emphasized that the baptism ritual does not itself take away (i.e., cleanse) this “dirt”, but it is clearly assumed that human nature has a ‘dirty’ (i.e., sinful) character that must be cleansed.
    • 3:18—Several verses prior, this ‘cleansing’ was essentially explained as being the result of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death. This death took place “in (the) flesh” (sarki/), with the implication that human nature (“flesh”) is the domain where sin and unrighteous reside (and must be dealt with); cf. Romans 8:3. This verse also contains an important contrast between flesh (associated with sin and death) and the Spirit (associated with holiness and life), cf. also 4:6; it will be discussed a bit further when we examine the flesh/Spirit contrast in Paul’s letters.
    • 4:1-2—These two verses contain a similar statement regarding the effect of Jesus’ death as putting an end to sin “in (the) flesh”, making it possible for other human beings (believers) likewise to be freed from the power of sin. Insofar as they/we remain “in (the) flesh” (i.e., as human beings on earth), believers are able live according to God’s will, rather than according to the impulses toward sin (that reside in the flesh). This is very much in accordance with Paul’s thought (as we shall see).

Another important occurrence of sa/rc in 1 Peter is the quotation of Isa 40:6, 8 in 1:24, contrasting the weakness and mortality of human nature (and one’s physical being) with the eternal and imperishable “seed” of God—to be understood as a reference to God’s Spirit—that comes to dwell within the believer. This verse will be discussed further in the context of the flesh/Spirit contrast in the Pauline and Johannine writings.

Second Peter and Jude

The two occurrences of sa/rc in Second Peter (2:10, 18) emphasize the sinfulness of human nature (“flesh”) even more starkly than in 1 Peter. There is an impulse (e)piqumi/a) toward sin in the “flesh”, and sinful human beings live and “walk” (i.e., conduct themselves, behave) according to these impulses. True believers do not act in such a way; it is only false believers who, while claiming (or pretending) to be believers in Christ, act in such a sinful and ‘fleshly’ manner. The pervasive presence of such false believers (like false prophets, 2:1ff) is an eschatological sign and an indication that the end-time Judgment is close at hand. They indeed function like false prophets, leading others astray and along paths of sin (2:18); they lure and entrap (vb delea/zw) others, causing them to follow the same sinful impulses of the “flesh”.

The letter of Jude has a good deal in common with 2 Peter, and in vv. 5ff we find a similar announcement of the coming end-time Judgment upon sinful humanity (i.e., all those who are not true believers in Christ). They are compared with the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), people “going away after (the impulses of the) flesh”; the judgment that came upon Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a traditional type-pattern for the end-time Judgment (cf. Matt 10:15 par; 11:23-24; Luke 17:29; 2 Pet 2:6). By following the sinful impulses that reside in the “flesh”, such people go astray into ever more blatant and egregious kinds of sin (all the more so during the increasing wickedness of the end-time), so that they end up polluting/defiling (vb miai/nw) their own flesh (v. 8).

Hebrews and the Johannine Letters

The use of sa/rc in Hebrews is rather different than what we see in the other letters (James, 1-2 Peter, Jude)—the focus is Christological, rather than ethical and eschatological. In particular, sa/rc has an incarnational emphasis, much as we find in the Johannine writings (to be discussed). That is to say, the focus is on the life of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son (1:2-4), as a human being on earth. In the first occurrence (2:14), for example, the emphasis is on how Christ, as a human being, shared in the common human condition (including its weakness and mortality, cf. above):

“Since, then, the children have a common bond (in) blood and flesh, he also similarly held a share with (them) of the same (thing)s, (so) that, through death he might make the (one) holding the power of death—that is, the Devil—(to) cease working.”

The mortality (i.e., the death) of human beings is primarily in view, with the clear implication that the Son’s participation in the human condition meant that he would experience death. In 5:7, his life as a human being is referred to as “in the days of his flesh”. His death in the flesh (viz., as a human being) provided a pathway, out of death and into life, for all those who trust in him (10:20).

There is a similar incarnational focus in the Johannine writings; and, indeed, two of the three occurrences of sa/rc in the Johannine letters (1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7) emphasize the Son’s coming “in (the) flesh” (e)n sarki/). The Christological significance of these references will be discussed in an upcoming study in this series. The other occurrence of sa/rc (1 Jn 2:16) has an ethical orientation similar to that in 1 and 2 Peter (cf. above), as also in Paul’s writings (to be discussed); note, in particular, the expression “the impulse [e)piqumi/a] of the flesh”.

In Hebrews 9:10, 13, there is a particular usage of sa/rc that also finds a parallel in Paul’s letters, as part of an effective (dualistic) contrast between the outward and inward, the temporary and eternal, the physical/material and spiritual. This dualism is applied as a mode of interpretation to the ceremonial rituals of the Israelite/Jewish religion (as prescribed in the Torah)—characterized as being “of (the) flesh” (sarko/$), in force until the time when all things are set right (that is, through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ), v. 10. Through his death, Christ functioned as a Priest, offering sacrifices that bring cleansing (from sin). His sacrifice is not like the physical/material offerings made by other human priests, which produces outward cleansing “of the flesh” (v. 13); instead, his sacrifice is spiritual, made “through the Spirit”, to produce inward cleansing (of the mind/heart), v. 14.

*     *     *     *     *     *

With these occurrences in view, we now turn our attention to the letters of Paul. In our next study, we will embark on a detailed examination of Paul’s use of the term sa/rc, beginning with his letter to the Galatians.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 21)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 21: The FLesh (Part 1)

The third (and final) arc of studies in this series will examine the conflict of believers with “the flesh” (h( sa/rc), and the role of the Spirit in that conflict. Much of our focus will be on the Letters (and theology) of Paul, due to the distinctive way in which he has developed key lines of Jewish and early Christian tradition regarding the term sa/rc (“flesh”)—in two primary respects: (1) the association of sa/rc with human sinfulness (and specifically, the impulse toward sin); and (2) a dualistic contrast between the “flesh” and the Spirit (pneu=ma). Before we can explore the Pauline (and other New Testament) occurrences of this decidedly negative sense of the term sa/rc, it will be necessary first to examine the linguistic data and background regarding the term.

1. The Semantic Range of sa/rc and rc*B*

The basic meaning and semantic range of the Greek noun sa/rc largely matches that of the corresponding Hebrew noun rc*B*. Of the more than 200 occurrences of sa/rc in the Septuagint (LXX), most render Hebrew rc*B*, while in the other instances the Greek word translates ra@v=. The aspects of meaning for rc*B* may be outlined as follows (cf. HALOT, p. 164):

The noun ra@v= has a similar (though more limited) range of meaning, including (cf. above): (1) muscle/meat (Exod 21:10; Psalm 78:20, 27; Mic 3:2-3), and (2) the entire physical being of a person (Psalm 73:26; Prov 5:11; 11:27). However, frequently the reference is (3) to the physical (ethno-genetic) relationship between people, and this aspect of meaning appears to be primary (cf. HALOT, p. 1378f); e.g., Lev 18:6, 12-13; 20:19; 21:2; 25:49; Num 27:11. The negative aspects of meaning that occasionally apply to rc*B* (see above) are absent for the Scriptural usage of ra@v=.

When sa/rc is used in the LXX to translate rc*B* (or ra@v=), it is largely due to the fact that the same (or comparable) aspects of meaning apply. These are surveyed in the article by E. Schweizer, F. Baumgärtel, and R. Meyer, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TNDT], Vol. VII, pp. 98ff (A.1-3).

2. Negative Aspects of Meaning for sa/rc in Greek Tradition

There are several areas of meaning for sa/rc (and the related adjective sa/rkino$, etc.) that are particularly important in regard to the negative sense(s) of the term that developed in (Hellenistic) Judaism and early Christianity.

1. Flesh as the aspect of the human being that is subject to corruption and death (i.e., that perishes), in contrast to the imperishable soul/mind (cf. TDNT VII.98ff [A.6]). This sense of sa/rc is attested as early as Homer (e.g., Odyssey 11.219ff) and the classical poets and philosophers (apparently as early as Empedocles [Frag. 126] and the Pythagoreans; cf. also, e.g., Plato Timaeus 61c, 69c; Symposium 211e), becoming more prominent in the writings of the Greco-Roman philosophers (e.g., Epictetus Dissertations I.3.5f, 29.6; II.8.2; IV.7.32; Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. IX. 14, 7; Ser. Num. Pun. 17; Carn. Es. 4).

2. Flesh as the location of the emotions and passions/desires—and, especially, the fulfillment of desire (TDNT VII.98ff [A.7]). “Flesh” is naturally associated with sensual experience (viz., what a person feels, touches, etc.), and this aspect of feeling came to include specifically the emotions that a person feels, principally in response to sensual experience. This orientation of the usage of sa/rc was particularly prominent among the Epicurean philosophers (and their opponents); sa/rc becomes the principal source of desire, which is to be followed, but also regulated by reasoning thought (dia/noia).

3. The “pleasures of the flesh” are in direct contrast to the soul guided by reason. The expression h(donh\ sarko/$ (“enjoyment/pleasure of [the] flesh”) represented a point of contention among many philosophers, as can be seen by its use in Philo of Alexandria’s writings. Philo generally followed the Platonic (and Stoic) approach in contrasting the behavior of the soul guided by reason and wisdom with the one who fulfills the desires/pleasure of the flesh: “for thus (there is) no one thing wrestling [viz., as a rival/opponent] against any (other) thing (such) as understanding [e)pisth/mh] (does against the) pleasure of (the) flesh” (On the Unchangeableness of God §143). In Who Is the Heir…? §57, two different kinds of people are contrasted: “the (one) living (his/her) life by (the) Divine spirit and reason [logismo/$], and the (other) living [viz., simply existing] by blood and (the) pleasure of (the) flesh”; cf. §268. In On the Giants §40, Philo clearly juxtaposes the pleasure of the flesh (which is “without reason” [a&logo$], i.e., irrational) with that of the soul and mind (nou=$); in contrast to those who follow the pleasures of the flesh, the soul guided by reason and wisdom finds its enjoyment in God Himself. In On Agriculture [Husbandry] §97, the serpent who appeared to the first woman is interpreted as the pleasure of the flesh, which is “eager to kill with its poisonous but painless bite”.

The sense of contrast sometimes takes the form of the “flesh” (sa/rc) as an impediment to the soul/mind as it ‘takes flight’ toward God. The “burden” of the flesh must be overcome and set aside (cf. On the Giants §§30-31; On the Unchangeableness of God §§52ff; On the Migration of Abraham §§14-16; On Agriculture §25; On the Change of Names §§32ff; On the Special Laws IV.114; On Dreams II.67)

For evidence of a similarly negative view of sa/rc, cf. Who Is the Heir…? §71, 295-6; On Abraham §164; On the Giants §35; On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain §63; On Allegorical Interpretation I.106; II.41, 49ff; III.158, etc.; numerous other references make comparable statements regarding the bodily passions/appetites, without necessarily using the term sa/rc. In this regard, Philo is representative of Hellenistic Judaism in the way he uses sa/rc within an ethical-religious and philosophical-sapiental context (see, e.g., 4 Maccabees 7:18).

4. A particular point of emphasis made by Philo, as a result of his blending of the Greek philosophical tradition with the Israelite-Jewish Scriptural tradition, involves the fundamental incompatibility of God’s Spirit (pneu=ma) with human “flesh” (sa/rc). For example, in On the Giants §§19ff, 29ff, the point is made in reference to his (allegorical) exposition of Genesis 6:3; cf. On the Unchangeableness of God §§1-2ff. In The Worse Attacks the Better §84f, the focus is anthropological, as the human soul/mind is identified as spirit, which is “Godlike” (qeoeidh/$) and the means by which we reason (and are guided by reason), in contrast to the flesh which “has no share in (the) mind [nou=$]”. In On the Special Laws IV.123ff, the rational soul of man is called the “spirit/breath of God” (pneu=ma qeio=n), in contrast to the flesh (122f); cf. Who Is the Heir…? §§55-57ff.
For an excellent and detailed survey of the relevant Philo references (for both sa/rc and pneu=ma), cf. Egon Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Neukirchener Verlag: 1968), pp. 154-221.

3. rc*B* and j^Wr in the Dead Sea Scrolls

There are a number of passages in the Qumran scrolls where the noun rc*B* (“flesh”, see Section 1. above) is used in a negative sense, comparable to the Philonic (i.e., Hellenistic Jewish) usage (see above), but drawing (it seems) upon different lines of tradition. The most notable of these instances involves a juxtaposition of rc*B* with the noun j^Wr (“spirit”), similar in certain respects to that of sa/rc with pneu=ma (mentioned above, in Philo). There are convenient summaries of the most relevant references in the article by Jörg Frey, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage” (cited as “Frey”);cf. also Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls” (cited as “Tigchelaar”). [For full citations, see the bibliographical note below.]

The most distinctive occurrences of the noun rc*B* in the Qumran texts, and those which go markedly beyond the traditional Scriptural usage (cf. Section 1. above), involve the specific expression rc*b* j^Wr (“spirit of flesh”). At first glance, this expression seems counterintuitive (and even contradictory), given the fundamental contrast between the concepts of “spirit” and “flesh” that is so familiar to us from Paul’s writings (and elsewhere in the New Testament, e.g., John 6:63), and which is also indicated from Philo’s writings (cf. above).

