Tag: Believers and the World

May 15: John 16:11

John 16:11

In verse 11, we have the third (and final) item of the triad in the Paraclete-saying of v. 8:

“that (one) will show the world (to be wrong)…about judgment [kri/si$]”

In the previous notes on v. 9 and 10, two key points were established: (1) the Spirit will show the world to be wrong in its understanding (of sin and righteousness), and that (2) the true nature of sin and righteousness is to be understood in Christological terms—that is, in relation to Jesus’ identity as the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father. The same two points apply to the final statement regarding judgment (kri/si$).

The noun kri/si$ fundamentally refers to a separation, often in the sense of discerning or making a decision about something. It is typically translated “judgment”, either in this general sense, or within the specific legal-judicial context of a decision rendered in a court of law (by a judge). For the most part, in the Gospel of John, as throughout the New Testament, kri/si$ specifically refers to the coming end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world, punishing humankind for its wickedness.

The noun occurs 11 times in the Gospel (out of 47 NT occurrences), and once in 1 John (4:17); the related verb (kri/nw) occurs 19 times in the Gospel, but not in the Letters. Occasionally, the more general sense of judgment is intended (cf. 7:24), or kri/si$/kri/nw is used in an ordinary legal-judicial context (7:51; 18:31); however, as noted above, primarily the reference is to the coming end-time Judgment (see esp. 5:29-30; 12:31, 48; 1 Jn 4:17).

Even though the eschatological context is primary, this is presented in a very distinctive way in the Gospel Discourses. At several points, we find signs of what is called “realized” eschatology—that is, the idea that end-time events, such as the resurrection and the Last Judgment, are understood as having, in a sense, already occurred, being realized in the present. This does not mean that the Gospel writer (or Jesus as the speaker) denies a future fulfillment, but only affirms that it is also fulfilled in the present. This is seen most clearly in the chapter 5 Discourse, where the resurrection is defined, not simply as a future event, but as realized in the present, through the presence of the Son of God (Jesus)—vv. 25ff; cp. 11:25-26. In terms of salvation from the coming Judgment, this is realized for believers (in the present), through their/our trust in Jesus:

“the (one) hearing my word, and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me, holds (the) life of the ages [i.e. eternal life], and does not come into judgment, but has stepped over, out of death, (and) into life.” (5:24)

If believers are saved from judgment in the present, through trust, then unbelievers correspondingly come under God’s judgment, having the judgment (already) passed against them (in the present), through their lack of trust. The key passage alluding to this is 3:19-21; cf. also 9:41; 15:22-24. In the wider Gospel tradition, the end-time period of distress, seen as the beginnings of the Judgment, commences with the suffering and death of Jesus (see, e.g., Mark 14:38-41 par, and the context of the “Eschatological Discourse” [chap. 13 par]). The Johannine tradition evinces the same basic eschatological view, and this is confirmed by Jesus’ declaration in 12:31, and is strongly implied throughout the Last Discourse.

The explanation of the Paraclete-saying in v. 8 concludes with the words of Jesus in v. 11:

“…and about judgment, (in) that the Chief of this world has been judged”

The perfect tense of the verb kri/nw (ke/kritai, passive, “he has been judged”) indicates a past event, the effect of which continues in the present. The implication is that the “chief of this world” has already been judged, just as believers have already passed through [perfect form of the vb metabai/nw] the Judgment (5:24, cf. above).

The expression “the chief of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou=tou) occurred earlier the 12:31 declaration:

“Now is (the) judgment of this world, now the Chief of this world shall be cast out!”

The idea expressed is very close to that here in v. 11: “shall be cast out” (future tense) is parallel with “has been judged” (perfect tense). Essentially the same expression was used earlier in the Last Discourse, at the close of the first discourse (14:30f):

“Not much more shall I speak with you, for the Chief of the world comes, and he does not hold anything on me, but (this is so) that the world would know that I love the Father, and, just as He laid on me (a duty) to complete, so I do (it).”

This is a rather complicated way for Jesus to refer to his impending suffering (and death). The approach of the “Chief of the world” signifies the world’s role, under the dominion of its “Chief”, in putting Jesus to death. The point is strongly made that this does not mean that the world (or its Chief) has any power over Jesus, or has anything incriminating on him (deserving of death)—cf. Jesus’ words to Pilate in 19:11, and note the emphasis in 10:18. In his own way, Pilate is one of the world’s “chiefs”, though ultimately subservient to the dominion/control of its main Chief (the Devil). Jesus’ suffering and death will happen so that everyone (“the world,” in a more generic sense) will know of the love between Father and Son, and that the Son (Jesus) is simply fulfilling the duty and mission given to him by the Father.

In speaking of the “coming” of the world’s Chief, coinciding with the onset of Jesus’ Passion, one is reminded of the Synoptic Garden scene, when Jesus announces to his close disciples that “the hour (has) come [h@lqen h( w%ra]” (Mark 14:41 par; cp. Jn 12:23, 27 in connection with v. 31). In the Lukan version (22:53), this declaration is given more vivid and personal form:

“…but this is your hour, and the authority [e)cousi/a] of darkness”

In many ways, this language approaches the Johannine theme of the world’s opposition to Jesus; the plural “you” essentially refers to those people, hostile to Jesus, who belong to the current world-order (ko/smo$) of darkness and evil. Functionally, they are servants of the Devil, the “Chief” of the world.

According to the world’s view of things, Jesus was judged and punished by the world’s authority; yet this view of judgment (kri/si$) is decidedly wrong. Jesus’ suffering and death actually marks the beginning of his exaltation—of his being “lifted up” (as the Son of God) in glory. While it might appear as though Jesus was judged, it was actually the world (and its Chief) that underwent judgment. This is the true nature of judgment that the Spirit will bring to light, exposing the false understanding of the world. Jesus himself declared the true situation at the close of the Last Discourse (16:33):

“…in the world you have distress, but you must take courage, (for) I have been victorious (over) the world!”

Again a perfect tense form (neni/khka, “I have been victorious”) shows how the future (eschatological) event of the Judgment is realized in the present. That Jesus’ victory over the world includes the “Chief of the world” —something already alluded to in 12:31—is confirmed by the author of 1 John:

“Unto this [i.e. for this purpose] the Son of God was made to shine forth [i.e. appear on earth], that he should dissolve [i.e. destroy] the works of the {Devil}.” (3:8)

The mission of the Son on earth, culminating in his death, had the purpose (and effect) of destroying the ‘works’ (implying dominion/control) of the Devil. This is another way of stating that, with the death of Jesus, the “Chief of the world” has been judged.

Another way that the world is wrong about judgment relates to the future expectation of the end-time (Last) Judgment. The conventional religious view was that only at the end time, in the future (however immediate or far off), would God judge the world—judging human beings for their ethical and religious behavior. In two respects, the Gospel of John presents a very different perspective on the great Judgment: (1) the Judgment is effectively realized in the present, based on whether or not one trusts in Jesus (as the Son of God), and (2) people are judged ultimately, and principally, on their response to the witness regarding Jesus identity (as the Son). This ‘realized’ eschatological emphasis in the Johannine writings (esp. the Gospel) was discussed above, but it is worth mentioning again here. Point (2) has already been addressed in the prior notes (on v. 9 and 10), but, in this regard, the Christological emphasis of the Paraclete-saying cannot be overstated.

In the next daily note, our analysis of vv. 8-11 will be summarized, along with some exegetical comments on the following vv. 12-15.

May 13: John 16:10

John 16:10

Verse 10 highlights the second noun of the triad in v. 8 (cf. the prior note)—dikaiosu/nh:

“and that (one) will show the world (to be wrong)…about dikaiosu/nh…”

On the contextual meaning of the verb e)le/gxw, here translated as “show (to be wrong)”, cf. the prior note.

The Spirit will show the world to be wrong about dikaiosu/nh. This noun literally means “right-ness”, the closest approximation for which in English is “righteousness”, though in certain instances “justice” is perhaps a more appropriate translation. The noun is relatively rare in the Johannine writings; it occurs only here (vv. 8, 10) in the Gospel, and three times in 1 John.