The main text containing this expression is the Wisdom-text 4QInstruction (4Q415-418, 423)—apparently a popular text for the Community, given the number of surviving copies (at least 5 from cave 4 and another [1Q26] from cave 1). In 4Q418 fragment 81, we find the statement “He [i.e., God] has separated you from every spirit of flesh” (rcb jwr lwkm hklydbh). The reference is to the election (by God) of the holy ones, by which He separated them from the rest of humankind (“every spirit of flesh”). In this regard, the term rc*B* (“flesh”) signifies the individual human being (and humankind as a whole), as is often the case in the Scriptural usage (see Section 1. above). The “spirit of flesh” thus designates, primarily, the human spirit—viz., the spirit of a living human being, but one that has come to be corrupted, prone to sin and evil, and unable to understand the things of God (i.e., the Divine mysteries, etc.). The holy ones, called by God, are required to keep themselves holy/pure, as the exhortation that follows (in this fragment) shows: “keep yourself apart from every abhorrent thing of (the) soul”.

Similarly, revelation was (and is) given only to the elect/chosen ones, as indicated in 4Q417 1 i 15-18, where it is stated that a heavenly “book of remembrance” was given (at the beginning) to the holy ones—viz., to Enosh (vona, symbolizing humankind) and the “people of (the) spirit” (jwr <u); an alternate way of reading the line is that Enosh was given the heavenly book along with (the) Spirit (cf. Tigchelaar, p. 205). In any case, it is further declared that “He [i.e., God] did not give further a (source for) meditation to (the) spirit of flesh, for it does not know (the difference) between [go]od (compared) to evil according to (the) judgment of its [sp]irit”. In other words, beyond Enosh and the line of holy ones, God did not give revelation to any other human being (“spirit of flesh”). Because of its fleshly (and corrupted/perverted) spirit, the rest of humankind cannot properly discern what is good and true.

In 4Q416 fragment 1, the expression is used in the (eschatological) context of the end-time judgment that is soon to come upon the wicked, when God “passes judgment on (the) work of (the) wicked” (line 10). Corrupt humankind (“all who have defiled themselves”) “will be in dread and will cry out” (line 11) and “every spirit of flesh will be disturbed” (line 12). God’s sovereignty is such that when He opens His compassionate hand to humankind, they are nourished and their life is preserved, but, when He chooses to close His hand, then “the spirit of all flesh [is gather]ed in” (fragment 2, col. ii, lines 1-2).

The same expression (“spirit of flesh”) occurs in the so-called Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot). What is striking about these references is that they do not apply to the rest of humankind, apart from the holy ones (i.e., elect) represented by the Community. Rather, those of the Community effectively identify themselves as being part of the corrupted humanity, yet they have been gathered out (i.e., chosen) and made pure/holy, being gifted with God’s spirit(s) (of holiness, wisdom, etc.). This is clearly indicated in 1QHa 4:29-37, discussed in an earlier article. The passage begins with praise to God because of the spirits that He has given to the psalmist. This individual confesses his sin and “the crookedness [i.e., perversion] of my heart”; and yet, he acknowledges that he has since departed [i.e., separated himself] from the rest of humankind—which, in reference to the common corrupt nature/condition of humanity, he designates as the “council/assembly of worms”. Even so, the psalmist, representing the Community of the holy ones, recognizes that he remains, in his fundamental nature, a human being (“your servant [is] a spirit of flesh”).

There are two aspects, or levels, of meaning to the expression “spirit of flesh”. The first is as designation of the individual human being and of the common human condition; the second emphasizes the corrupt nature of humankind. The first aspect derives from the Scriptural/traditional use of the term rc*B* (“flesh”), while the second represents a distinct development of that tradition. In 1QHa 5:30ff (likewise discussed in prior article), we find both of these aspects highlighted. First, the psalmist confesses (through a rhetorical question) that an ordinary human being (“a spirit of flesh”) cannot comprehend the revelations and mysteries of God. This would be true based simply on the limitations and weakness of the created human being; however, the inability is further explained by the statement that “a crooked/perverted spirit rules over him” (cf. 8:18, “[and] a crooked/perverted [sp]irit has rul[ed] over [one] fashioned of dust”). It is only because of the spirit that God has given to the holy ones (i.e., such as the psalmist), that they are able to understand (cf. 8:20ff; 21:34).

Similar rhetorical questions regarding human nature (“flesh”), in comparison to God, are found in 1QHa 7:34[24]ff and 12:29ff (cf. Frey, pp. 204-6):

“What, then (is) flesh, that it might understand [your secrets]?
How is dust able to make firm its steps?…” (7:34[24])

“What is flesh compared to this?
And what (one) fashioned of clay (is able) to do great wonders?” (12:29)

The latter reference emphasizes the sinfulness of human “flesh”:

“Indeed, he (is) in crookedness from (the) womb,
and, until old age, in (the) guilt of perversion*;
and I know that rightness (does) not (belong) to a (hu)man,
nor to (the) son of man a complete [i.e., straight/pure] path” (29b-30)

* See the use of the nouns lw#u* (“perversion”) and hm*v=a^ (“sin/wrong-doing, guilt”) in the parallel expressions lwu rcb / hmva rcb, essentially meaning “flesh of sin” (i.e., sinful flesh), 1QS 11:9 (below), and in the War Scroll (1QM 4:4; 12:12); cf. Frey, p. 201f.

The Community Rule text (1QS) illustrates rather clearly and vividly how this understanding of rc*B* (“flesh”) applies specifically to the members of the Community (representing the holy ones of Israel). The confession in 11:9ff is strikingly similar to the tone and sense of the Hymns (cf. above), and it is possible that a comparable hymn (or hymn-like work) has been incorporated into the text (cf. Frey, pp. 207f). The author-protagonist confesses that he “belongs to (the) men [<da] of wickedness [i.e., wicked humankind]”, and to the “council/assembly of perverted [lwu] flesh”; he confesses specifically to individual crooked deeds, breaches of trust/faith, and sins/failings, along with the general “crookedness of my heart”. Even though he shares (with the rest of humankind) the common human condition, so that he ought to “belong to the council/assembly of worms and th(ose) walking in darkness”, the protagonist, representing the members of the Community, has also been chosen by God and separated out so as to be among the holy ones (cf. v. 7f). Interestingly, even after being made pure/holy and gifted with God’s spirit(s), it is recognized that he might still stumble; and, if so, God’s mercy will provide salvation and protection (v. 11f). As long as he does not fall completely “by/in (the) crookedness of (the) flesh”, he will be spared from God’s judgment (cf. above). One can glimpse certain general parallels here with early Christian thought, as also between the Qumran Community and the early Christian communities, which will be elucidated further in the upcoming studies.

Elsewhere in the Community Rule text, there are references to how the Community member’s “flesh” is purified from its corrupted nature (1QS 3:6-9, cf. 4:20-22). The individual is given (by God) spirits of holiness and truth, etc., that reside within; these spirits continually do battle against the evil/unclean spirits that lead human beings astray into perverse/sinful ways (4:23). This dynamic is formally similar to Paul’s famous declaration of how the Spirit fights against the flesh, in order to keep the believer from following the impulsess (toward sin) that reside in the flesh (Gal 5:17). The text 4Q444 describes this most vividly, tying the locus of conflict to the individual’s relationship to the law(s) of God (cf. Rom 7:21-23):

“…and from His holy spirit […]
and they became spirits of conflict in my (bodily) frame, the la[ws of God … ] in the innermost parts of flesh,
and a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness, God put in [my] he[art … ]
it is strengthened in the laws of God, and fighting the spirits of iniquity.”
(1-4 i + 5 1-4, translation Tigchelaar, p. 209)

4. Other References to rc*B* in Jewish Writings of the 1st centuries B.C./A.D.

In conclusion, it is worth noting some additional references to rc*B* in other Jewish texts from the first centuries B.C./A.D. In these passages, there is a negative usage of the term rc*B* (“flesh”) that is similar (or comparable) to what we find in the Qumran texts (Section 3.) or in Philo (cf. Section 2.).

In the book of Enoch (1 Enoch), the Gen 6:3 tradition was developed in a manner comparable to interpretation provided by Philo (see above), in that there is a distinct emphasis on the incompatibility between “spirit” and “flesh” (e.g., 14:21 which emphasizes that human “flesh” is unable to see God). The great sin of the ‘fallen angels’ is that, though they were the “watchers of heaven” and holy/eternal spirits, they defiled themselves by commingling with human “flesh” (15:4ff); the result was an improper (and monstrous) mixing of “spirits and flesh” (15:8; 16:1; cf. also 106:17). A similar contrast between “flesh” and spirit (or the spirits) is found in other texts as well, e.g., Testament of Job 27:2; 38:2ff; Testament of Abraham (B) 13:7; and cf. Jubilees 2:2, 11.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs evince a number of points of similarity with the Qumran texts (cf. Frey, p. 222f). For example, in the Testament of Asher 1, there is a seminal form of the “Two Ways” Wisdom teaching, phrased in terms of dueling inclinations or ‘spirits’ (cf. 1:9) that are present in and among human beings; this resembles the thought expressed in the famous passage of the Community Rule text (1QS, see above), 3:13-4:26, and cf. also the portion of 4Q444 cited above. There at least two references where human beings (as “flesh”) are said to have been fundamentally corrupted and prone to sin—Test. Zebulun 9:7 and Test. Judah 19:4. The latter summarizes an anthropological view that has much in common with both the Qumran Community and early Christianity:

“The prince of error blinded me, and I was ignorant—as a human being, as flesh, in my corrupt sins—until I learned of my own weakness”
(translation H. C. Kee, OTP)

Corrupted and led astray into sin, human beings are in a kind of darkness (i.e., ‘blindness’, cf. 18:6) and bondage until they come to a saving knowledge of the truth. In the following 20:1-5, we find again the dualistic paradigm of the “two spirits” —one of truth and one of error—that struggle against each other for the hearts and minds of human beings. The “flesh” is fundamentally enmeshed with the latter (i.e., sin and error). The conflict that humankind—and particularly the righteous/holy ones—face entails a choice between following the spirit and path of sin/error or that of truth. In the Life of Adam and Eve 25:3 (cf. Frey, p. 223), Eve speaks in the manner of the righteous:

“Lord, save me and I will never again turn to the sin of the flesh”
(transl. M. D. Johnson, OTP)

*     *     *     *     *

In the next study, we will begin our examination of the term sa/rc (and the “flesh”-concept) as it occurs in the New Testament Scriptures, beginning with the occurrences in the Gospels and throughout the early Tradition.

      • References above marked “Frey” are to Jörg Frey, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage” in Sapiental, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet), eds. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah XXXV (Brill: 2000), pp. 197-226.
      • Those marked “Tigchelaar” are to 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: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, vol. 5 (De Gruyter: 2014), pp. 167-240.

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 20)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 20: The World (Part 15)

In our conclusion to the arc of studies on believers’ conflict with the world (ko/smo$), it is worth summarizing and highlighting the primary characteristics of the world—that is, the ko/smo$-concept in its negative and oppositional aspects. In considering early Christian use of the word ko/smo$ as a designation for the domain of darkness and evil that is fundamentally opposed to God (and to Christ), the New Testament references (that we have examined) mention or allude to a number of basic characteristics which believers may experience as they/we remain ‘in the world’ during this present Age.

1. One of the earliest New Testament references, Galatians 4:3, states that believers, before coming to faith in Christ, were “enslaved under the stoixei=a of the world”. In this context, the noun stoixei=on, also used by Paul in v. 9 and Col 2:8, 20 (cf. also Heb 5:12; 2 Pet 3:10, 12), refers to a component of the world-order, part of the arrangement of things in “the world”. In verse 9, the plural noun is expounded in reference to the observation of “months and time/seasons and years” —that is, patterns that have developed in human society in relation to the world-order, which tend to govern and regulate behavior. Such patterns are also part of human religious thought and conduct, and, indeed, in Galatians (as also in Colossians), Paul connects the stoixei=a conceptually with the Torah regulations, etc., of the old covenant. Such stoixei=a are not evil or harmful in and of themselves, but only insofar as human beings become enslaved to them. And, as Paul’s theological arguments (esp. in Galatians and Romans) make clear, he maintains that human beings, prior to becoming believers in Christ, are all enslaved—in bondage to the current world-order.

The good news is that we, as believers in Christ, have died to the world (Gal 6:14), and, as a result, this bondage to the current world-order (i.e., the old way of things, including the old covenant governed by the Torah) has been dissolved and we have been set free (see especially the line of argument throughout Romans 6-8). The old order of things, governed by ways of thinking and acting “according to the world”, are contrasted with the new order for believers, in which our thought and behavior is now governed by the Spirit (and by the teaching and example of Christ). Paul develops this contrast in a number of passages, notably in chapters 1-4 of 1 Corinthians, in which the wisdom of the world is contrasted with the Wisdom of God—the latter manifest in and among believers through (i) the Gospel message (focused on the sacrificial death [cross] of Christ), and (ii) the presence of the Spirit. Cf. the use of ko/smo$ in 1:20-21, 27-28; 2:12; 3:19, 22.

2. A corresponding principle, based on the eschatological belief that the coming New Age is already being realized (through the Spirit) for believers in Christ, is that the current world-order (viz., of the present Age) is in the process of passing away (1 Cor 7:31ff, cf. 1 Jn 2:17). Again, this does not mean that the current world-order is (in every respect) evil per se, only that it is apart from (and fundamentally opposed to) the new order of things (i.e., the ‘new creation’) realized among believers in Christ. Since believers belong to the new creation, they/we should not become immersed in the old order of things, the old patterns of thinking and acting to which the rest of humankind remains enslaved (see point 1. above). The eschatological urgency that underlies Paul’s exhortation to believers in this regard can be seen by his references to the impending judgment of the world (e.g., 1 Cor 6:2; Rom 3:6).