The usage in 1 John may help to elucidate the meaning of the word in the Gospel. The context within the statements of 2:29, 3:7 and 10 is very similar:

“If you have seen that He is right(eous) [di/kaio$], (the) you know also that every (one) doing right(eous)ness [dikaiosu/nh] has come to be born out of Him.” [2:29]
“(Dear) offspring, let no one lead you astray: the (one) doing right(eous)ness is right(eous), just as that (One) is right(eous).” [3:7]
“In this is made to shine forth the offspring of God and the offspring of the {Devil}: every (one) not doing right(eous)ness is not out of God…” [3:10]

Righteousness is clearly related to the characteristic of God the Father as righteous (di/kaio$), an attribute that is also shared by the Son (Jesus), cf. 1:9; 2:1. Believers who are united with the Son (and thus also the Father) through the Spirit, likewise share this characteristic. And so, they will do what is right, following the example of Jesus (and of God the Father). In so doing, they will demonstrate that they have been ‘born’ of God.

This strong theological usage, within the Johannine idiom, informs the use of dikaiosu/nh here in the Paraclete saying (16:8): “that (one) [i.e. the Spirit] will show the world (to be wrong) about right(eous)ness [peri\ dikaiosu/nh$]”. Jesus expounds what is meant by this in verse 10:

“…and about right(eous)ness, (in) that I lead (myself) under toward the Father and not any (more) do you look at me”

On the surface, Jesus simply re-states what he has been saying throughout the Last Discourse—that he will soon be going away, back to the Father. This is most frequently expressed by the verb u(pa/gw, which literally means something like “lead (oneself) under,” i.e., going ‘undercover,’ disappearing, often used in the more general sense of “go away, go back”. It occurs quite often in the Gospel of John (32 times out of 79 NT occurrences), where it typically is used, by Jesus, to refer to his departure back to the Father. Properly construed, this ‘going away’ is part of the process of Jesus’ exaltation, of his being “lifted up” —a process that begins with his death, and ends with his return to the Father. The references to Jesus’ departure have a dual-meaning in the Last Discourse, referring to both ends of that spectrum.

The verb qewre/w, one of several key verbs in the Gospel expressing the idea of seeing, also has a double-meaning. It denotes “looking (closely) at” something (or someone), and occurs 24 times in the Gospel (out of 58 NT occurrences). Theologically it can signify seeing Jesus, in the sense of recognizing his true identity (as the Son sent by the Father), cf. 12:45, etc; yet, it also can refer to simple (physical) sight. Throughout the Last Discourse, there is conceptual wordplay between both of these meanings, and, not coincidentally, the references relate contextually to the Paraclete-sayings—14:17, 19; 16:16-17, 19. Here, qewre/w refers principally to the idea that Jesus will no longer be visible to the disciples, because he will no longer be physically present with them.

The context of the Spirit’s witness against the world here makes the similar language in 14:19 quite relevant:

“Yet a little (longer), and the world will not look at [qewrei=] me any (more); but you will look at [qewrei=te] me, (and in) that I live, you also shall live.”

Jesus seems to be alluding to his resurrection (and return to the disciples) after his death, when people will (for a time) not see him. However, the theological meaning of qewre/w is also prevalent—i.e., the “world” will not see Jesus (especially in his death) for who he truly is, the Son of God; but the disciples will recognize and trust in him.

This brings us to the statement in 16:10, which has always been something of a puzzle. Commentators have found difficulty in explaining how Jesus’ explanation relates to the Paraclete saying. How does the Spirit show the world to be wrong about righteousness specifically because (o%ti) Jesus departs to the Father (and the disciples can no longer see him)?

In the previous note (on v. 9), I mentioned how the Spirit’s role in exposing (vb e)le/gxw) the world “about sin”, refers, not only to the world’s actual sin (of unbelief), but to its understanding of the nature of sin. As I have discussed, in the Johannine writings sin refers principally to the great sin of failing/refusing to trust in Jesus, of not recognizing his identity as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father. I would argue that the nature of righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) has a similarly Christological orientation in the Johannine writings.

This would seem to be confirmed by the references in 1 John, discussed above. Jesus (the Son) is righteous (di/kaio$), just as the Father is righteous—he shares the same attribute with the Father. True righteousness, thus, is not as the world understands it—in conventional ethical and religious terms—but, rather, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Son, who manifests and embodies the truth of the Father. Thus, the emphasis here in v. 10—as, indeed, it is throughout the Last Discourse—is on Jesus’ return to the Father. His return, to his heavenly/eternal place of origin, provides the ultimate confirmation of his identity as the Son (and Righteous One) of God.

It is also possible that there is an allusion here to a ‘false’ righteousness possessed (and valued) by the world, which corresponds precisely with their great sin (of unbelief). In this regard, it is worth noting several instances in the LXX and NT, where dikaiosu/nh is used in a negative sense, or where such is implied—Isa 64:6; Dan 9:18; Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6-9; one may also mention the implicit contrast between the righteousness of the “scribes and Pharisees” and that of Jesus’ faithful disciples (Matt 5:20). Cf. the article by D. A. Carson, “The Function of the Paraclete in John 16.7-11”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 98 (1979), pp. 547-66 [esp. 558-60].

It is fair to say that the Spirit will both prove the world to be wrong in its understanding of true righteousness, and will expose the false righteousness that it holds. The connection with the disciples not being able to see Jesus—meaning Jesus will no longer be present alongside them physically—may be intended, in a subtle way, to emphasize the invisible nature of true righteousness. It is hidden to the world, and to people at large, since it is manifest principally through the Spirit. Only true believers can participate in this righteousness, through spiritual union with the Son (Jesus) and the Father. The effect and evidence of righteousness may be visible to all (cp. the saying in 3:8), but its true nature is invisible, being spiritual in nature, just as God Himself is Spirit (4:23).

May 12: John 16:9

John 16:9

As discussed in the previous note, verse 8 describes the role of the Spirit (the para/klhto$) as that of exposing/showing (vb e)le/gxw) the world (ko/smo$) to be wrong. He will show the world to be wrong about (peri/) three things in particular, expressed by a triad of nouns:

    • about a(marti/a (v. 9)
    • about dikaiosu/nh (v. 10)
    • about kri/si$ (v. 11)

Of these three, the meaning of the first (a(marti/a) is most straightforward, being understood (and translated) generally as “sin”. Thus the statement in verse 8 reads: “and that (one) will show the world (to be wrong) about sin [peri\ a(marti/a$]…”.

However, sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw) has a very distinct meaning and significance in the Johannine writings. While not ignoring or denying the conventional ethical-religious meaning (cf. 5:14; 9:2-3ff; 20:23), the word (and concept) is very much defined in Christological terms, informed by its use in the Johannine theological context. We can see this most particularly by the explanation given (by Jesus) in verse 9:

“about sin, (on the one hand,) (in) that they do not trust in me“

The exposition in vv. 9-11 is governed syntactically by a me\n…de/… construction (“on the one hand…on the other…”). Here the particle me/n indicates the first item of the triad—three parts of a witness the Spirit gives against the world.

Sin is clearly identified here with a failure to trust (vb pisteu/w) in Jesus. People (i.e., those belonging to “the world”) are unwilling or unable to recognize the truth about who Jesus is, and thus do not trust in him. The main section in the Gospel dealing with the question of sin is section 8:21-30 of the great Sukkot Discourse-complex in chapters 7-8. In verse 21, Jesus first states the matter in a rather puzzling way:

“I go away, and you will seek me, and (yet) in your sin you will die off—for, (to the place) where I go away, you are not able to come.”

Throughout this discourse, as in the Last Discourse, Jesus plays on a double-meaning of the idea that he is “going away” (vb u(pa/gw). At the level of the world (that is, his hostile audience in the Sukkot Discourse), the reference is simply to Jesus having gone off somewhere (to another geographical location, cf. 7:35-36). However, according to the true meaning of Jesus’ words, he is returning back to the Father, indicating his Divine/heavenly origin as the Son of God. The world cannot find him, because he will not have gone away to another physical place, but to a spiritual place (4:23)—back to the Father.

On the surface, Jesus’ statement that unbelievers will die in their sin suggests that here a(marti/a is being used in its ethical-religious sense. By rejecting Jesus, they will not find forgiveness for their moral and religious failings and wicked behavior. Certainly, the Gospel does indicate that Jesus’ earthly mission, and his sacrificial death, was intended to “take away” the world’s sins (1:29). The author of 1 John makes clear that, by our participation in the death of Jesus, the cleansing power of his “blood”, communicated through the Spirit (cf. Jn 6:51-58, 63), does ‘take away’ our sin (1 Jn 1:7ff, discussed in a recent note).

However, the expression “in your sin”, lit. “in the sin of you” (e)n th=| a(marti/a| u(mw=n), can be understood another way—viz., as referring to the great sin of unbelief. Jesus’ opponents will die in this sin. Verses 23-24 demonstrate, indeed, how the expression is to be understood, within the Johannine theological idiom:

“You are out of [i.e. from] the (place) below [ka/tw], I am out of [i.e. from] the (place) above [a&nw]; you are out of [i.e. from] this world, I am not out of [i.e. from] this world. So I said to you that you will die off in your sins; for, if you would not trust that I am [e)gw\ ei)mi], you will die off in your sins.”

The expression “in your sins [plur.]” here is defined in terms of “in your sin [sing.]”. All other sins are secondary to, and ultimately relate back to, the great sin of unbelief. The essential predicative expression “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) is fundamental to the Johannine theology, occurring repeatedly throughout the Gospel. The reason why Jesus’ opponents will die ‘in their sins’ is because they are ‘in the (great) sin’ of unbelief; that is, they refuse to trust in Jesus, recognizing and accepting his identity as the Divine Son (with the attribute of “I Am”) sent by the Father.

The Spirit will expose the true nature of the world’s sin. Showing the world to be wrong “about sin” can be understood on two levels. First, the world’s understanding about the nature of sin (in general) is shown to be wrong. According to the world’s standards, a person may appear to be living in a moral and upright manner—like, to be sure, many of the religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus—and yet still commit the great sin of rejecting God’s Son.

When people encounter the witness as to who Jesus is, their own true identity is exposed and made known. If they belong to God, they will be drawn to the light, and will trust in Jesus; if they belong to the world (which is opposed to God), they will be shown to be hostile to the light, lovers of darkness, and will not trust in him. This witness (of the Spirit) exposes and reveals the world’s sin, and brings it under judgment; Jesus’ own witness, during his earthly ministry, did the same thing (cf. 3:19-21; 15:22ff [cp. 9:41]), and now the Spirit is continuing his work of bearing witness.

Thus, the second meaning of “about sin” relates to the world’s sin. This is the great sin of unbelief—refusing to trust in Jesus—and it shows that those who belong to the world, being lovers of darkness, are steeped in various kinds of sin, which cannot (and will not) be forgiven, because of their unbelief. The cleansing power of Jesus’ blood (1 Jn 1:7, cf. above) is only communicated to believers, those who belong to God, through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the second item of the triad— “about rightness” (peri\ dikaiosu/nh$)—and how this is explained in verse 10.

*    *    *    *    *

As an interesting side note, the idea of a person’s true nature, and of the sinfulness of their heart, being exposed by the Spirit is also found in the Jewish Testament of Judah (part of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”), chapter 20. It utilizes the same expression, “Spirit of truth”, as the Johannine Paraclete-sayings. As previously noted, the same expression occurs in the Qumran Community Rule text (1QS 3:18-29; 4:21), and the contextual usage in the Testament of Judah is very similar:

“The things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man, each one of whom the Lord knows. There is no moment in which man’s works can be concealed, because they are written on the heart in the Lord’s sight. And the spirit of truth testifies to all things and brings all accusations. He who has sinned is consumed in his heart and cannot raise his head to face the judge.” (20:3-5, translation by H. C. Kee, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Charlesworth ed. [Anchor Bible Reference Library]).

May 11: John 16:8 (continued)

John 16:8, continued

Continuing the discussion from the previous note, there are two points related to verse 8 that need to be addressed:

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

The noun ko/smo$ is very much a Johannine keyword. It occurs 78 times in the Gospel, 23 times in 1 John, and once in 2 John (as well as 3 in the book of Revelation)—more than half of all New Testament occurrences (186). Beyond this, the word is used in a very distinctive way in the Johannine writings. While ko/smo$ is sometimes used in the ordinary geographic sense—of earth as the place (and plane of existence) where human beings reside—more often it has a pointed ethical-religious meaning. The “world” represents the domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. This decidedly negative sense of the word is part of a pronounced dualism in the Johannine writings—light vs. darkness, above vs. below, etc.

In actuality, the two aspects of meaning—geographic (neutral) and ethical-religious (negative)—are closely related. At some points in the Gospel, the two aspects are blended together (e.g., 1:9-10), or the author/speaker makes use of wordplay, shifting between the two meanings (e.g., 3:16-17, 19; 17:13-14ff). The noun ko/smo$ is especially prominent in the Last Discourse, where it occurs 19 times, and the chapter 17 Prayer-discourse where it occurs nearly as often (18 times).

The negative meaning dominates the Last Discourse, especially in 15:18-19 (prior to the third Paraclete-saying [vv. 26-27]), where the emphasis is on the world’s hatred of the disciples (believers), because they represent Jesus, speaking and acting in his name. The Last Discourse assumes an eschatological worldview, anticipating a persecution of believers that is part of the end-time period of distress (cp. Mk 13:9-11 par, and note the reference to the Spirit in v. 11).

The noun ko/smo$ is usually translated “world”, but would perhaps be more accurately rendered “world-order.” The fundamental denotation of ko/smo$ refers to the order and arrangement of the created world. In terms of the negative, dualistic meaning of ko/smo$ in the Johannine writings, this can be understood as referring to the current arrangement of things—the way they function and operate—in a domain and mode of existence dominated by sin and darkness, led by the world’s Chief, the Devil (14:30; 16:11).

This “world” was referenced in the first Paraclete-saying (cf. Part 1), in 14:17, where the point was made that the world cannot see (that is, know and recognize) the Spirit, which means that it also cannot see Jesus—that is, cannot recognize the truth of who he is. There is a bit of conceptual wordplay by Jesus in verse 19. He states that, very soon, the world will no longer see him. This refers, on one level, to his impending death and departure (to the Father); but, on a deeper level, it alludes to the fact that the world cannot recognize and accept his identity as the Son of God. This is why the world also cannot recognize or accept the Spirit. Believers, by contrast, both “see” Jesus and the Spirit; in the latter case, they/we also can recognize the continuing presence and activity of Jesus through the indwelling Spirit.

2. The peri/-prepositional triad in verse 8

In the third Paraclete-saying (15:26f, Part 3), the function of the Spirit is to give witness about (peri/) Jesus. Here, in the final saying, there is a similar (parallel) prepositional expression serving as the indirect object of the verb:

    • “about me” (peri\ e)mou=)
    • “about [peri/] a(marti/a and
      about [peri/] dikaiosu/nh and
      about [peri/] kri/si$“

The parallelism strongly indicates that this triad must be understood in terms of the Spirit’s witness about Jesus—that is, the truth about who he is.

The relation between the second and third Paraclete-sayings makes clear that the Spirit’s witness about Jesus is directed to the disciples (believers); and, yet, in a secondary way, it is also directed at the world, since the Spirit’s witness enables believers also to give witness (to the world) regarding the truth of who Jesus is. This shift of focus to the world is expressed here in the final saying, where the Spirit’s function of exposing darkness/evil and showing (people) to be in the wrong, is directed at the world (ko/smo$). This meaning of the verb e)le/gxw was discussed in the previous note.

I have left the three terms of the triad untranslated above. The first noun, a(marti/a, has a straightforward meaning (“sin”); and yet, the Johannine writings present a very distinctive emphasis regarding the true nature and primary significance of sin (a(marti/a). This will be discussed in the next daily note, on verse 9.

The second noun, dikaiosu/nh, is more difficult to translate. Fundamentally, it means something like “right-ness”, but is usually rendered in English as “righteousness”. This is certainly the translation when the noun is used in a religious-ethical context; however, when a social or judicial context is being emphasized, then the translation “justice” is preferred. This creates a problem for translators, since “righteousness” and “justice” have very different significance and points of reference in English. In the note on verse 10, I will discuss how dikaiosu/nh should be understood (and translated) here.

Interestingly, dikaiosu/nh is something of a rare word in the Johannine writings. It occurs only here (vv. 8 and 10) in the Gospel, and just 3 times in the Letters (1 Jn 2:29; 3:7, 10).