3. In Romans 5-7, Paul develops, through both expository and rhetorical means, the point that “the world” —i.e., the current world-order and present arrangement of things, is fundamentally corrupt, being dominated by sin (cf. 5:12-13ff; Phil 2:15). This means that the enslavement of human beings to the present world-order (1.) specifically entails bondage to sin. Paul does not detail the nature of this sinfulness, though the references and examples mentioned earlier in the letter (1:18-32, etc.) serve to present a vivid portrait, and, importantly, in chapter 7 he describes how the human propensity to sin (in bondage to the power of sin) relates to the religious principles (i.e., the Torah precepts and regulations) of the old order. The death of Christ not only set believers free from the old order, it effectively made things right again for the entire world (cf. 2 Cor 5:19). At the close of chapter 8 (vv. 18-30), Paul emphasizes that the New Age, which currently is only being experienced by believers in Christ (through the Spirit) will eventually be realized by the entire world (i.e., all of creation), transformed and set free from bondage to sin.

4. The fundamental conflict between believers and “the world” is thus rooted in two main factors: (a) the eschatological principle that believers have been set free from the current world-order and are no longer (to be) governed or bound by its patterns of thinking and acting; and (b) that the current world-order has been corrupted by sin and evil. Though the New Age (i.e., the New Creation) is realized for believers in Christ (through the Spirit), they/we still remain “in the world” (cf. Phil 2:15), and thus can still be prone to the world’s sinful and corrupting influence. This ethical dualism informs much of the teaching, for example, in the letter of James, which is instructive as regards the development of the (negative) ko/smo$-concept in early Christianity.

The reference in 1:27 allows us to infer two points regarding “the world”: (i) it is characterized by the presence of social injustice and oppression (e.g., toward widows and orphans and the poor), and (ii) it can have a polluting effect on those who have otherwise been freed from sin (i.e., believers). The exhortation to believers is that they are to address the world’s social injustice and oppression (i.e., acting in Christian love), and to “keep watch” over themselves to avoid being ‘stained’ by the world (lit., they are to be “without blemish” [a&spilo$]). In 2:5, the way the world understands (and values) riches/wealth is contrasted with the way it is (to be) understood by believers in Christ (cf. on 1 Jn 2:16-17; 3:17, below). True wealth for Christians (in the New Age) is spiritual—realized through trust in Christ and experience (inheritance) of the Kingdom of God—in contrast to ordinary earthly/worldly riches. The use of the term ko/smo$ in 3:6 suggests that “the world” is also characterized by reckless and evil speaking (that brings harm to others, etc.). Finally, the oppositional aspect of the relationship between believers and “the world” is stated in no uncertain terms in 4:4:

“…have you not seen that fondness for the world is enmity [i.e., hatred] for God? (So) then, whoever would wish to be a dear (friend) of the world is set down (as) an enemy of God!”

The fondness (fili/a) and affinity for “the world” can be explained in terms of the ethical-situational references given in the context of chapter 4:

    • Quarreling and fights between/among believers, an indication that sensual (and sinful) desires are still having an adverse effect on the person (a point also prominent in Paul’s writings, to be discussed in the next arc of studies on “the Flesh”), verse 1.
    • A desire for (i.e., an impulse toward/after, vb e)piqume/w) things that a person does not have (but which others might possess); such impulses can lead to quarrels and fights and even more serious acts of violence, verse 2.
    • Such behavior also indicates a lack of prayer and trust in God; a person seeks to have his/her wishes and desires fulfilled with regard to sensual and material things of the world (resulting in consumption and waste), rather than the (spiritual) things of God, verse 3.
    • Pridefulness (i.e., an over-inflated sense of oneself and one’s own importance), rather than humility, verse 6 (cf. also v. 10)
    • Saying bad (and judgmental) things against another person, vv. 11-12

The reference to the ‘Devil’ in verse 7 suggests the close connection between “the world” and the Satan/Devil, a point examined and discussed in a number of the earlier studies (cf. also below). The idea of the corruption present in the world, and of its harmful/polluting effect on believers (who are ‘in the world’), is also emphasized in 2 Peter (1:4; 2:20), which compares the corruption at the end of the current Age with that in the time of Noah (the Flood being a foreshadowing figure/type of the eschatological Judgment), 2:5; 3:6 (cf. Hebrews 11:7).

5. It is in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters) that this sense of oppositional conflict, between “the world” and believers, is most prominently and extensively expressed. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the noun ko/smo$ occurs more often in the Johannine writings (102 times [105 if the book of Revelation is included]) than in the rest of the New Testament (84 [or 81] times). Even more striking, ko/smo$ occurs 78 times in the Gospel of John, compared with just 15 times in the three Synoptic Gospels combined. Here I wish to summarize some of the key points made throughout the Gospel and Letters of John:

    • The world does not know God or His Word/Wisdom; in particular, it does not recognize or acknowledge the incarnate Word/Wisdom of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Those who belong to “the world” do not trust in Jesus (and even reject him); only those who belong to God (i.e., the elect, believers) trust in him. Cf. John 1:10; 10:36; 14:17, 19; 17:25; 1 Jn 3:1.
    • The world hates God and His Son (Christ)—and this extends to God’s offspring (believers in Christ). In one sense this “hate” simply means the opposite (and lack) of love; on the other hand, it indicates an active opposition to God that can be manifest as hostility, even resulting in oppression, persecution and violence. Cf. John 7:7; 15:18, 19; 17:14; 1 Jn 3:13.
    • The world is fundamentally opposed to Christ, and thus there is a spirit that is “against Christ” (a)nti/xristo$, ‘antichrist’) active and at work in the world, effectively speaking and acting against him; cf. 1 Jn 4:3-5; 2 Jn 7.
    • The person who loves the things of “this world” effectively hates his/her own soul, John 12:25; love of “the world” (which is fundamentally opposed to God) is incompatible with love of God, 1 Jn 2:15-16 (cf. James 4:4, above).
    • The peace and joy, etc., that believers experience in Christ is categorically different from what the world experiences and understands; cf. John 14:27; 16:20, 33.
    • The world is governed by sensual desires—longing for the things that a person sees, etc. Those who belong to “the world” boast over the material things that they possess and things they have accomplished, etc., according to the world’s wisdom and values (which are contrary to the Wisdom, etc., of God). Cf. 1 John 2:16-17. The material things that a person does possess while ‘in the world’ are to be used in accordance with the guidance of God’s Spirit and love; cf. 1 Jn 3:17.
    • The world is dominated by sin and evil, John 1:29; 16:8; 1 Jn 2:2, 16; 5:19. This can be expressed in terms of darkness (in contrast to light), John 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; a related characteristic is that of blindness (in contrast to the ability to see), cf. 9:39; 14:19.
    • The world is in need of life, implying that it currently is subject to death—both in terms of the mortality/corruption of the created order and the sin/evil that dominates it (and for which it will be judged in the end-time Judgment). Cf. John 3:16-17; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:39; 12:31; 16:8, 11; 1 Jn 4:9.
    • God and His Son (Christ) do not belong to “the world”, but to a different realm (“above” vs. “below”); this applies also to believers as God’s offspring. Those who do not belong to God (and who thus do not trust in Christ) belong to “the world” instead. Cf. John 8:23; 15:19; 17:6, 14, 16. Even though believers do not belong to the world, they/we currently remain in the world and must face its darkness/corruption and its opposition and hostility to the things of God, cf. 13:1; 16:33; 17:9, 11, 15; 1 Jn 4:17. Believers remain in the world for the primary purpose of continuing the Son’s mission, cf. John 17:18ff.

Particularly noteworthy are the dialogue-scenes between Jesus and Pilate (18:33-38a / 19:9-11), part of the Johannine version (18:28-19:16a) of the Roman interrogation episode of the Passion narrative (cf. Mark 15:1-5ff par). Pilate, as a governing representative of the Roman Empire, embodies and epitomizes the kingdom of the world—all of its power and authority. To this is contrasted the Kingdom of God, represented by the person of Jesus Christ (the incarnate Son of God). The Kingdom represented by Christ is nothing at all like the kingdom(s) of the world (18:36)—it does not depend on physical/material  power, but on the power of God (His Word and Spirit). God’s Kingdom is characterized principally by truth (a)lh/qeia), which, in the Johannine writings, is identified with God’s Spirit (John 4:23-24; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 4:6; 5:6), but also with the person of Christ (the Son, see esp. John 14:6); the kingdoms of the world, represented by Pilate, cannot know or understand the truth (18:38a). And, just as the Kingdom of God is unlike the first-century Roman Empire, so it is categorically unlike all the kingdoms (and nations/states, etc.) of the world today.

According to the Johannine viewpoint, the ko/smo$, in the present Age, is ultimately under the power of the Satan/Devil, called by the title “the chief/ruler of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou/tou) in 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. In other words, the Satan/Devil is true ruler of “the world”. Through the fulfillment of his mission on earth, the Son (Christ) broke the Devil’s hold over the world (1 Jn 3:8), but this is currently realized only for believers in Christ (cf. above [3.] for the similar theological premise in Paul’s writings). The Son gained victory over “the world” (John 16:33), and believers, in union with him, share in this victory (1 Jn 5:4-5). Victory over the world also means victory over the world’s ruler (i.e., the “Evil [one]”, the Devil), 1 Jn 2:13-14. As long as we (believers) trust in Christ, relying upon his presence in and among us, we have victory over “the world”, and we cannot be harmed or corrupted by it. The power of this protection comes from the Spirit—which represents the presence of the Son (and God the Father) within us—1 Jn 4:4. It is through the Spirit that we become, and are, the offspring of God (cf. John 3:5-8), and as God’s offspring we fully possess the very protection that the presence of his Son (in us) provides (1 Jn 5:19, and cf. John 17:15).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 19)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 19: The World (Part 14)

The conflict with “the world” which defines the identity of believers in Christ—especially the distinction between true and false believers—was a key theme in 4:1-6 (discussed in the previous study), presented in terms of Christology (i.e., the nature of one’s trust in Jesus Christ). In the major section that follows (4:7-5:4a), the focus shifts from trust to love—and, correspondingly, the conflict with “the world” is presented in terms of the fulfillment of the duty (e)ntolh/) to show love to other believers. False believers (that is, the ‘antichrists’ of 4:1-6) do not fulfill the duty of the true believer (3:23): they do not have a genuine trust in Jesus Christ, nor do they show love to (true) believers.

1 John 5:1-5

The primary ko/smo$-reference(s) in the remainder of 1 John occur in 5:4-5. I tend to agree with the commentators (such as Brown and Strecker) who view verse 4 as a transitional ‘hinge’ between the two sections 4:7-5:4a and 5:4b-12. At the same time, there does seem to be a certain chiastic structure to 5:1-5 (as illustrated visually by von Wahlde, p. 172f), and so it might be preferable to treat vv. 1-5 and a transitional unit between 4:7-21 (on the theme of love) and 5:6-12 (on the theme of trust). The focus in vv. 1-5 on the theme of fulfilling the ‘commandments’ (i.e., the two-fold e)ntolh/ of 3:23) as a fundamental characteristic of the true believer would tend to confirm the transitional character of these verses—that is, blending together the twin duties (e)ntolai/) of love (4:7-21) and trust (5:6-12). Note the highlighting of the dual e)ntolh/ in verse 1:

    • “Every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (One) has come to be (born) of God
      and
    • every(one) loving the (One) causing to be (born) [also] (loves) the (one) having come to be (born) of Him”

The transition continues in vv. 2-3, by shifting from the thematic emphasis of loving one’s fellow believer to that of loving God. We see this shift occur in the statement of v. 1b, emphasizing how the person who genuinely loves God (“the [One] causing [offspring] to be born”) will also love believers who are the offspring of God (“the [one] having come to be born of Him”). In vv. 2-3 a true love of God is further explained as being demonstrated through the fulfillment of both duties (e)ntolai/)—trust and love. The noun e)ntolh/, often translated flatly as “commandment”, properly refers to a duty which (in this context) God has given to us (lit., placed on us) to complete. The use of the plural (e)ntolai/) here indicates that there is more than one duty required of believers. Some commentators have (mistakenly) interpreted this as a reference to the Torah regulations, or a subset of them (e.g., the ethical commands of the Decalogue, etc.), or to the teachings of Jesus. However, within the Johannine religious and theological worldview, this use of the plural (which occurs interchangeably with the singular) can only refer to the double-duty of trust and love (3:23, etc). If any other ‘commands’ are in view, they are subsumed under these two duties; by fulfilling the two e)ntolai/, the entire Law of God will properly, and effectively, be fulfilled by believers.

This helps to explain the statement in v. 3b, that “His e)ntolai/ are not heavy [baru/$] (to bear)”. It is no burden for the true believer to fulfill the twin duties of trust in Jesus Christ and of showing love to fellow believers. This thought should be understood against the eschatological background of early Christianity, which drew upon certain key traditions from the restoration eschatology of the exilic and post-exilic Prophets—most notably, the expectation whereby God, in the New Age, would ‘pour out’ His Spirit onto (and into) His people, an effect of which would be the enabling of them to fulfill the Law of God completely and without fail. For more on this background, see the set of notes (on the relevant passages) in my earlier series “The Spirit in the Old Testament”. For early Christians, the presence of the Spirit allows God’s people (believers) similarly to fulfill the Law of God completely, the various commands and regulations of the Torah now being subsumed under the command of love (cf. Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Within the Johannine tradition, this ‘love-command’ has been expanded into the form of the dual–e)ntolh/ of trust and love.