The final noun is kri/si$, which is usually translated “judgment”. The fundamental meaning is of a separation that is made, usually in the sense of a person discerning or making a decision (cf. 7:24). It is frequently used in a judicial context, of judging a case and rendering judgment. In the Gospel of John, as in the rest of the New Testament, kri/si$ refers primarily to the end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world. This is certainly the focus in 5:22-30, where kri/si$ occurs 5 times, as also in 12:31. However, the Johannine writings (including the Gospel Discourses) demonstrate a pronounced ‘realized’ eschatology. By this is meant a tendency to view the end-time events as having (in a sense) already taken place for believers, being realized for them now, in the present, through the Spirit. This does not negate the idea of a future fulfillment (cp. 5:24 with vv. 29-30); it only affirms a spiritual fulfillment in the present.

At several points in the Discourses, Jesus alludes to the idea that the Judgment (kri/si$) takes place in the present—believers in Christ have already passed through the Judgment (5:24), while those who are unwilling/unable to believe have, in a sense, already been judged by their unbelief (3:19; cf. 12:31, 48). This Johannine use of the judgment-motif is important for understanding the significance of kri/si$ here in the Paraclete-saying. This will be discussed further in the note on verse 11.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: John: The Paraclete (3)

(The first Paraclete-saying [14:16-17] was discussed in the part 1 of this article; the second saying [14:25-26] in part 2.)

Saying 3: John 15:26-27

Here is a reminder of the structure of the Last Discourse, according to my outline, divided into three distinct discourses (with an introduction and conclusion):

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

The third Paraclete-saying occurs the second part of the second discourse (15:1-16:4a). The theme of this discourse I would label as “The Disciples in the World”. Thematically, the two parts of the discourse are

    • Jesus and the Disciples: Illustration of the Vine and Branches (vv. 1-17)
    • The Disciples and the World: Instruction and Exhortation (15:18-16:4a)

The first part emphasizes the union believers have with Jesus, while the second discusses how that union is manifest as believers remain in the world, facing opposition and persecution from the current world-order (ko/smo$). The Instruction/Exhortation in 15:18-16:4a is comprised of three sections:

    • Instruction: The Hatred of the World (15:18-25)
    • Exhortation: The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 26-27)
    • Concluding warning of the coming Persecution (16:1-4a)

The promise of the Spirit (exhortation) is given in the context of a description of the world’s fundamental hatred of believers—a theme that is introduced and stated succinctly in v. 18: “If the world [ko/smo$] hates you, know that it has hated me first, (before) you.” The world’s opposition to believers is rooted in its opposition to Jesus. It is because believers live and act in Jesus’ name, that the world hates them (v. 21). This is important in light of the point made in the prior Paraclete-saying (cf. Part 2), where it is stated that God the Father will send the Spirit in Jesus’ name (“in my name”).

Here is the core Paraclete-saying in v. 26:

“When the (one) called alongside [para/klhto$] should come, whom I will send to you (from) alongside [para/] the Father—the Spirit of truth, who travels out (from) alongside the Father—that (one) will give witness [marturh/sei] about me”

As in the first Paraclete-saying (14:17), the “one called alongside” is referred to as the “Spirit of truth”. On this expression, cf. the discussion in Part 1. It only needs to be added that here the motif of truth (a)lh/qeia) relates specifically to the function of the Spirit as a witness (vb marture/w). It means that the Spirit’s witness is true, that the Spirit testifies to the truth. In this case, the truth is fundamentally, and primarily, Christological (cf. below).

In the first two sayings, the Spirit is said to be sent from God the Father; however, here, Jesus says that he will send the Spirit, though the Spirit does ultimately come from the Father. There is a definite progression in these sayings:

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

The Spirit is “alongside” (para/) the Father, and is called (and sent) to be “alongside” (para/) believers. The Father as the ultimate source of the Spirit is confirmed by the qualifying phrase “who travels out [vb e)kporeu/omai] (from) alongside the Father”. One should not be led astray by later theological debates over this reference (i.e., the so-called Filioque controversy); it must be understood in terms of the Johannine theology and conceptual framework in the Gospel. This theology presents a clear chain of relation: the Father gives the Spirit to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives the Spirit to believers—see, e.g., 3:27, 34-35; 5:21; 6:32, 51, 57; 17:2, 8, 12ff.

We saw that, in the second Paraclete-saying, the function of the Spirit was to teach believers “all things”, and to cause them (esp. the disciples) to remember all the things Jesus’ said and did during his earthly ministry. The function of the Spirit here is further defined as giving witness, fulfilling the role of a witness (ma/rtu$). The noun ma/rtu$ does not occur in the Johannine writings (unless one includes the book of Revelation), but the witness-motif is quite prominent, as is evidenced by the relative frequency with which the related noun marturi/a and verb marture/w are used. The noun marturi/a occurs 14 times in the Gospel, 6 times in 1 John, and once in 3 John—well over half of all NT occurrences (37); the percentage is even higher if one includes the 9 occurrences in Revelation. The verb marture/w occurs 33 times in the Gospel, 6 times in 1 John, 4 in 3 John, which is again (even without counting the 4 in Revelation) more than half of all the NT occurrences.

The emphasis throughout is on bearing witness to the truth of who Jesus is—viz., the Son sent from heaven by God the Father. The focus is thus Christological. There are different witnesses, but they all bear witness to the same essential truth. Jesus also serves as a self-witness, his words (and actions) giving testimony about himself. An important point in the Gospel Discourses is how Jesus’ own testimony is confirmed (as true) by these other witnesses (cf. especially 5:31-39; 8:13-19). The greatest confirmation of Jesus’ self-witness, regarding his identity (as the Son), comes from the Father Himself (5:37ff; 8:18ff; 10:25). This same confirming witness will take place through the Spirit, who comes from the Father—he will give further witness about Jesus (“about me [peri\ e)mou]”).

We must remember that the role of the Spirit is to be “alongside” believers, giving assistance to them. Thus, this witness of the Spirit relates to the teaching-function (emphasized in 14:26); but it also is tied to the role of the disciples (believers) themselves in continuing Jesus’ mission. This is clear from the continuation of the saying here in v. 27:

“…and you also give witness, (in) that you are with me from (the) beginning.”

The verb form marturei=te is in the present tense, indicating the regular/continual function of the disciples as witnesses, a role that they serve even now (in the present), before the giving of the Spirit to them. It is possible to parse the verb form as an imperative (“you must give witness”), but the indicative is to be preferred; even so, there is little difference in meaning between the two, since being a witness is an essential part of the believer’s duty.

Verse 27 is not to be limited to Jesus’ original disciples, however it does refer primarily to them. They, indeed, are the ones who were “with” Jesus from the beginning. The expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“from [the] beginning”) is theologically charged in the Johannine writings, but here the main focus is on the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry (just as it is in 1 John 1:1). Even so, I would contend that there is a deeper Christological allusion here—that is, to the truth of who Jesus is: the pre-existent Son, sent from heaven by God the Father. On the dual-meaning of the expression in the Johannine writings, cf. 8:25; 1 Jn 2:7, 13-14, 24.

The implication is that the Spirit and believers (esp. the disciples) work together in bearing witness about Jesus. Luke-Acts also ties the role of the disciples as witnesses to the (coming) presence of the Spirit (e.g., Lk 24:48-49; Acts 1:8); indeed, the entire early Christian mission is depicted as being empowered and guided by the Spirit (see throughout the book of Acts). A good example of a dual-witness statement, outside of the Johannine writings, is found in Acts 5:32 (cf. Brown, p. 700): “…we are witnesses of these (thing)s, (as) also (is) the holy Spirit which God gave to the (one)s (hav)ing trusted in Him”.

Just as the Father gave the Spirit to the Son (Jesus), empowering him to speak the words of God (cf. 3:27, 31ff, 34-35, etc), so also the Son gives the Spirit to believers, which enables them to speak the words of the Son (which are also the words of the Father). The aspect of prophetic inspiration is also expressed in the famous Synoptic saying in Mark 13:11 par (cp. Matt 10:20; Lk 12:2). That saying shares with the third Paraclete-saying here the context of the persecution of believers (part of the end-time period of distress).