The ability of believers to fulfill this duty is further expounded here in verse 4, in terms of the conflict with “the world” (o( ko/smo$):

“(For it is) that every(thing) having come to be (born) of God is victorious (over) the world” (v. 4a)

The implication is that “the world” exerts a negative influence that might otherwise hinder or keep believers from fulfilling their duty. In this light, it is important to note the earlier ko/smo$-references in 4:7-21, in which the aspect of the world (i.e., the inhabited world of human beings) as the mission-field for the Gospel is emphasized. The three references present this aspect (discussed in the earlier studies) according to a dynamic theological sequence:

    • The Son comes into the world, alluding to the incarnation (i.e., born into the world of human beings) and to the purpose of his mission on earth:
      “…the love of God was made to shine forth on/among us, (in) that He sent forth His only Son into the world, that we might live through him” (4:9; cf. Jn 3:16f)
    • The Son fulfills his mission in the world, acting for the salvation of humankind (i.e., those who trust in him, believers):
      “And we have seen and give witness that the Father has sent forth His Son (as) Savior of the world” (v. 14)
    • With the Son have departed back to the Father in heaven, believers now take his place, continuing his mission “in the world”:
      “…just as that (one) is, (so) also we are in this world” (v. 17)

The world does not only represent the field of the mission for believers; it also represents a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God, and which is hostile to believers. Even as “the world” was hostile to (i.e., hated) the Son, so it is also hostile to the other offspring of God (i.e., believers). This negative (and antagonistic) concept of “the world” includes non-believers and false believers (cf. the previous study on 4:1-6) but also all kinds of other negative influences that hinder the fulfillment of believers’ duty and mission (cf. the earlier study on 2:12-17).

Yet, it is declared in v. 4a that believers “are victorious over the world”. It is worth noting a significant grammatical detail in v. 4a. The substantive perfect passive participle (of the verb genna/w), along with the prepositional qualifier e)k tou= qeou= (“of God”), which is regularly used as a way of designating believers, occurs here in a neuter form: “the (thing) having come to be (born) of God”. Thus, the emphasis is not on the specific person who has come to be born of God, but, rather, on the fact of his/her so coming to be born. It is specifically because the true believer is the offspring (te/knon, a neuter noun) of God, that he/she is able to be victorious over the world.

The nature of this victorious ability is further explained in v. 4b:

“and this is the victory (hav)ing been victorious (over) the world: our trust”

The aorist participle of the verb nika/w (“be victorious [over]”) is a bit difficult to translate. In English, one is more or less forced to choose between rendering it as a present (“being victorious”) or as a perfect (“having been victorious”). The latter is preferable in that it preserves the past aspect—viz., as an event or condition which occurred in the past (and the force of which continues into the present). Cf. the discussion by Brown, pp. 570-1.

It is specifically the believer’s trust in Jesus Christ which brought about this victory and which enables the believer to be victorious over “the world”. This is best understood in terms of the believer sharing in the victory which was accomplished by the incarnate Son (Jesus) through the fulfillment of his mission on earth. In particular, it was the sacrificial death of the Son which brought the victory. This can be seen from the only occurrence of the verb nika/w in the Gospel, at the climax of the Farewell Discourse (just prior to Jesus’ death), in which the Son declares to his disciples (believers): “I have been victorious (over) the world!” (16:33). In that same context there are statements which indicate that the fulfillment of the Son’s mission specifically led to victory over the Devil (“the chief/ruler of this world”) and to the breaking of the dominating power of evil over the world—12:31; 14:30; 16:11. The same point is made, but with different terminology, in 1 Jn 3:8, in which the author states a primary purpose of the Son’s mission:

“for this (reason) was the Son of God made to shine forth: that he should loosen [i.e., dissolve/destroy] the works of the Devil”

The verb nika/w occurs more frequently in 1 John than it does in the Gospel. In 2:13-14, it is stated twice that believers have been victorious over evil (and the Devil), echoing the language used by Jesus in Jn 16:33. The substantive use (with definite article) of the adjective ponhro/$ (lit., “the evil”) can be understood personally as “the Evil (one)” —that is, a reference to the Devil, the “chief/ruler of this world”. In 2:14, the source of this victory is explained as the “word [lo/go$] of God” that abides within the believer. In terms of the Johannine theology, as I have discussed, this is principally a reference to the presence of the Son within the believer, with whom the believer is united, and who continues to guide and instruct (and protect) the believer (see below on verse 18). This union is realized through the abiding presence of the Spirit, and it is thus through the Spirit that the believer participates in the victory which the Son achieved over the forces of evil—i.e., over the world and the Devil. The abiding union with the Son, and the presence of the Spirit, is experienced when the believer comes to trust in Jesus (as the Son of God). It is at this moment (symbolized by the baptism ritual) that the believer comes to be born as the offspring of God.

The emphasis on the defining aspect of the believer’s trust in the Son is stated (by way of a rhetorical question) again at the close of the unit (v. 5):

“[And so] who is the (one) being victorious (over) the world, if not the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God?”

The use here of a present participle of the verb pisteu/w (“trust”) may indicate the need for the believer to continue trusting in Jesus—that is, in terms of the message and rhetoric of 1 John, to continue holding the correct view of who Jesus is, the nature of his identity as the incarnate Son of God. This correct view is in direct contrast to the false view(s) of the ‘antichrist’ opponents (4:1-6); the Christological issue is further expounded and clarified in 5:6-12. Note, in particular, the emphasis on the role of the indwelling Spirit in proclaiming and affirming the truth of who Jesus is and of what he accomplished (as the incarnate Son) during his mission on earth—vv. 6-8ff.

1 John 5:18-19

The final occurrence of the word ko/smo$ is in verse 19, at the close of 1 John, where it is stated that:

“the whole world lays/lies in the evil”

As in 2:13-14 (cf. also Jn 17:15), the articular substantive use of the adjective ponhro/$ probably refers to the Devil (“the Evil [one]”), in which case the clause would be glossed as “the whole world lies in the (hand/control of) the Evil (one)”. This statement holds, in spite of the fact that Jesus subdued the Devil and destroyed his evil power over the world. This eschatological event is only realized in the present for believers in Christ—it is only they/we who have been set free from bondage to sin and evil, and who are victorious over the world and the Devil. This is clear when both components of verse 19 are read together:

“We have seen that we are of God, and that the whole world lays in the evil.”

Believers are currently in the world, but are not of the world; rather, they/we are of God, having been born of God (as His offspring). The world, for the time being, continues to be dominated by darkness and evil, and yet believers are able to be victorious over it, and are protected from its harmful and destructive influence. This specific theme of protection is emphasized in the prior verse 18:

“We have seen that every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not sin, but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

This verse is fraught with textual and interpretive difficulties, which I have discussed in a set of recent notes. My view is that the aorist participle in the central phrase (“the [one hav]ing come to be [born] of God”) refers to the abiding presence of the Son within the believer. This Christological interpretation does not diminish or negate the validity of the ethical-reflexive interpretation, which emphasizes that the believer (“the [one] having to be [born] of God”) keeps watch over himself, i.e., guarding himself from sin. As I discussed in the aforementioned notes, the parallel with John 17:15, as well as earlier in 1 Jn 3:9, argues strongly in favor of the Christological interpretation as being primary. As mentioned above, it is through the Spirit that we as believers experience the Son’s abiding presence and, with it, the protection that he provides. Through the Spirit, the Son gives us victory over the world and protection from its evil influences.

*     *     *     *     *

In the next study, the final study in this arc dealing with “the world”, we will summarize the main characteristics and attributes of “the world”, along with a summary of the most important points of emphasis regarding the conflict between believers and “the world”.

    • References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 30 (1982).
    • Those marked “Strecker” are to Georg Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe übersetzt und erklärt, Meyers Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989). English translation, The Johannine Letters, transl. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 1996).
    • Those marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010). 

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 18)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 18: The World (Part 13)

In 2:15-17 (see the previous study), the relationship of believers to “the world” (o( ko/smo$) was presented by the author in strongly ethical terms. This aspect is given further practical application in 3:17, as an illustration of what it means for believers to show love to others (vv. 10-11ff). Drawing upon the sort of distinction made in the Discourse Prayer of Jesus in the Gospel (chap. 17), it is effectively noted that believers, though they are not of the world (i.e., do not belong to it), for the present are still living in the world. As such, it is necessary for believers to make use of the “things of the world”, but without becoming attached to them or “loving” them. We see this same distinction expressed in 3:17, as the author states that the true believer will make use of the “living [bi/o$] of the world” to help others who are in need (“having need [xrei/an e&xonta]”). The noun bi/o$ was used earlier in 2:16, in reference to the “things of the world”; it denotes the means and manner of living—that is, in one’s daily life here on earth (“in the world”). Practically, this refers to food, clothing, money, and other resources that are used to fill a person’s daily needs. The author is not referring to charitable humanitarian actions in general, but, rather, the focus is specifically on the care that believers show to other believers (“his brother”).

This sort of practical ethical orientation is largely absent from the ko/smo$ references in the Gospel, which, as we have discussed, have two main aspects of contextualized meaning: “the world” (i) as the mission field for the Gospel, and (ii) as a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. Throughout much of the Gospel, and particularly in the Farewell Discourse (13:31-16:33), it is the latter (negative and dualistic) aspect that is primarily in view, even as it is here in the remainder of 1 John. The references in 3:1 and 13, for example, echo the usage in the Farewell Discourse, emphasizing the world’s hostility and opposition toward believers (and to the Christian mission), and providing something of an explanation for this opposition. The world does not know or recognize the children of God (believers) because it did not know or recognize the Son of God (Jesus Christ); the hostility of the world toward Jesus’ ministry extends to the mission of believers, since the early Christian mission represents an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own.

In verse 13, this sense of hostility is clarified as hatred (vb mise/w), just as in the Farewell Discourse (Jn 15:18-19, 23-25, also 17:14) and earlier in 2:9, 11. This hatred contrasts precisely with the love exhibited by believers. The equation is simple and straightforward, and it informs the author’s rhetoric (emphasizing the contrast between the true and false believer):

    • Believers love other believers
    • “The world” hates believers

In this dualistic equation, “the world” represents non-believers (and false believers) being categorically opposed to believers (i.e., true believers).

1 John 4:1-6

In 4:1-6, the same dualistic contrast is further developed, in terms of the believer’s relationship to “the world”. The two basic Johannine aspects of the ko/smo$-concept (outlined above) are present in this passage, though it is the latter (negative) aspect that is dominant.

It is also noteworthy that, earlier in 2:12-17, any reference to the Spirit was implicit, anticipating the references and allusions in vv. 20-27 and in chapter 3 (cf. especially the climactic reference in v. 24). Now, here in chapter 4, reference to the Spirit is made explicit, as the Spirit is contrasted directly with “the world”. Properly, the point of contrast is between the Spirit of God and the spirit(s) of “the world”. God’s Spirit is the Spirit of truth, while the spirit(s) of the world are false. In spite of this strong negative orientation, both aspects of the ko/smo$-concept are present in the initial reference in verse 1. That is to say, it includes a reference to “the world” as the early Christian mission field.

The author begins with the point of contrast involving the Spirit, indicating there are other spirits separate from (and opposed to) the Spirit of God:

“Loved (one)s, do not trust every spirit, but (instead) test the spirits (to see) if it is of [e)k] God”

The reason for this testing (to determine whether or not it is to be approved), vb dokima/zw, is given in the second half of the verse:

“(for it is) that many false prophets have gone out into the world!”

The noun profh/th$ (transliterated as prophet) literally means “foreteller”, though this can be misleading; the basic significance of the term is one who says/tells something before. The prefix pro– (“before”) can either mean “beforehand” (i.e., prior to) or in the spatial-relational sense of “before”(i.e., in front of) a person or group. The corresponding Hebrew term ayb!n` properly designates a spokesperson—specifically, one who speaks on God’s behalf, representing God before the people (and the people before God). This is the principal meaning of profh/th$ in the New Testament as well, particularly in the socio-religious context of early Christianity. In a real sense, every believer is an inspired prophet, possessing the Spirit of God and communicating the message and teaching of the Spirit to others. At the same time, certain believers were seen as possessing a special prophetic gifting by the Spirit. The former egalitarian orientation may be termed spiritualistic, while the latter we may call charismatic. In my view, the Johannine orientation and emphasis is spiritualistic rather than charismatic. Every true believer, who possesses the Spirit and is taught, guided and inspired by it, is a prophet. By contrast, the false believer, insofar as he/she possesses a spirit and is inspired by it, possesses not the Spirit of God, but another spirit—a false spirit which speaks falsehood and leads people astray. In this regard, the false believers who proclaim and teach, claiming to be guided by the Spirit, are “false prophets” (yeudoprofh=tai).

The author states that these “false prophets” have “gone out into the world”. As I see it, there is a double meaning for ko/smo$ here. On the one hand, it signifies the inhabited world of human beings as a mission-field—viz., for the Gospel and Christian teaching. These “false prophets” have essentially taken to this mission-field as false believers, proclaiming and advocating false teaching (esp. a false view of Jesus Christ) that threatens to lead many people (including other believers) astray (cf. esp. the context of 2 Jn 7-11). The author has in mind a specific group that he refers to as “against the Anointed” (anti/xristoi, ‘antichrists’), v. 3, even as he does earlier in 2:18ff (cf. also 2 Jn 7).