In my view, an emphasis on the (prophetic) inspiration of believers was a fundamental component of Johannine spiritualism, to the point that it was a significant factor in the crisis described by the author of 1 John. In this regard, the second and third Paraclete-sayings are important for a proper understanding of the religious and theological background of 1 John. This will be discussed further in this series, when we come to the important passages in 1 John.

One final point to mention is the legal-judicial connotation of the witness-motif. There is no doubt that the Johannine writings (including the Gospel Discourses) make significant use of this legal-judicial background. The passages where this is expressed most clearly are 5:22-24ff, 30-40 and 8:13-29; but there are numerous other legal-judicial allusions throughout, including several references in the Last Discourse. Some commentators view the judicial aspect as primary for the Paraclete-references; however, in my view, this really only applies to the final saying(s) in 16:7-11ff. These final saying(s) will be examined in Part 4 of this article, along with a set of supplemental daily notes (on vv. 8-11).

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

April 22: John 17:25

John 17:25

“Father (most) just, indeed the world did not know you, but I (have) known you—and these (have) known that you se(n)t me forth”

After closing verse 24 with a reference to the creation (i.e. laying down the foundation) of the world (ko/smo$), the statement in v. 25 picks up again with the use of the word ko/smo$. This may be seen as an example of “catchword-bonding” —the joining of two sayings or traditions based on a common word or theme—a key building block in the development of the early lines of the Gospel Tradition. In such a developed Discourse as chap. 17 (in the wider context of the Last Discourse, 13:31-16:33), however, it is more likely that this simply reflects a creative recapitulation of the themes expressed elsewhere in these chapters.

As previously noted, the term ko/smo$ (“world-order, world”) is a regular part of the Johannine vocabulary, and occurs 18 times in the chap. 17 Prayer-Discourse alone. It is used two different ways: (1) for the inhabited world, in a geographic and social sense, and (2) for the current world-order, as it is dominated by sin and darkness and is opposed to God. The word is used in the first (neutral) sense in v. 24, and in the latter (negative) sense here in v. 25; there is a similar alternating play on these two aspects of meaning throughout chap. 17.

The other key term here is the verb ginw/skw, with the theme of knowledge—specifically, that of knowing God the Father through the person of Jesus the Son. This is virtually synonymous in the Gospel with the theme of seeing (sight, vision), expressed through the use of several different verbs. Indeed, the verb ei&dw (“see”) is essentially interchangeable with ginw/skw (“know”), and this corresponds with the theological idiom of the Gospel—to “see” God is the same as to “know” Him, and occurs through seeing/knowing Jesus as the Son sent by the Father. Here this knowledge of God is represented by three different subjects:

    • the world (o( ko/smo$)—i.e., those who belong to the world, dominated by the evil in it
    • Jesus himself, the Son (“I”, e)gw/)
    • “these” (ou!toi)—that is, Jesus’ disciples and believers in Christ—those (elect) who belong to God, and not to the world.

This triad is really a duality—a clear and stark contrast between believers who know God, and all others in the “world” who do not. That their knowledge of God the Father is based on a knowledge of Jesus the Son, is clear from the specific wording used here: “…that you se(n)t me forth”. The verb a)poste/llw literally means “set (away) from”, often in the positive (or neutral) sense of setting someone out, as a messenger or representative. The noun a)po/stolo$ (transliterated in English as “apostle”), of course, derives from this root, referring to someone who is “se(n)t out” on a mission. The verb is thus largely synonymous with pe/mpw (“send”), and, indeed, both are used interchangeably in the Gospel of John. The verb a)poste/llw, however, more properly connotes the idea of the Son (Jesus) being sent from the Father; it occurs 7 times in the Prayer-Discourse, beginning with the key theological declaration in verse 3:

“And this is the Life of the Age [i.e. eternal life]—that they would know [ginw/skwsin] you the only true God, and the (one) whom you se(n)t forth [a)pe/steila$], Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

Eternal life is defined in terms of knowledge (of God and Christ), and specifically entails trust in Jesus as the Son sent by the Father. This confirms the identity of “these” as believers in Christ—those trusting in him (v. 20). The “world” is unable to trust in Jesus; only the elect (believers), who belong to God, can and will do so. On the special use of ko/smo$ in vv. 21-23, cf. my earlier note.

Some would regard the self-declaration “but I (have) known you” as parenthetical; however, I feel that it more properly is intended to center the entire construct—the dualistic contrast—clearly in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Son. It is the Son who truly knows the Father, having been ‘born’ from Him, and sharing/inheriting all that the Father gives to him. Our knowledge of the Father, as believers, is based upon Jesus’ own knowledge of Him—it is this knowledge which he reveals to us. With his departure back to the Father, the imparting of this knowledge takes place primarily through the presence and work of the Spirit (14:26; 15:26; 16:13ff). It is this that the author of 1 John has in mind when he speaks of believers as ones taught by God, requiring no human teacher (2:27; cp. 2 Jn 9; Jn 7:16-17; 1 Thes 4:9; 1 Cor 2:13). The Spirit is identified as the very Truth of God (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 4:6; 5:6; cf. also Jn 4:23-24).

A word should be said about the use of the adjective di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”) at the beginning of v. 25. The idea of justice (or “justness”) and righteousness as attributes of God is common to nearly all religious traditions, and certainly is prominent among Jews and Christians in both Old and New Testaments. The dikaio- word-group is relatively rare in the Johannine writings, occurring a bit more in the Letters (1 John) than the Gospel. In 5:30 and 7:24, the other two occurrences of the adjective in the Gospel, it is used in the customary ethical sense of exercising sound or “right” judgment (kri/si$). The related noun dikaiosu/nh (“justness, justice” or “right[eous]ness”) occurs only at 16:8, 10, in reference to the work of the Spirit as a witness to the justice/justness of God. In 1 John 2:1, 29, the adjective is used specifically as an attribute of Jesus, essentially as a divine attribute shared with the Father (1:9). This differs somewhat from the earliest Christian use of the term as a reference to Jesus’ innocence—that is to say, he was put to death unjustly (e.g., Lk 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52).

When believers act justly toward one another (through the bond of love), it demonstrates that they/we are true believers, united with the Father and Son, and reflecting the (divine) justness/righteousness that the two share—1 Jn 3:7, 10, 12. The contrast between believers and the world here indicates that the current world-order (ko/smo$), as opposite to God, is fundamentally unjust, characterized by wickedness and injustice. This is an important part of the truth that the Spirit will make known (16:8-11)—i.e., regarding sin (a(marti/a), justice (dikaiosu/nh), and judgment (kri/si$). The Spirit will demonstrate the truth of this to the world—and this indicates that it is primarily the work of God’s Judgment, already realized in the present, prior to its fulfillment at the end-time. The witness regarding sin and judgment (vv. 9, 11) are relatively straightforward, but that regarding justice (v. 10) is a bit more difficult to understand:

“…and about justice, (in) that I go back toward the Father and you no longer look at me”

How is it that Jesus’ departure (return) back to the Father manifests justice? From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, this refers to a confirmation of Jesus’ identity as the Son sent by the Father, and to the honor (do/ca) that comes to him following his sacrificial death (an act of injustice by the world). True justice is not based on the world’s standards, however noble they may seem, but on the nature and character of God Himself (“Father [most] just…”). The Son makes known this nature/character of the Father, and, in uniting with the Son (through the Spirit), as believers we come to share in it. The world, however, cannot accept this truth, and is so is judged (by God) accordingly. The relationship between believers and the world is a key theme of the Prayer-Discourse, running through the entire chapter, to its climax here.

April 15: John 17:21d, 23c

John 17:20-23, continued

Line 4: John 17:21d, 23c

The fourth line of the parallel stanzas in John 17:21-23 (cf. the prior note on the stanza-outline) is perhaps the most difficult to interpret. A correct understanding hinges on how one interprets the key Johannine vocabulary, in context.

    • “(so) that the world might trust that you se(n)t me forth” (v. 21d)
      i%na o( ko/smo$ pisteu/h| o%ti su/ me a)pe/steila$
    • “(so) that the world might know that you se(n)t me forth” (v. 23c)
      i%na ginw/skh| o( ko/smo$ o%ti su/ me a)pe/steila$

The two statements are nearly identical, differing only in the specific verb—pisteu/w (“trust”) vs. ginw/skw (“know”); however, in the Gospel of John these two verbs, as applied to believers in Christ, are more or less synonymous.

The first point of difficulty is the the opening particle i%na. This is the third i%na-clause in the stanza (along with lines 1 & 3), but there is some question whether the force of the clause is the same. In other words, does it again re-state Jesus’ primary request to the Father (lines 1 &3), or does it represent a subordinate purpose/result clause (i.e. “so that…”)? Most commentators understand it here in the latter sense, and this is probably (more or less) correct. However, a careful study of the remainder of the line can provide some clarity on this point.

The main difficulty involves the use of the noun ko/smo$ (“world, world-order”), truly a distinctive Johannine term, as more than half (102) of all New Testament occurrences (186) are in the Gospel (78) and Letters (24) of John. More to the point, it occurs 44 times in the Passion Narrative (chaps. 13-19), including 20 in the last Discourse (13:31-16:33) and 18 in the chap. 17 Prayer-Discourse (nearly a tenth of all NT occurrences in a single chapter). A certain amount of confusion arises due to the fact that the word is used on two different levels, one neutral, and the other decidedly negative:

    • Neutral—the inhabited world, in a geographic and social sense
    • Negative—the current order of things in the (inhabited) world, dominated by darkness and sin

More often that not, in the Johannine writings, the negative aspect is in view, including throughout the Last Discourse and Prayer-Discourse. There is a strong dualistic contrast, between the ko/smo$ and God, with the world in opposition to God the Father and His Son Jesus; as such, the world is also hostile and opposed to believers as well. The relation of believers to the “world” dominates much of chapters 13-17. Indeed, this contrast is perhaps most clear in the Prayer-Discourse; at the same time, there are numerous instances of the neutral sense of the term ko/smo$, including some wordplay involving both meanings. In this regard, you should study all the prior occurrences (14, in vv. 5-6, 9, 11, 13-16, 18) closely.

Given the strong negative aspect of the term ko/smo$, its use here in vv. 21, 23 is a bit puzzling. On the one hand, the world is opposed to Christ and his followers, being so separate, indeed, that Jesus states bluntly that he does not pray for the world (v. 9), but only for his disciples (believers). Now, however, he seems to be expressing the wish, or request, that the world may come to trust/know him as the Son sent by the Father. How is this to be understood? There are three main possibilities:

    • It reflects the genuine wish of Jesus that all (people in) the world would come to trust in him, even though many (perhaps the majority) ultimately will not.
    • It implies the opposite side of trust/knowledge—while it leads to salvation for the elect/believers, it results in judgment for the rest of the world.
    • Here ko/smo$ properly signifies believers in world.

While there is some truth in the first two approaches, in my view only the third does full justice to the Johannine theological vocabulary and the overall message of the Discourses. The first approach could be seen as supported, for example, by the use of ko/smo$ in 3:16ff; however, the reduction of this passage as an expression of evangelistic optimism is largely the result of reading vv. 16-17 out of context (a close study of vv. 18-21 helps clarify their proper meaning). At the same time, some validation of the second approach above might be seen in the way that the verbs pisteu/w (“trust”) and ginw/skw (“know”) are used in 7:28ff; 8:31(?); 10:38; 12:42-43—the passages imply that there can be level of trust/knowledge of Jesus which ultimately does not result in one being a true believer. On the same sort of ambiguity involving the idea of seeing (i.e., = knowing), cf. 4:48; 6:36; 9:39ff; 15:24, etc; 20:25-29—seeing/knowing Jesus, at this level, does not necessarily result in genuine (saving) trust.

In spite of these parallels, I would still maintain that the third option above best fits the context of the Johannine Discourses (esp. the Last Discourse and Prayer-Discourse). Here, by “the world”, Jesus means the elect in the world who have not yet come to trust in him. This gives to the general inclusive request (regarding “all” believers, vv. 20-21a) a more precise global significance—i.e. all those who will become believers, throughout the world (cp. Mark 13:10 par; Matt 28:19 etc; also Jn 10:16; 11:52). This maintains the proper sense of the verbs pisteu/w and ginw/skw, as referring to genuine trust/knowledge in Jesus that results in union with him. The definition of this trust/knowledge, in terms of Jesus as the one (i.e. the Son) sent forth (vb a)poste/llw) from the Father, makes clear that he is speaking of the true, saving trust/knowledge that allows one to experience eternal life (5:24, 38; 6:29, 57; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44-45; 13:20; 15:21; and, in the Prayer-Discourse, vv. 3, 8).

But if this is so, how does the unity of believers result in (or have as its purpose) others coming to trust in Jesus throughout the world? This must be understood in light of verse 20 and the narrative context of the Prayer-Discourse. Until the disciples come together again (after being scattered, 16:32), as one, and receive the unifying presence of the Spirit (20:19-22), they are not able to proclaim the Gospel message to others. Their commission by Jesus (20:21, 23) is tied closely to their receipt of the Spirit (20:22), as also in the Lukan tradition (Lk 24:47-49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4ff). Following this same pattern, all others (of the Elect) who come to trust in Jesus, do so in response to the Gospel message as proclaimed/presented by those who are already believers, united together in the Spirit and Love of God. In other words, this unity is integral to the Gospel message, which cannot truly be proclaimed without it.

In lines 1 and 3, I translated the subjunctive verb forms as “would be one”, etc. The subjunctive here in line 4 could be rendered similarly (“would know”, “would trust”); however, I have decided to alter the translation slightly, as “might know/trust”, so as to preserve something of the idea, otherwise expressed (to some extent) in 3:16-17, of Jesus’ inclusive wish that the world (as a whole) might be saved. It is, however, only the elect in the world who can (and will) become believers. The traditional/customary religious idea of “conversion” (from a life of sin, etc) is generally foreign to the Gospel of John (with the main example, in 8:2-11, likely not part of the original Gospel). Instead, there is a strong emphasis on what we would call election or predestination—those who come to trust in Jesus do so because they already belong to God. These elect “in the world” are living in the world, but do not belong to it; rather, they belong to God. This is a key theme of the Prayer-Discourse (vv. 2, 6, 9, 14, 16, 25), as well as elsewhere in the Gospel. This context for the emphasis on unity in vv. 20ff was established earlier in verse 11:

“And I am no longer in the world, and (yet) they are in the world, and I come toward You. Holy Father, may you keep watch over them in the name you have given to me, that they would be one, just as we (are).”

April 2 (2): John 16:33; 19:30

John 16:33; 19:30

This second daily note (for Good Friday) looks at two declarations by Jesus in the Passion narrative of the Gospel of John. Each marks the end, or climax, of the narrative, in different ways: 16:33 is the end of the Last Discourse (the teaching/ministry of Jesus to his disciples), while 19:30 marks the very end of his earthly life and ministry, and serves as the climax to the entire Passion Narrative. There is thus a clear parallelism between these two declarations, and they also express a common theme and message. It will be worth examining each statement in this regard.

John 16:33

“…I have been victorious (over) the world!”

This triumphant declaration makes a fitting end to the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), and the conclusion of Jesus’ ministry, in terms of the teaching he gives to his disciples. The Last Discourse is actually a complex literary work, containing a number of distinct units, each of which forms a discourse in its own right—that is, it generally follows the basic Johannine discourse format: (1) statement by Jesus, (2) reaction/misunderstanding by the audience, and (3) exposition by Jesus explaining the true/deeper meaning of his words. The unit 16:16-33 is just such a discourse:

    • Initial saying/statement by Jesus (v. 16)
    • Response/misunderstanding by the disciples (vv. 17-18)
    • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 19-28)
    • Conclusion (vv. 29-33), which also forms the close of the Last Discourse as a whole

The saying in verse 16 will be discussed in tomorrow’s daily note (for Holy Saturday). Here I wish to focus on the conclusion in vv. 29-33. It begins with an exclamation by the disciples, in which they seem now to have a true understanding of just who Jesus is. This is important from the standpoint of the Gospel narrative, and the place of the Last Discourse within it. After the departure of Judas (13:30), Jesus is able to speak directly to his close (i.e. true) disciples, and this collection of teaching comprises the Last Discourse, much as the Sermon on the Mount has a similar place at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel of Matthew (chaps. 5-7).