In 2:19, he notes that “they went out from us”, which brings us to the second aspect of the ko/smo$-concept—namely, a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. In terms of the author’s rhetoric in 1 John, this means, categorically, the world of non-believers (and, especially, of false believers). The statement that the ‘antichrists’ “went out from us” is precisely parallel to the notice here in 4:1—that they “have gone out into the world”. The expression “into the world” means “away from us” (i.e., away from the true believers). This dynamic finds its type-pattern in the Last Supper scene of the Gospel (chap. 13) just preceding the Farewell Discourse (13:31ff), as Judas Iscariot (symbolizing the false believers) departs from the community of the true disciples (i.e., true believers), going out into the darkness of the world:

“Then, (hav)ing received the morsel, that (one) [i.e., Judas] went out—and it was night.” (13:30)

Verse 2 makes clear that the main point at issue for the author is Christological. The true believers, inspired by the Spirit of God, hold a true view of Jesus Christ, while the false believers, led by false/deceiving spirits, espouse a false view of Christ. It is not possible here to discuss exactly what this false view held by the ‘antichrist’ opponents may have entailed. I have treated the matter at some length in earlier notes and articles. More important for the current study is the author’s emphasis on the role of the Spirit in proclaiming and confessing the true view of Christ (as the incarnate Son of God). All true believers will give an account as one (vb o(mologe/w)—i.e., together and in agreement—of who Christ is, making a common confession of faith that affirms the correct Christology. Any Christian who claims to be a true believer possessing and speaking from the Spirit, but who does not make this common confession, cannot possess the Spirit of God, and is thus a false believer (and a false prophet). This is point make boldly by the author in verse 3, identifying such false believers again as ‘antichrists’ (a)ntixri/stoi, “against the Anointed”). According to the author, this eschatological manifestation of ‘antichrist’, along with the false prophets of the end-time, is “already in the world now” in the form of the false believers who are espousing a false view of Christ.

The true believer possesses the true Spirit of God. All throughout his work, the author, as part of his rhetorical strategy, addresses his audience as though they were all true believers. He does this again here in verse 4:

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

The initial statement is another instance of the Johannine theological formula of essential predication—Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. In this instance, as often in 1 John, believers (that is, true believers) represent the Divine subject (i.e., as the children/offspring of God):

“You [u(mei=$] | are [e)ste] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”

The use of e)k (“out of”) in the prepositional expression e)k tou= qeou= has two aspects of meaning: (1) in the sense of belonging to God (i.e., being of God), and (2) an allusion to the idea of believers coming to be born of God (i.e., as God’s offspring); the latter idiom uses the verb genna/w (“come to be [born]”), usually in the form of a substantive perfect participle, along with the expression e)k tou= qeou=. The author’s use of tekni/on, a diminutive of the noun te/knon (plur. te/kna, “offspring”, i.e., “children”) also alludes to the identity of believers as the offspring of the God; cf. the discussion on this detail in the previous study.

The true believer is victorious over the false believers (i.e., false prophets and ‘antichrists’); the basis for this victory (cf. on 2:12ff in the previous study) is the Spirit of God that abides within. Given the context of the passage (and cf. 3:24), there can be no real doubt that the Spirit is the point of reference for the expression “the (one) in you”, to be contrasted with the spirit (of Antichrist) that is in the world (“the [one that is] in the world”). It is also possible to view the expression as a reference to the abiding presence of the Son (Christ), since, according to the Johannine theology, the Son now is present in and among believers through the Spirit. This idea of believers’ victory over the world, in relation to the abiding presence of the Spirit (and the Son), will be discussed further in the next study.

The contrast between true believers and false believers, as also between the Spirit and the false spirit(s), is further expounded in verses 5-6. The false believers belong to “the world” and they speak from the spirit(s) of “the world”:

“They are of the world; for this (reason) they speak out of [i.e., from] the world and the world hears them.” (v. 5)

The false believers (“they”) are again contrasted with the true believers (“we”, i.e., the author and his audience, whom he treats as true believers):

“We are of God, (and so) the (one) knowing God hears us, (while) the (one) who is not of God does not hear us.” (v. 6a)

Again, the theological language of essential predication is utilized, three times in vv. 5-6a—once with true believers as the Divine subject, and twice, in antithetical and negative formulation, with false believers as the subject. Verse 6a contains a contrastive parallel (word order modified):

    • “We [h(mei=$] | are [e)smen] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”
    • “the one who [o^$] | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”

The same basic contrast is made through an antithetical formulation in v. 5:

“They [au)toi\] | are [ei)sin] | of the world [e)k tou= ko/smou]”

The author, at least in his rhetorical emphasis, demonstrates a profoundly strong spiritualism, exhibiting the positive expectation that all true believers, who possess the Spirit of God, will essentially be in agreement with one another, accepting the truth spoken under the Spirit’s guidance. It is not at all clear just how much room there was, in the author’s mind, for disagreement between believers. At least on the fundamental matters of Christian identity—that is, one’s trust in Jesus Christ (as the Son of God) and the love that is shown to fellow believers (3:23)—all believers should, and must, be in full agreement.

In what may seem to be a paradox, it is the active and abiding presence of the Spirit itself that allows believers to distinguish between the Spirit of truth (i.e., God’s holy Spirit) and the spirit of going/leading astray (v. 6b), i.e., of falsehood and deception. The expression “the Spirit of Truth” as a designation of the Holy Spirit is distinctive of the Johannine writings, being attested three times in the Farewell Discourse (14:17; 15:26; 16:13), even as we find a similarly close identification of the Spirit with truth at other points (cf. Jn 4:23-24)—most notably, the declaration in 1 Jn 5:6: “…the Spirit is the truth”.

The term pla/nh denotes straying—either in the basic sense of going astray, or in the transitive-causative sense of leading (someone) astray. Both aspects of meaning certainly apply, though it is the latter (i.e., leading people astray) that is primarily in view. The spirits of the world—specifically, the spirit of Antichrist that is at work in the world, through many different individuals (thus, “spirits”)—fulfill the eschatological expectation of false prophets who will be active at the end-time (cf. Mk 13:5-6, 22 par), leading many people astray. Even believers may be led astray by such false and deceiving ‘spirits’ (Mk 13:22), and this is very much the focus of the author’s work in 1 John—exhorting and warning his readers/hearers not to be led astray by the teaching of the ‘antichrists’.

In our next study, the last study on the specific Johannine use of ko/smo$, we will examine the important references in 1 Jn 5:4-5 and 19.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 17)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 17: The World (Part 12)

The ko/smo$-concept in the Johannine Letters corresponds largely to the semantic range of the term in the Gospel. In both the Gospel and Letters (esp. First John), the meaning of ko/smo$ is shaped and defined by the unique Johannine theological idiom. The contours of this theological usage have been examined in some detail in the recent studies. In particular, the negative aspects of the expression “the world” —viz., the world in its opposition to God and hostility to the Son of God (Christ)—are applied to the religious and spiritual identity of believers. The sense of conflict between believers and “the world” is a theme that dominated chapters 13-17 of the Gospel—the Farewell Discourse (13:31-16:33) and the concluding Discourse-Prayer (chap. 17). This same thematic emphasis informs the rhetoric and dialectic of the First Letter, which has as its central theme the contrast between the true and the false believer. The nature and identity of the true believer is defined (and expounded) in relation to “the world”.

The noun ko/smo$ occurs 23 times in 1 John (and once more in 2 John), half of the occurrences being concentrated in two primary passages: 6 each in 2:12-17 (vv. 15-17) and 4:1-6. The first occurrence is in 2:2, and it can hardly be coincidental that the orientation of this reference corresponds to that of the first reference in the body of the Gospel (1:29), emphasizing how the sacrificial death of Jesus enabled “the whole world” (o%lo$ o( ko/smo$)—i.e., all of humankind—to be set free from sin (and its effects). Implicit in such a use of the expression “the world” is the important early Christian (and Johannine) concept of the inhabited world (of human beings) as the mission-field for the Gospel. The apparent universalism of the wording in 2:2 (and Jn 1:29, cf. 3:16-17, etc) is more than balanced out by the decided particularism (even exclusivism) in Johannine thought. The “world” that is saved and set free from sin is the collective of believers—that is, to the true believers (and they alone).

This distinction has a further defining force for the line of argument in 1 John, in which, as noted above, the contrast between true and false believers is the primary theme. The true believer does not belong to “the world”, but, rather, has been separated from it, confirming his/her identity as the offspring of God (rather than of the world).

1 John 2:12-17 (vv. 15-17)

The next occurrences of ko/smo$ are in 2:12-17; as mentioned above, there are six occurrences in this passage (all in vv. 15-17). In these verses, the dualistic contrast (viz., between true and false believers) established in 1:5-2:2 (and foreshadowed in the prologue, 1:1-4) is developed in relation to “the world” (o( ko/smo$).

A key feature of the author’s rhetorical strategy is to address his readers/hearers specifically as true believers. We see this strategy employed, to considerable effect, here in vv. 12-14. In a formalized double-address, the author refers to all believers (comprehensively), old and young alike (viz., “fathers” and “young men”) as “dear children” (tekni/a/paidi/a), alluding to their identity as the offspring (children) of God. The noun tekni/on (plur. tekni/a) is a diminutive of te/knon (“offspring”), which occurs as a regular designation for believers in the Johannine writings. At the start of each address (vv. 12-13, v. 14), by addressing his audience as “dear offspring/children”, the author is referring to the basic identity of believers as  God’s own offspring (Jn 1:12; 8:39; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2; cf. 2 Jn 1, 4, 13; 3 Jn 4). The address tekni/a, which also occurs in vv. 1, 28 and 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21, seems to be patterned after Jesus’ own address to his disciples (viz., the first believers) at the beginning of the Farewell Discourse (13:33).

A number of key points of emphasis for the Johannine theology are likewise embedded within the double-address of vv. 12-14, corresponding to each of the three register-lines:

    • “dear offspring/children (of God)” (tekni/a)
    • “fathers” (i.e., older believers)
    • “young men” (i.e., younger believers)

There is a two-fold characterization of believers in the first register-line, highlighting different aspects of their nature, respectively, in each address. Believers are those who:

    • have had their sins put away (i.e., removed/forgiven [vb a)fi/hmi]) [v. 12a]
    • have known God the Father (“the Father”) [v. 14a]

The perfect-tense verb forms indicate a past action the effect/result of which continues in the present. By trusting in Jesus, believers’ sins are removed (v. 2; Jn 1:29, cf. above) and can continue to be removed. Likewise, by trusting in Jesus, believers acknowledge (“know”) his identity as God’s Son; in knowing the Son, they/we also know the Father, since the Father is manifest through the Son. This knowledge continues through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

The characteristic stated in the second register-line is the same in each address (v. 13a, 14b). Believers, by definition (according to the Johannine theology) are those who know (i.e., acknowledge, recognize) Jesus’ identity as the incarnate Son of God. The Son was with God “in the beginning”, as the Gospel prologue makes clear (1:1ff, cf. the prologue of 1 John, 1:1-4). The expression “the (one) from the beginning” (o( a)p’ a)rxh=$) alludes to this Christological point (1:1, cf. the wording in Jn 8:25).

The characteristic in the final (third) register-line is likewise the same in each address: “you have been victorious over the Evil (one)” (v. 13b, 14d). The conflict between believers and “the Evil (one)” (i.e., the Satan/Devil), and the fact that we as believers are victorious over him, was discussed in the earlier arc of studies (on “the Devil”). It is certainly a key point of emphasis in the Johannine writings, in which the close relationship between the Devil and “the world” is also prominent; indeed, believers are victorious (vb nika/w) over both the Devil and “the world”. In the second address, this statement of victory is expanded and qualified by the following detail (v. 14c):

    • “you are strong”
    • “the word [lo/go$] of God remains [vb me/nw] in you”

The first detail (“you are strong”) simply refers to believers’ ability to be victorious over evil; the second detail expounds/explains the source of this strength—viz., the abiding presence of God’s word. This is a reference to the abiding presence of God’s Spirit, through whom the Son (Jesus) continues to be present in/with believers. The Son himself is God’s own Word (Logos), but as he continues to communicate with believers (through the Spirit), his word(s) (lo/go$/lo/goi) are also present—further teaching, guiding and exhorting those who have trusted in him.

This brings us to verses 15-17, in which the noun ko/smo$ occurs (6 times). Thus, after addressing his audience as believers (viz., true believers), the author takes care to position their identity as believers in relation to “the world”. This is done by way of an exhortational directive:

“You must not love the world, nor the (thing)s in the world.” (v. 15a)

Love (vb a)gapa/w) is another key Johannine characteristic of the true believer. Just as a son loves his father, so the Son (Jesus) loves the Father; in the same way, every offspring (i.e., child) of God will love God, and will also love God’s Son and all the other children of God (i.e., other believers)—cf. Jn 8:42; 14:21ff. Showing love to other believers is an essential duty (e)ntolh/) Jn 13:34ff; 1 Jn 3:23, etc) that must (and will) be fulfilled by every true believer. Since “the world” is fundamentally opposed to God, to love it means loving what is opposed to God. One cannot love both God and the world (cf. Lk 16:13 par).
It goes without saying that the expression “the world”, in this respect, has a different semantic emphasis than the reference to God ‘loving the world’ in Jn 3:16—viz., the world as the mission field for the Gospel rather than as a realm of darkness that is in opposition to God.
The point is made most forcefully in v. 15b:

“If any(one) should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

The expression “the love of the Father” could be understood as an objective genitive (i.e., the believer’s love for the Father) or as a subjective genitive (viz., the Divine love which is present in the believer). Both are entirely valid, in the context of the Johannine theology as well as in the immediate context of the passage. The comparison with love for the world suggests that the believer’s love for God is primarily in view; on the other hand, the emphasis throughout on the fundamental identity of the believer, and of the word (and love) that abides in the true believer, argues in favor of subjective genitive (viz., God’s love present in the believer).

Love toward “the world” extends to everything that is in it (“the [thing]s in the world”). Here, the author introduces an important nuance that blends the negative Johannine understanding of “the world” with the more general view of ko/smo$ simply as the created universe and the ‘world’ that human beings inhabit. That these two aspects can be so easily joined together demonstrates how flexible and multifaceted the early Christian (and Johannine) ko/smo$-concept truly is. The meaning of expression “the (thing)s in the world” is expounded in verse 16 (“every [thing] th[at is] in the world”). This is done through a theological framing statement:

“(It is) that every (thing) th(at is) in the world…is not of [e)k] the Father, but is of [e)k] the world.”

This statement features two important elements of Johannine theological syntax. The first is the use of the preposition e)k (“out of”). The three aspects or layers of meaning for this preposition, in its Johannine usage, were discussed in prior studies: (i) belonging (i.e., being “of” someone/something), (ii) source/origin (“from”, coming “out of”), and (iii) separation/removal (i.e., going “out of”). Here, it is primarily the first aspect that is in view, according to the basic contrast between God and “the world” —viz., the difference between belonging to God and belonging to the world. Since “the world” is fundamentally opposed to God, as a point of definition what belongs to “the world” cannot belong to God.

The second syntactical feature in v. 16 is the Johannine language of essential predication—i.e., simple predicative statements, following a basic formula-pattern: (i) Divine subject, (ii) verb of being, and (iii) predicate noun/phrase. As a point of comparison, in Jn 17:14-16 it is repeatedly stated that believers (i.e., the disciples) “are not of the world”, using the language of essential predication (ou)k ei)si\n e)k tou= ko/smou); in positive formulation, the corresponding declaration would be that they “are of God” (cf. 8:47). One finds a comparable negative formulation here in v. 16:

“all th(at is) in the world | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of the Father”

Here the subject is not Divine, but rather is the opposite of the Divine (spec. the opposite of believers). Believers, as the offspring of God, belong to God the Father (i.e., “are of the Father”). All those in the world, who do not belong to God, simply belong to “the world”, and not to God.

The “(thing)s in the world” (vv. 16-17)

Within this framing statement the “(thing)s in the world” are expounded according to three general groupings, expressed by genitival phrases:

    • “the impulse [e)piqumi/a] of the flesh”
    • “the impulse of the eyes”
    • “the boasting of th(is) life [bi/o$]”

The apparent unevenness of this manner of expression, made more difficult by the limitations of translation into English, belies a very precise conceptual structure. Despite the seemingly close connection between the first two expressions, the second expression actually stands midway between the first and third.

The noun e)piqumi/a denotes having an “impulse (qumo/$) upon (i.e., toward/after)” something (vb e)piqume/w). In English idiom, we would probably say “set one’s heart/mind on (something)”. The noun e)piqumi/a is a neutral term, but it tends to have a negative connotation, particularly as it is used in the New Testament (most frequently by Paul in his letters). The only other Johannine occurrence (outside of here in 2:16-17) is Jn 8:44, where the point of reference notably is to the evil impulse of those who are opposed to God (and hostile to Christ), i.e., “the world”, after the pattern of the world’s ruler (the Devil).

The first expression, “the impulse of the flesh” (h( e)piqumi/a th=$ sarko/$) refers to the natural impulses common to all human beings (and most animals), which are basic to the human nature in its physical-biological and sensual aspects. Here the term “flesh” (sa/rc) is not being used in the starkly negative sense that we find so commonly in Paul’s letters; rather, as elsewhere in the Johannine writings, the term primarily refers to the physical condition and parameters of a created human being (cf. Jn 1:13-14; 3:6, etc). In common with other animals, human beings experience various sensual impulses—the need/desire, e.g., for sustenance (food and drink), sleep, sexual fulfillment, and so forth. This is one basic level or aspect of being “in the world”.

At first glance, the second expression (“the impulse of the eyes”) seems to be a subset of the first, since a person’s eyes are part of the physical/sensual human nature (“flesh”). And yet, the point of reference is actually rather different. The impulse is not sensual (viz., toward the fulfillment of bodily needs and desires) but comes as a result of what a person sees. Through this seeing, there comes to be a desire for various things that a person sees around oneself, things which are not necessarily tied to the natural bodily needs/desires, etc. In particular, there may be an incipient desire for acquiring various objects and goods as one’s own possession.

The final expression is a bit difficult to translate. The noun a)lazonei/a basically means “boasting”, while bi/o$ means “life” but (different from zwh/) in the sense of one’s life and (daily) living as a human being, including the specific idea of a “lifestyle” or manner of living. The expression h( a)lazonei/a tou= bi/ou thus means something like “the boasting of th(is) life”. If the “impulse of the eyes” represent a level of human desire beyond the fulfillment of bodily needs, etc., to include the acquisition of goods and possessions, etc., the “boasting of th(is) life” goes a step or two further. One now boasts of what one has acquired, taking pride in one’s success and in what one has achieved during his/her lifetime (i.e., in “this life”). There can be no doubt that a certain self-centered pridefulness and arrogance is in view. Beyond this, the desire to obtain and acquire goods can develop into a desire for power and influence, of gaining control over the lives and fortunes of other human beings.

All three of these categories, these aspects of what it means to be “of the world” and “in the world”, will be discussed further in an upcoming study.

The author’s exhortation here concludes with verse 17:

“And the world leads [i.e., goes/passes] along, and the impulse [e)piqumi/a] of it, but the (one) doing the will of God remains into the Age!”

These references to “the world” are eschatological; they refer specifically to the current Age (“this Age”, i.e., “this world”), in contrast to the New Age to come (and which is already realized for believers in Christ). Even as the current Age is coming to an end, so “the world” is in the process of passing away. This is in addition to limited duration of all created beings, who live only for a short time and then pass away. The impulses experienced by created beings (v. 16) pass away with them. Only the believer in Christ, who remains (vb me/nw) faithful and united with him, lives and endures into the New Age (and forever).

The ethical orientation of these verses offers a window onto certain aspects of the Johannine understanding of the ko/smo$-concept, and of the relationship of believers to “the world”, that were somewhat lacking in the Gospel references, where the emphasis was primarily theological (and Christological). As we shall see, the author continues this same ethical focus, in different ways, throughout the remainder of the letter, as part of his basic contrast between the true and false believer, as between believers and “the world”.

In our next study, we will examine briefly the ko/smo$-references in 3:1 and 13, before looking more closely at the six occurrences in 4:1-6.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 16)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 16: The World (Part 11)

In the previous two studies (14 & 15), we examined the Johannine use of the term ko/smo$ (and the ko/smo$-concept) in the Farewell Discourse (13:31-16:33) and the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus. In the Farewell Discourse, as in the earlier Discourses of chaps. 3-12, the expression “the world” seems to function virtually as a synonymous designation for “the Yehudeans” (i.e., Jews) who are opposed to Jesus and his ministry. This striking application of the ko/smo$-terminology (in its full negative force) to “the Jews” has troubled many commentators.
The issue was dealt with at length in a 2006 monograph by Lars Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament [WUNT] 220 (Mohr Siebeck).

However, the apparent identification of “the world” with “the Jews” is somewhat misleading. During the period of Jesus’ ministry, the missionary witness was directed almost exclusively to other Jews (Judeans); therefore, the only manifestations of “the world” —in its opposition and hostility to Jesus—were Jewish. This begins to change in the Farewell Discourse and the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer, as the focus shifts to the mission of the disciples of Jesus (i.e., believers), with the recognition that the early Christian mission—which is a continuation of Jesus’ own mission—will spread out, beyond its Jewish boundaries, into the wider (Greco-Roman) world (cf. also the foreshadowing of this in 12:20-21ff). Thus, it is anticipated that the disciples (believers) will soon experience a hostility from “the world” that is non-Jewish. It is “the world” that is opposed to God and hostile toward His Son (and toward believers); in this regard, Jews only represent “the world” insofar as they are opposed to Christ and the Gospel. In the Passion narrative that follows (chaps. 18-19), the Roman Empire (and its leadership) features prominently as representative of “the world”, and it is to the ko/smo$-references in these chapters that we now turn. 

John 18:36-37

The Johannine version of the Roman interrogation scene of the Passion narrative (18:23-19:16a) has been considerably expanded, primarily through the inclusion of the dialogue-units of 18:33-38 & 19:9-11. The framework of this scene follows the established Gospel tradition, as presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:1-20 par); the main difference is that the scourging and mocking of Jesus occurs at the center (19:1-3), rather than the end (Mk 15:15-20), of the narrative. Meanwhile, the dialogue-units themselves represent uniquely Johannine contributions (there is nothing like them in the Synoptic version[s]).

In quality, style, and tone, the dialogue-units very much resemble the Johannine Gospel Discourses of Jesus, and are utilized to make the same sort of theological point of emphasis—viz., regarding Jesus’ identity as the (pre-existent) Son sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate misunderstands the true meaning of Jesus’ words, just as the hearers regularly do in the Discourses. The message regarding the Kingdom of God in these sections is rooted in the historical-traditional question of the kingship of Jesus, which is given a Johannine interpretation that Pilate cannot possibly understand (except, perhaps, unwittingly and ironically).

The seven-episode division of the scene, established by a number of commentators (see, most notably, Brown, pp. 857-9), is sound and accurate, and I have adopted it. As Brown illustrates (p. 859), the scene has a chiastic structure, with the divisions regulated by whether the action takes place outside of the praetorium chamber, or inside:

    • Outside (18:28-32)—the Jewish delegation demands Jesus’ death
      • Inside (18:33-38a)—Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship
        • Outside (18:38b-40)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; choice between Jesus and Barabbas
          • Inside (19:1-3)—Roman soldiers scourge/mock Jesus
        • Outside (19:4-8)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; “Behold the man”
      • Inside (19:9-11)—Pilate questions Jesus again about his identity
    • Outside (19:13-16a)—the Jewish delegation obtains a sentence of death for Jesus

According to this outline, the dialogue sections are clearly parallel and provide the main theological framework for the scene. This framework is based on the historical tradition, bare as it is, of the Roman interrogation of Jesus (as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels). Pilate asks Jesus directly: “Are you the king of the Yehudeans?” (Mk 15:2), and this is just how the first dialogue section in the Johannine version begins:

“Then Pilatus again came into the praetorium and gave voice [i.e. called out] to Yeshua, and said to him: ‘Are you the king of the Yehudeans?'” (v. 33)

The answer Jesus gives, in the Synoptic versions, is somewhat ambiguous, particularly in the Markan version: su\ le/gei$—which could be taken as an affirmation (“You have said it”), or a more evasive and challenging answer (e.g., “If you say so”, “You say that”). The longer response, in the Johannine version, is definitely not a simple affirmation, but something of a challenge to Pilate:

“Do you say [su\ le/gei$] this from yourself, or did others say it to you about me?” (v. 34)

As in the Synoptic version (Mk 15:4 par), Pilate asks Jesus a follow-up question; the Johannine version is similar in its orientation (reflecting a common underlying tradition), even if it worded very differently, and with a different emphasis:

“(Surely) I (am) not a Yehudean, am I? (It was) your (own) nation and the chief sacred-officials [i.e., priests] (that) gave you along to me! What have you done?” (v. 35)

In the Synoptic version(s), Jesus gives no answer—indeed, he says nothing more at all to Pilate. The Johannine version, in this regard, is very different: indeed, he responds with a mini-Discourse, rather in the Johannine style, expounding upon the question of his identity as the king (basileu/$) of the Jews:

“My kingdom [basilei/a] is not of [e)k] this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my under-rowers [i.e. servants] would [have] struggled (so) that I should not be given along to the Yehudeans. But now [i.e. as it truly is]—my kingdom is not from (this) place [e)nteu=qen].” (v. 36)

Jesus’ exposition is framed by two declarations (both examples of essential predication) regarding the nature of his kingdom/kingship. This may be compared with the two Kingdom-declarations in 3:3, 5. In both instances, the parallel declarations are explained with a practical illustration (cf. 3:6-8). Here, the two statements are:

    • “My kingdom | is not | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not | from (this) place”

These statements are generally synonymous, but with somewhat different nuances of emphasis. It is the first statement that utilizes the term o( ko/smo$ (“the world”)—the world, being opposed to God, is unwilling/unable to recognize and trust in Jesus as the Son of God. Indeed, “this world” is hostile to the Son, and to those chosen ones (i.e., believers) who have trusted in him.

Having come from God, sent to earth (below) from heaven (above), Jesus does not belong to “this world” (8:23). Believers also do not belong to this world, but to God (15:19; 17:6ff, 14-16ff [see the previous study]). This means that Jesus’ kingdom (and his kingship) is not from this world—it belongs to God, and has its origins in heaven. As in the aforementioned references, the theological point makes use (in the Johannine idiom) of multiple layers of meaning attached to the simple preposition e)k (“[out] of”), expressing the dual-notion of (a) belonging, and (b) defining one’s source/origin.