This direct instruction is revelatory, in a way that his teaching in the earlier discourses was not. At the start of the Last Discourse, the disciples still have difficulty understanding what Jesus says to the them (14:5ff), but at its conclusion, their eyes are opened and they can see the truth with greater clarity:

“The learners [i.e. disciples] say to him: ‘See, now you speak in outspoken (terms) [i.e. plainly/directly], and you say not even one (thing) to us (by) a (word) along the way [i.e. illustration, figure of speech]. Now we have seen [i.e. known] that you have seen [i.e. known] all (thing)s, and you hold no business [i.e. have no need] that any (one) should inquire (of) you. In this we trust that you came from God!'” (vv. 29-30)

While this trust is real enough, Jesus, in response, points out how their trust will be tested:

“Yeshua gave forth (an answer) to them: ‘Now do you trust? See, an hour comes—and (indeed) has come—that you shall be scattered, each (one) unto his own (thing)s, and you shall leave me (all) alone…” (vv. 31-32a)

I discussed the use of the term “hour” (w%ra) in a previous note; it has a dual-meaning in the Gospel of John: (a) the moment of Jesus’ suffering and death, and (b) the coming period of distress before the end. Both of these aspects are combined here, fully in line with the early Christian eschatology and understanding of the nature and significance of Jesus’ death. The hour that “has come” is indeed the time of Jesus’ suffering and death, as is clear from the Passion context here. At the same time, the death/departure of Jesus marks the beginning of the end-time period of distress—a time of intense (and increasing) darkness in the world, which will result in the suffering and persecution of believers. This will be discussed further in the next note. The idea of the disciples being “scattered” (vb skorpi/zw), is stated more famously in the Synoptic saying of Jesus (Mark 14:27 par, citing Zech 13:7).

While the hour of darkness (cf. Lk 22:53) that comes with Jesus’ Passion may introduce a time of great distress (qli/yi$) for all humankind (including believers), at the same time believers in Christ are victorious over this darkness and evil in the world, in spite of all they might suffer. This is the paradox at the heart of the Passion Narrative—how suffering and death can result in victory and life. The source of this victory is expressed by Jesus in the remainder of verse 32:

“…you shall leave me (all) alone; and (yet) I am not alone, (in) that [i.e. because] the Father is with me.”

The Christological declaration again identifies Jesus’ relationship (as the Son) to God the Father, but also emphasizes the union he has with the Father. He is never alone because the Father is always with him. Believers ultimately share in this same union, through the presence of the Spirit—a teaching expounded throughout the Last Discourse (and the Prayer-Discourse of chap. 17). It is the presence of Jesus, through the Spirit, that is in view in the closing words of the Discourse (v. 33):

“I have spoken these (thing)s to you (so) that you would hold peace in me. In the world you hold distress [qli/yi$], but you must have courage—I have been victorious [neni/khka] (over) the world!”

The perfect tense of the verb nika/w (“have victory, be victorious”) is important, since it typically signifies a past action or condition which continues into the present. Even as Jesus has been victorious—through his earthly life and death—over the darkness and evil in the world, so also believers, who are united with him, share in this victory. This is why the author of 1 John can similarly declare to his readers (as believers) that they “have been victorious” over “the evil” in the world (and/or “the Evil One”, i.e. the Satan/Devil)—2:13-14; 4:4. Indeed, believers, as ones who have “come to be born” (as offspring/children) of God, by this very fact of their identity, are able to be victorious over the world (5:4-5).

John 19:30

This victory by Jesus encompasses his entire life and existence on earth. However, the moment of victory is especially to be noted at the completion of his life and ministry—that is, at the moment of his death. The Synoptic Passion narrative emphasizes the end-time darkness, and foreshadowing of Judgment, at the moment of Jesus’ death—i.e., the darkness over the land (Mk 15:33 par), his cry of abandonment (v. 34 par), his final cry at death (v. 37 par), and the tearing of the Temple curtain (v. 38 par). The portrait of Jesus’ death is rather different in the Gospel of John—none of the aforementioned Synoptic details are present. There is even a positive contrast to the tearing of the Temple curtain (“from above unto below”, i.e. from top to bottom)—Jesus’ garment is kept intact and untorn (19:23-24; on the parallel between the Temple and Jesus’ body, cf. 2:21-22).

The only real indication of suffering on Jesus’ part in the Johannine narrative is the brief mention of his thirsting in vv. 28-29 (cp. Mark 15:36 par). And, instead of a great cry at the moment of his death, Jesus, with his final words (actually a single word in Greek), utters a declaration similar in meaning to that of 16:33 (cf. above):

“It has been completed” (tete/lestai)

This refers to the completion (te/lo$, vb. tele/w) of his earthly mission. It relates to how the word e)ntolh/ is used in the Johannine writings. Typically,  that noun is rendered “command(ment)”, but this is rather misleading, especially in the Johannine context. The word properly refers to something given to a person to complete or accomplish (te/lo$/te/llw)—that is, a duty or charge placed on (e)n) someone. Thus, with his sacrificial death, Jesus (the Son) fulfills the e)ntolh/ given to him by the God the Father (10:18; 12:49-50; 15:10). The related verb teleio/w (“complete, bring to completion”) is used in this same sense in 4:34; 5:36; 17:4 (cf. also 19:28); Jesus words (to the Father) in 17:4 are especially close in meaning, in light of the context of his Passion:

“I honored you upon the earth, (hav)ing completed [telei/wsa$] the work that you have given me, that I should do (it)”

Other traditional details of the crucifixion scene are given a new meaning in the Johannine narrative, including the very moment of Jesus’ death (also in v. 30), which reads:

“And, (hav)ing bent the head, he gave along the spirit [pare/dwken to\ pneu=ma].”

On the surface, this would simply indicate that Jesus breathes his last breath (i.e. “gave along his spirit”), as in Mark 15:37:

“And Yeshua, (hav)ing released a great voice [i.e. cry], breathed out [e)ce/pneusen] (his last).”

The Lukan version (23:46) is closer in sense to Jn 19:30, seeming to be a combination of the Markan/Synoptic and Johannine versions:

“And, (hav)ing given voice to a great voice [i.e. cry], Yeshua said, ‘Father, into your hands I place along my spirit [parati/qemai to\ pneu=ma/ mou]. And, (hav)ing said this, he breathed out (his last).”

The strong emphasis on the Spirit throughout the Gospel of John, along with the important idea that the death/resurrection of Jesus results in the presence of the Spirit in believers, suggests that there is a bit of dual-meaning wordplay in 19:30, and that the phrase pare/dwken to\ pneu=ma could rightly (and more literally) be rendered: “…he gave along the Spirit” (cf. 20:22).

The same idea seems to be at work in the detail of the “blood and water” that come out of Jesus’ body after his death (v. 34). Many commentators have sought to explain this as an authentic historical/physiological detail. While this may be legitimate—and the Gospel writer does take care to point out that it was an actual observable event (v. 35)—it rather obscures the importance of the detail from a theological standpoint. The “blood and water” represents the life-giving power of Jesus’ death (and incarnate life) that is conveyed to believers through the Spirit. The parallel with the Spirit is clear enough (both come from Jesus after his death), but receives absolute confirmation, from the Johannine theological standpoint, in 1 Jn 5:6-8 (considered in the previous note).

If we might summarize the Johannine theology surrounding Jesus’ death:

    • It represents the completion of the mission given to him by the Father
    • His death ‘releases’ the life-giving power he possesses (from the Father, as the Son), manifest in his earthly life and death (“water and blood”)
    • This life giving power is communicated to believers through the presence of the Spirit
    • The (eternal) life given through the Spirit, makes believers complete—and is, in a real sense, the final completion of Jesus’ mission (cf. Jn 17:23).