The second statement is more generalized, explaining that Jesus’ kingdom is not “from (this) place” (e)nteu=qen). It is possible to understand the adverb e)nteu=qen either in terms of (i) a specific point of reference (i.e., this place, or that place), or (ii) any place. This latter nuance is important, particularly in light of the message in 3:3ff, regarding the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. Unless a person comes to be born of [e)k] the Spirit, he/she cannot enter the Kingdom, nor even see it. The Kingdom is not defined by any physical, earthly place (i.e., “flesh”), but is “of the Spirit”; since God Himself is Spirit (4:24), it stands to reason that His Kingdom is also of the Spirit.

Thus, the expression “the world” is used here, primarily, in the physical-geographical-locative sense of (a) the created cosmos, and (b) the inhabited world of human beings. It does not have a negative connotative meaning per se, other than that it is strictly contrasted with the realm of God (i.e., heaven) and the Spirit.

In the Johannine Discourses, the hearers respond to Jesus’ words, usually in a way that reflects their lack of understanding (or mis-understanding) regarding the true meaning of his words. Often the response takes the form of a question, such as we see with Pilate here, as he asks: “(Is it) not, then, that you are a king?” In the Discourses, this kind of question leads to a fresh exposition by Jesus, in which he expounds the true meaning of his words. This exposition is, again, rooted in the Gospel tradition regarding Jesus’ answer to Pilate’s question (viz., “Are you the king of the Jews?”…”[So] you say [su\ le/gei$]”):

“You say [su\ le/gei$] that I am a king. I have come to be (born) unto this, and unto this I have come into the world: that I should give witness to the truth! Every(one) being of [e)k] the truth hears my voice.” (v. 37)

Jesus’ answer clearly acknowledges Pilate’s lack of understanding. Yes, Jesus is a king, but not in the way that Pilate means! “You say that I am a king” —but then, Jesus proceeds to define his kingship in a very different way, entirely in terms of his [i.e. the Son’s] earthly mission. He came to be born (i.e., as a human being) and, indeed, came into the world, “unto this [ei)$ tou=to]”, i.e., “for this purpose”. The prepositional expression ei)$ tou=to does not point back to Pilate’s idea about Jesus being an earthly king; rather, it points forward to the i%na– goal/purpose clause that concludes the verse: “…that [i%na] I should give witness to the truth”.

In this context, the semantic scope of the term “the world” is narrowed further, in reference to the earthly mission (“in[to] the world”) of the incarnate Son—i.e., the inhabited word of human beings as the mission-field. In this regard, the verb marture/w (“[give] witness”) is utilized, being another Johannine key-term (the theme of witness is prominent throughout the Gospel). The main purpose of the Son’s mission is to give witness to the truth (h( a)lh/qeia).

The dialogue concludes with a follow-up response/question from Pilate, phrased in the Johannine language of essential predication (cf. the Kingdom-statements in v. 36, discussed above):

“What [ti/] | is [e)stin] | (the) truth [a)lh/qeia]?”

Jesus offers no immediate answer to the question; as in the Gospel tradition (Mk 15:4-5), he (for the moment) remains silent. However, the attentive reader of the Gospel will be able to discern the answer.
The answer is threefold, and to be given in the same Johannine theological language of essential predication:

    • First, is the implicit answer that the Son makes known the truth of God the Father—see, especially, this theme as it is expounded in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus (vv. 3, 6ff)
    • Second, Jesus makes known his identity as the Son of God—who, as the Son, is able to reveal the Father. Jesus declares of himself:
      “I [e)gw/] | am [ei)mi] | …the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (14:6)
    • Third, the Son makes himself and the Father known to believers, by giving to them the Spirit—a process that begins during his earthy mission, and concludes with his exaltation (death, resurrection, and departure back to the Father), continuing thereafter by way of the Christian mission. Believers are united with the Son (and the Father) through the Spirit, and, indeed, the Son continues to instruct believers, making the truth of God known through the Spirit. Cf. Study 14 and my earlier notes on the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus.
      As the author of 1 John states:
      “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma] | is [e)stin] | the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (5:6)

The second Dialogue-unit (19:9-11) of the scene matches the first, exhibiting the same kind of the development of the early Gospel tradition. Indeed, the two dialogue-episodes correspond to the two questions Pilate asks Jesus (in Mark 15:2-5 par). The first question (v. 2), is featured in 18:33-38a (cf. above), while the second question (v. 4f) features in 19:9-11. Here is how the Markan version narrates the tradition. In the Johannine version, the traditional elements—(a) follow-up question by Pilate, and (b) Jesus’ lack of any response—are much simpler and streamlined by comparison, set within the distinctive dramatic-narrative framework (cf. the outline above):

“And (Pilatus) came into (the) praetorium again, and he says to Yeshua: ‘Where are you from?’ But Yeshua gave no response back to him.” (v. 9)

In the Synoptic version(s), Pilate’s question only indirectly relates to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah (“King of the Jews”); in John’s version, the question touches upon the central point of the Johannine theology—viz., Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate unwittingly alludes to Jesus’ heavenly origin when he asks, “Where are you from?” The theological significance of the question becomes even clearer when we realize that it is phrased in the syntax of Johannine essential prediction, which has three components: (a) Divine subject, (b) verb of being, and (c) predicate noun/phrase. Those three components are all present—

“You [su/] | are [ei@] | from where [po/qen]?”

only the word order has been reversed, with the predicate (of origin) being emphasized (in first position):

“From where | are | you?”
po/qen ei@ su/

The interrogative po/qen (“from what place, from where…?”) occurs somewhat more frequently in the Gospel of John than the other Gospels (or elsewhere in the New Testament); nearly half of the NT occurrences (13 of 29) are in John. This includes passages where the interrogative, as here, has definite theological importance—3:8; 7:28; 8:14; and note also the double-meaning conceptual word-play within the Gospel narrative (4:11; 6:5; 7:27; 9:29-30). In some ways, the question (with po/qen) echoes Jesus words in the earlier dialogue unit, where he effectively gives an answer to Pilate’s question, but in negative terms:

“My kingdom is not of this world….
my kingdom is not from here [e)nteu=qen]”

Again these statements are instances of Johannine essential predication, but phrased (paradigmatically) with a negation of the verb of being—viz., stating what Jesus’ kingdom is not:

    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | from here”

The adverb e)nteu=qen, “from this place”, clearly corresponds with the interrogative po/qen (“from what place…?”). Again, as with po/qen, the adverb e)nteu=qen is more common in the Gospel of John than elsewhere in the New Testament (6 of the 10 occurrences).

Jesus is not from “this place”, i.e., “this world”, the earth below, where humans dwell. At first, Jesus does not tell Pilate where he is from, though the reader/hearer of the Gospel (and esp. the earlier Discourses) understands the implicit identification of Jesus as the Son who was sent from heaven by God the Father. An implicit (positive) answer was, we may say, given in 18:37 (cf. above): Jesus came to earth (from heaven), in order to bear witness to the truth (from God); everyone who is of (e)k) the truth, even as he himself is of the truth (i.e., from God), will hear and respond (with trust) to his voice.

Jesus does not belong to “the world”, nor is his Kingship “of the world”; Pilate, by contrast, does belong to “the world” and his kingship (as part of the Roman imperial administration) is “of the world”. And yet, Pilate does not seem to exhibit the same kind of opposition (and hostility) to Jesus that fundamentally characterizes “the world”. As we have seen, earlier in the Gospel, the expression “the chief (ruler) [a&rxwn] of this world” occurred several times (12:31; 14:30; 16:11) referring, almost certainly, to the Satan/Devil (the ko/smo$ being a realm dominated by darkness and evil). Pilate is not characterized by these wicked/evil attributes so strongly, since he misunderstands Jesus’ words, rather than being provoked to hostility by them. Yet, he is still governed by the same darkness—lack of knowledge and being unable to “see” (i.e., recognize) the true identity of Jesus. He certainly does not trust in Jesus (as the Son of God), and thus he is very much part of the darkness of the world.

As the second Dialogue-episode progresses, Pilate’s lack of knowledge/belief begins to coalesce into something closer to an opposition toward Jesus. As he responds to the silence of Jesus (v. 9, as in the Synoptic version), Pilate’s lack of understanding (typical of the hearers in the Discourses) prompts a reaction that, in his role as imperial governor, threatens violence (and death):

“You do not speak to me? Have you not seen [i.e. realized] that I hold (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to loose you from (custody), and (also) hold (the) authority to put you to the stake?” (v. 10)

The initial question (“You do not speak to me?”) here resembles the initial part of the question in the Synoptic version (“Do you not give forth any [answer]?”, Mk 15:4). We might see an allusion to 18:37, and the idea that only the person belonging to the truth (“of the truth”, i.e., of God) is able to hear Jesus speaking. In this regard, Pilate is ‘deaf’, just as the Jewish religious leaders who oppose Jesus (and are unable/unwilling to trust in him) are ‘blind’ (9:39-41).

Jesus does, eventually, give an answer to Pilate, which, according to the Johannine Discourse-format, can be viewed as an exposition of his silence in v. 9:

“You would not hold (any) authority [e)cousi/a] against me, if it were not given to you from above [a&nwqen].” (v. 11)

Pilate is quite mistaken regarding the true/real nature of authority. The noun e)cousi/a refers to the power or ability which one possesses (in his/her own person), often with the implication that it has come (or has been given) from a superior. In the case of Pilate, his power/authority comes from the Roman Imperial government (and the Emperor). The term has similar implications for the kingship of Jesus. The Son (Jesus) receives his power/authority from God the Father and the Divine Kingdom that is above. Pilate (like any earthly ruler) only has authority over Jesus (the incarnate Son) in a limited (and contingent) way. By using the adverb a&nwqen (“from above”), Jesus gives a belated (and indirect) answer to Pilate’s initial question in v. 9: “Where are you from?” Answer: “From above”.

As with the interrogative po/qen and the adverb e)nteu=qen, the adverb a&nwqen is something of Johannine keyword, even though it used only rarely (5 out of the 13 NT occurrences). The occurrences in 3:3, 7, and again in 3:31, are vital for an understanding of the Johannine theology (and Christology). If we combine these three origin-terms in sequence, we obtain a veritable snapshot of the Johannine message:

    • Question: “From where [po/qen] does Jesus come?”
    • Answer 1: “Not from this place [e)nteu=qen]”, i.e., not from this world
    • Answer 2: “From above [a&nwqen]”, i.e., from God the Father in heaven

Though he came into this world, the Son’s Kingdom—that is, God’s Kingdom—is not of this world. Rather it is of the Spirit; that is, it is of God, who is Spirit (4:24). The keyword motifs that parallel the earlier Discourse-scene in 3:3-8 (cf. above), as well as the thematic emphasis on “the truth” (18:36-37), only confirm the essential Johannine identification of the Kingdom with the Spirit.

Ultimately, Pilate, as representing “the world” acts in opposition to Jesus, by ordering that he be put to death. It is a very different kind of kingdom (and kingship), possessing only a limited authority and being dominated by the darkness and evil of the world (and the chief/ruler of the world). The Johannine version of the Roman Interrogation scene, steeped as it is in the Johannine theology (at least in the Pilate-Jesus dialogue), clearly juxtaposes (and contrasts) the kingdom/authority of the ko/smo$ with the Kingdom/authority of God. The Divine Kingdom is ruled by the Son and is manifested by the Spirit.

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

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 15)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 15: The World (Part 10)

In the recent studies, we have seen how often the Gospel of John uses the term ko/smo$. The frequency clearly indicates the importance of the early Christian ko/smo$-concept, as it came to be developed and applied within the Johannine tradition. Yet, even with this extensive usage in view, it remains striking just how often ko/smo$ occurs in the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus. The noun occurs 20 times in the Farewell Discourse (discussed in the previous study), which is a noticeably large number; and yet, it occurs nearly as often (18 times) in the single chapter of the Discourse-Prayer. Clearly “the world” is a dominant theme of the Discourse-Prayer. Building upon the usage in the Farewell Discourse, Jesus gives his final instruction to his disciples regarding the relationship between believers and the world.

John 17:1-5

Even though the chapter is framed and presented as prayer addressed to God the Father, it also functions as a Johannine Discourse, in which Jesus develops and expounds (for his disciples) the true meaning of his teaching. In this instance, the sayings comprise the introductory section (vv. 1b-5). Often in the Gospel Discourses, the saying of Jesus, which he expounds throughout the Discourse, embodies the Johannine Gospel—presenting the principal themes and theological emphases in summary form. Jesus’ request that the Father give/show honor to him (the Son) provides the framework for the section, utilizing the verb doca/zw. This is a key term (along with the related noun do/ca) in the Gospel, but it takes on greater prominence as the Son’s earthly mission comes to a close (cf. 12:16, 23, 28) and his Passion draws near (13:31-32); the other references in the Farewell Discourse (14:13; 15:8; 16:14) allude to the continuation of the Son’s mission by his disciples (believers), and this is the focus in chap. 17 as well. Here is how vv. 1b-5 are framed:

    • “…give honor to your Son, that the Son might give honor to you” (v. 1b)
    • “and (so) now, may you give honor to me, alongside your own (self), with the honor [do/ca] that I held alongside you before the world’s (coming) to be” (v. 5)

The Son’s mission on earth, for which he was sent (from heaven) by the Father, is coming to an end. It will reach its fulfillment with his death. The incarnate Son’s death also marks the beginning of his exaltation—a theological concept expressed here by the verb doca/zw (and the idea of the Father honoring His Son). It is also expressed in the Gospel by the motif of “lifting high” (vb u(yo/w) the Son (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). This “lifting high” (i.e., exaltation) includes all three aspects of the Son’s death, resurrection, and departure (back to the Father in heaven)—the latter also corresponding to the use of the verb a)nabai/nw (“step up”). The process of exaltation begins with his death, which itself is set in motion by the events of his Passion; this explains the use of doca/zw in 12:16ff, 13:31-32, and here in 17:1ff.

The frame of vv. 1b-5 is filled by the declarations of Jesus to the effect that he (the Son) has fulfilled the mission for which the Father sent him to earth:

    • “just as you gave to him authority over all flesh, (so) that, (for) every (one) whom you have given to him, he should give to them (the) Life of the Ages [i.e., eternal life]” (v. 2)
    • “I honored [e)do/casa] you upon the earth, (hav)ing completed the work which you have given to me that I should do” (v. 4)

At the very center of the section, in between these two fulfillment-declarations, is the Johannine confessional statement of verse 3, which further distills the Johannine theology:

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

Eternal life is defined in terms of knowing Jesus Christ; from the standpoint of the Johannine theology (as previously discussed), this means trust in Jesus Christ, recognizing and acknowledging his identity as the (incarnate) Son of God, the one set to earth (from heaven) by God the Father. By knowing the Son in this way, the believer also knows the Father, since the Son, in and through his own person, manifests the Father and makes Him known. This is an important Gospel theme that is developed here in the Discourse-Prayer (see below).

John 17:6-8

After the initial occurrence of ko/smo$ in the introductory section (v. 5), alluding to the pre-existence and heavenly origin of the Son, but also to his incarnation and earthly mission (“upon the earth”, i.e., “in the world”), the noun features at the start of the first exposition/development section (vv. 6-8). In these verses, Jesus further explains the nature/purpose of his mission, which otherwise involves giving eternal life to human beings (vv. 2-3, see above). Clearly, it is only to certain human beings (i.e., believers) that eternal life is given, and these individuals were specifically given to him (by the Father):

“I shone forth your name to the men whom you gave to me out of the world. To you they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept watch (over) your word [lo/go$].” (verse 6)

The allusive reference in v. 5, to Jesus’ impending departure (out of the world), is matched by the reference here to believers being taken “out of the world”. This use of the expression “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou)—cf. 8:23; 13:1; 15:19—refers to people becoming disciples of Jesus (i.e., believers) by trusting in him. In a sense they are taken “out of the world”, even though they never did belong to the world (i.e., “of [e)k] the world”) in the first place. As believers, we belong to God (i.e., we are “of God”), and not to the world. This theological principle regarding the true identity of believers is expressed here in the language of Johannine essential predication (the syntax of which tends to be obscured in translation):

Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase
“| they were [h@san] | (belonging) to you [soi]”

In this instance, the Divine subject is believers (generally/collectively)—that is, as the offspring/children of God. The verb of being is in the imperfect tense, even as it was used (of the Son/Logos) in the Prologue (1:1-2, 4, 8-10, 15), indicating a (regular) state/condition that existed in the past. Believers belong to God even before they come to trust in Jesus (“you gave them to me”). By recognizing and acknowledging the truth of Jesus, and trusting him, as believers we realize our true identity (and then act upon it, “and they have kept watch over your word [lo/go$]”). Believers do indeed recognize the nature of the Lo/go$—both the person of Jesus Christ himself, and the (Gospel) message about him—as stated in vv. 7-8.

John 17:9-19

The remainder of the Discourse-Prayer is divided into two primary sections—vv. 9-19 and 20-26—each of which is explicitly framed as a prayer-request (from the Son) addressed to the Father. The noun ko/smo$ occurs 12 times in vv. 9-19, and, indeed, it is in this section that the relationship between believers and “the world” is most clearly expounded. The principal point of reference (as in the Farewell Discourse) is to the first disciples of Jesus, but the message truly is to all believers.

As he makes his request, Jesus states that he is not praying on behalf of “the world”, but only on behalf his disciples (i.e., believers), who are currently in the world. This distinction clearly illustrates that the apparent universalistic references to “the world” in the Gospel (e.g., 3:16, and see below on vv. 21ff) actually have believers squarely in view. Note how the language of v. 6 (cf. above) is echoed here in v. 9:

“I make request over them; I do not make a request over the world, but over the (one)s whom you have given to me, (in) that to you they are.”

The essential predication is also replicated, but in a slightly modified form:

“| they are [ei)sin] | (belonging) to you [soi]”

The imperfect (i.e., past) tense of the verb of being (in v. 6) is replaced by the present tense. Even before they became believers, they belonged (“were”) to God, but now this identity has been realized in the present—viz., they are (belonging) to God.
Here, as in v. 6, the predicate (soi/, “[belonging] to you”) is in first position, presumably for emphasis; i.e., “(belonging) to you [soi\] they are [ei)sin]”. 

As God’s own offspring (i.e., children), believers take the place of the incarnate Son (Jesus), once he has departed and returned to the Father, so as to continue his mission. For the first disciples, this was not realized until they received the Spirit (20:22); but all believers possess the Spirit, and it is the Spirit that enables them (and us) to continue Jesus’ mission. Indeed, in a very real sense, Jesus continues to be present with believers, working in them and guiding them through the Spirit (cf. the discussion in the previous study regarding the Spirit/Paraclete references in the Farewell Discourse). This parallelism, viz., between Jesus and believers, regarding the mission “in the world”, is expressed in verse 11 by the dual ko/smo$-reference:

“Indeed, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world while I come toward you.” (v. 11a)

The Son departs (back) to the Father (“I come toward you”) and is no longer in the world; only his disciples (i.e., believers) remain “in the world” (viz., to carry on the mission).

An important theme that is developed in this section is that of Divine protection for believers—while they/we are “in the world”. Since the world is characterized by darkness and evil, being fundamentally opposed to God (and hostile to Jesus, cf. the previous study for this theme in the Farewell Discourse), such protection is both important and necessary. Indeed, it becomes clear that protection is, in many ways, the principal focus of Jesus’ prayer-request to the Father. It is introduced in verse 12, as Jesus emphasizes how he himself protected (“kept watch over” and “guarded”, vbs thre/w & fula/ssw) his disciples during his time on earth; now, however, with his death and departure impending, the incarnate Son will no longer be able to watch over them in this way. Therefore, he asks the Father now to protect them (vv. 15ff).

The ko/smo$-references in vv. 13 and 14 express both the Son’s relationship to his disciples (believers) and the basis for the world’s hatred of them (both of these themes being prominent components in the Farewell Discourse [cf. the previous study]). The relationship between the incarnate Son and the disciples is coming to an end, as indicated by the language used in v. 13:

“Now, I am coming toward you, and (yet) these (thing)s I speak (while still) in the world, (so) that they [i.e., the disciples] might hold my joy having been fulfilled in them.”

The present tense of the verb lale/w (“speak”) refers specifically to the Farewell Discourse (and the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer), while the perfect tense (of the verb di/dwmi) in v. 14 refers to totality of the earthly ministry (“I have given to them your word”)—teaching and witness that was given in the past, but (the effect and force of) which still continues in the present. It is this witness, and the continuation of Jesus’ ministry by believers, that causes “the world” to hate them. The fulfilling of the Son’s mission is a sign that believers, like the Son himself, are not “of the world”; thus, “the world” recognizes that believers, though they may be in the world, do not belong to it—i.e., do not share its characteristic attributes or values, etc.

Jesus realizes that his disciples (believers) must remain “in the world”, in order to continue the mission; therefore, he does not ask the Father to take them “out of the world” (cf. the usage of the expression in v. 6, above), but, rather, that He would protect them while they are “in the world” —i.e., in the midst of the darkness and evil of the world:

“I do not request that you should take them out of the world, but that you would keep watch (over) them [i.e., keeping them] out of [i.e. from] the evil.” (v. 15)
As previously discussed (in the arc of studies on “the Devil”), the substantive articular adjective (o( ponhro/$, “the evil”) here is likely a reference to the Satan/Devil, i.e., “the Evil (one)”; cf. 1 Jn 5:19.

Because believers are God’s own offspring, and, like the Son himself, are not “of the world” (v. 16), it is necessary they (and we) be both protected from (e)k) the evil of the world (v. 15) and consecrated to fulfill the Divine mission in the world (vv. 17-18). I would argue that both of these aspects are realized through the presence of the Spirit, and that Jesus (along with the Gospel writer) has the Spirit primarily in view (if referenced only allusively). This will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming study, but here one may note the following points:

    • The parallels between verse 15 and 1 John 5:18-19 (cf. the context of vv. 6-10ff) strongly suggest that the abiding presence of God’s Spirit (and of the Son’s own presence through the Spirit) is the source of protection for the believer.
    • The attributes of holiness and truth (vv. 17, 19) are fundamental characteristics of the Spirit, with truth being especially emphasized in the Johannine writings (cf. the expression “the Spirit of truth” in the Farewell Discourse, 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; also 1 Jn 4:6); note, in particular, the essential identification (predication) in 1 Jn 5:8.
    • According to the Johannine theology, essential realization of believers belonging to God (and not being “of the world”) is based upon their/our identity as the offspring (children) of God; they/we come to be born of God, and, as Jn 3:5-8 makes clear (and as is alluded to throughout the Gospel) this birth occurs through the Spirit (cf. this point in relation to 1 Jn 5:18).
John 17:20-26

In the second primary section (vv. 20-26), the focus shifts from the immediate (historical-traditional) Gospel context of the first believers (i.e., the disciples/apostles) to all believers, everywhere and throughout the world. It would, however, constitute a gross interpretive mistake to assume that the prior section(s) refer exclusively to the disciples, and to all (other) believers only here in vv. 20-26. Rather, believers—all believers—are fully in view (and addressed) throughout the chapter, even as in the Farewell Discourse. The reason why they are emphasized here, specifically, is that the thematic focus has shifted—from protection for believers (while they are in the world) to the unity of (all) believers. This theme of unity could have been expounded entirely within the (historical) context of the disciples, but here, at the close of chaps. 13-17, the Gospel writer (along with Jesus) wishes to apply the theme within the broader context of the early Christian mission.

And, indeed, as stated in verse 21, the unity of believers serves as a powerful missionary witness to the world, and one which confirms the truth of the Gospel:

“…that they all would be one—just as you, Father, (are) in me, and I in you, that they also would be in us—(so) that the world might trust that you sent me forth.” (cf. verse 23)

The phrase “that you sent me forth” is a shorthand for the Johannine Gospel and its theology, identifying Jesus as the incarnate Son of God who was sent from heaven (to earth) by God the Father. The world coming to trust this Gospel is, of course, a summary of the Christian mission (and its effect). An implicit idea expressed here is that the mission is only effective when believers are united, acting together according to the essential unity that exists among them. This unity, like the Divine protection emphasized in vv. 9-19 (see above), is manifested and realized through the presence of the Spirit. Though nowhere stated explicitly, this point is clear enough when one examines the Johannine writings carefully (and in their totality) and will be discussed in more detail in the upcoming studies of this series.

At the theological (and Christological) level, the unity between and among believers means that they/we are manifesting the Son of God to the world (cf. verse 22ff)—not only through the word(s) of the Gospel, but through the living and abiding Word of God itself (i.e., the Son, present in us through the Spirit). As believers, we are also God’s own offspring (children), an identity that is, ultimately, dependent upon our union with the Son (in the Johannine writings ui(o/$, “son”, is used only for Jesus Christ, never for believers). The unity, between believers and the Son, is essential—not merely symbolic or figurative, but real. Similarly, believers, as the offspring/children of God, along with Jesus the Son, are united with God the Father. Ultimately believers, like the Son himself, share in the Divine do/ca (“honor, glory, splendor”, cf. above on the verb doca/zw) and will come to experience it fully (v. 24; cf. verse 5).

In the final verses of the Discourse-Prayer (vv. 25-26), the fundamental contrast, between believers and “the world”, is reprised. As discussed above, the other three ko/smo$-references in this section refer to the more general (and less negative) aspect of “the world” as the mission-field within which believers proclaim the Gospel. In verse 25, however, there is a further reminder that, although believers may be living and working in the world, they/we do not belong to the world (i.e., we are not “of the world”). This is a key Johannine theme, but here it takes on greater depth in light of the powerful unity emphasis in the section. The reality of the union of believers with the Son (and with God the Father) makes it all the clearer that believers belong to God, and not to “the world”. The essential identity of believers, in this regard, is expressed according to the Johannine motif of knowing God:

“Right(eous) Father—indeed, the world did not know you, but I knew you, and these [i.e., disciples/believers] (have) known that you sent me forth.”

As a basic point of definition, only believers know (i.e., recognize and accept with trust) that Jesus is the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father. But we, as believers, are only able to know this because the Son himself has made it known to us—i.e., revealed and manifested it to us through his person:

“And I made known to them your name, and I will (yet) make it known, (so) that the love (with) which you loved me may be in them, and I (also) in them.” (v. 26)

The future tense of the verb gnwri/zw (“make known”), “I will make known”, refers to the teaching, guidance, and revelation that the Son (Jesus) will bring to believers through the presence of the Spirit.

*      *      *      *      *

In the next study, we will explore the ko/smo$-references in the dialogue-scenes between Jesus and Pilate, both in their narrative context and as a dramatic representation of the contrast between Jesus and “the world” (i.e., its government and rulers); the term ko/smo$ occurs in 18:36-37, but the concept endues the entire narrative episode (of 18:26-19:16a) with special theological significance.