 

March 29: John 12:1-8; 13:1-2

John 12:1-8; 13:1-2ff

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Passion Narrative begins with a trio of narrative episodes, firmly established in the tradition at an early point, probably well before the Gospel of Mark was composed; and, using the Markan narrative as the point of reference, the three episodes are:

    • Mk 14:1-2—The introductory episode, establishing the Passover setting, and the plans of the religious leaders to arrest Jesus
    • Mk 14:3-9—The anointing of Jesus by a woman (unnamed) at Bethany
    • Mk 14:10-11—Judas agrees to betray Jesus

The central Anointing scene is bracketed by the two short passages relating to the plans to arrest Jesus. It is interesting to consider how these components of the historical tradition were adapted within the Gospel of John, perhaps reflecting a distinctive Johannine line of tradition (for more on this, cf. my study on the Anointing scene, and also the supplemental study on Judas Iscariot, in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”). In fact, the Anointing scene in the Gospel of John differs little from the Synoptic (Matthew-Mark) version, with the exception of two major details:

    • Identification of the woman with Mary, sister of Lazarus (vv. 1-3), and
    • Identification of the objecting disciple(s) with Judas Iscariot (vv. 4-6)

Whatever the relationship of these details to the historical traditions, they are significant to the Johannine narrative, both in literary and theological terms; and, each detail has considerable thematic importance to the narrative, which may be summarized as:

    1. The defining place of the Lazarus miracle, and
    2. The role of Judas Iscariot among the disciples

1. The Lazarus Miracle (Resurrection)

The raising of Lazarus (chap. 11) is the last and greatest miracle (or sign) of the “Book of Signs” (chaps. 2-12), and it clearly shapes the way the Passion Narrative is introduced and presented. It affects the early episodes of the Tradition, including the Triumphal Entry scene (cf. the previous note)—11:45ff; 12:1ff, 9-11, 17-18—and provides an effective transition between the first half of the Gospel (“Book of Signs”) and the second (Passion Narrative). From a thematic standpoint, the significance of the Lazarus miracle is three-fold:

    • It shows Jesus to be the Son who possesses the same life-giving power as God the Father (cf. 5:19-29).
    • Resurrection to new life is symbolic of the eternal life that believers experience through trust/union with Jesus (cf. especially the discourse in vv. 20-27, and my earlier notes on this passage).
    • The reference to resurrection establishes the emphasis on “realized” eschatology in the Gospel of John (cf. the recent article in the series “Prophecy & Eschatology in the New Testament”).

All three of these points run through the Johannine Discourses, and are developed, especially, in the great Last Discourse (with its Last Supper/Passion setting).

The specific detail of the location of the Bethany anointing scene (the house or neighborhood of Lazarus) joins these aspects of the resurrection theme to the death and resurrection of Jesus himself (i.e. the Passion Narrative). Here is how the Anointing scene is introduced:

“Then Yeshua, six days before the Pesaµ [i.e. Passover], came into Beth-‘Aniyyah, where Lazar was, whom Yeshua raised out of the dead. So they made an (extensive) supper for him there, and Marta served, and Lazar was one out of (those) stretched out (at the table) with him. And then Maryam, taking a litra of myrrh-ointment…” (vv. 1-3a)

The reference to Lazarus being raised out of the burial-tomb is paralleled with the idea of Jesus being anointed in preparation for his own burial (v. 7b), a detail (saying of Jesus) that is central to the core tradition (Mk 14:8 par). Similar Passion traditions are adapted and developed in the subsequent discourse of vv. 20-36 (discussed in the recent daily notes).

2. The Role of Judas Iscariot

The Johannine portrait of Judas Iscariot, however brief, is distinctive, though very much rooted in the established Gospel Tradition (cf. again my earlier study in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”). The negative aspect of Judas is strongly emphasized in the Johannine Gospel (“…one out of you [i.e. one of the disciples] is a dia/bolo$ [i.e. devil]”, 6:70-71, cp. Mk 3:19 par), and the identification of Judas as the disciple who objects to the woman’s anointing of Jesus is part of this wider tendency (esp. the ugly additional detail in v. 6). Beyond this, however, the presence of Judas in the Anointing scene is significant in the way that it prepares for his role in the Passion Narrative.

In the Last Supper scene (chapter 13), we find another example of the special way that the Gospel of John adapts and develops the traditional material—namely, Judas’ presence at the meal and his departure (going out to betray Jesus). Consider how Judas’ presence is introduced in vv. 1-3:

“And (then), before the festival of the Pesaµ [i.e. Passover], (with) Yeshua having seen [i.e. known] that his hour (had) come, (and) that he should step across out of this world toward the Father, (hav)ing loved his own, the (one)s in the world, he loved them unto the completion (of it) [i.e. of his hour]. And, (with the) coming to be of (the) supper, (and) the (One) casting (evil) throughout [i.e. the Devil] having cast (it) into the heart of Yehudah (son of) Shim’on ish-Keryot that he should give him along [i.e. betray him], having seen [i.e. known] that the Father gave all (thing)s to him, into his hands, and that he came out from God and leads (himself) under [i.e. back] toward God, he rises out of the supper…”

The syntax is a bit awkward, especially the clause referring to Judas in v. 2; however, the main point to note is that, as part of the “hour” (cf. the prior note on 12:23) of Jesus impending suffering and death, the Devil puts the impulse to betray Jesus into Judas’ heart. In the Synoptic tradition, it is implied that Judas does this, in part at least, out of greed, a motive fully in accord with the detail in 12:6. However, ultimately, the betrayal is the result of the action of the Evil One (the Satan/Devil). Above, I have translated the term dia/bolo$ rather literally, as one who “casts [vb ba/llw] (evil) throughout”, to capture the word play—i.e. the Devil here “having cast” [beblhko/to$] the evil impulse (to betray Jesus) into Judas’ heart. This evil/diabolic influence becomes even more pronounced as the narrative continues:

    • The foot-washing episode, where Jesus states that one of his disciples there (i.e. Judas) is not clean— “…you are clean, but not all (of you)” (v. 10f)
    • The identification of Judas as the one who will betray him (vv. 21-26, cp. Mk 14:18-21 par)
    • The dramatic moment of Judas’ departure (vv. 27-30)

In one of the most striking moments of the entire Gospel, the Satan enters Judas as he eats the morsel of food given to him by Jesus:

“And with the morsel, then [i.e. at that very moment] the Satan went into that (one) [i.e. Judas].” (v. 27a)

The actual departure of Judas is equally dramatic:

“So (then), (hav)ing taken the morsel, that (one) went out straightaway. And it was night.” (v. 30)

The concluding statement “And it was night” is hardly an incidental detail; it is charged with symbolism, reflecting the darkness of the scene as Jesus’ hour comes. Fair or unfair from the standpoint of the historical tradition, in the Johannine Gospel Judas represents and embodies the evil and darkness of the world, and, as he leaves the group of disciples he goes outside, into the world, where it is night.

It is only after Judas (representing the evil of the world) has left, that Jesus is able to deliver his great Last Discourse to his close disciples. This body of teaching begins in 13:31, precisely after Judas’ departure. A central theme of the Last Discourse (and the Prayer-Discourse in chap. 17) is the relationship of the disciples (believers) to the world. This world (ko/smo$), the order of things in the present Age, is dominated by darkness and evil, and the Evil One (i.e. the Satan/Devil) is himself the “chief (ruler) of the world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou, 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The true believer does not belong to this world anymore than Jesus does, but is united with God the Father and (Jesus) the Son through the Holy Spirit. In the Johannine Gospel, Judas Iscariot represents the false believer (cp. 1 John 2:18-19; 4:1ff, etc) who belongs to the world, instead of to God.

 

March 26: John 12:31-34

John 12:31-34

“‘Now is (the) judgment of this world, now the chief (ruler) of this world shall be thrown out(side); and I, if I am lifted high out of the earth, I will drag all (people) toward myself.’ And he (was) say(ing) this, signifying [shmai/wn] what sort of death he (was) about to die away from.” (vv. 31-33)

In the discourse as we have it, the dual-saying of Jesus in vv. 31-33 follows directly after the sounding of the voice from heaven—the declaration of God the Father in response to Jesus’ request (cf. the previous note on vv. 27-30). Thus, Jesus’ own declaration in v. 31 must be understood here in that context: “Now is (the) judgment of this world…”. The hour of Jesus’ death—which is also the moment when he (the Son of Man) will be given honor/glory—marks the judgment (kri/si$) of the world. This is an example of the “realized” eschatology that is so prominent in the Gospel of John. The events which were believed to occur at the end of the current Age—the resurrection, the great Judgment, and eternal life for the righteous who pass through the Judgment—are already being experienced now, in the present, especially for believers in Christ. Indeed, there are several places in the Discourses where Jesus clearly states that those who trust in him have already passed through the Judgment, and, by contrast, those who are unable/unwilling to trust have already been judged—cf. 3:19; 5:22-24 [cp. 27-30]; 9:39; 12:47-48; 16:8-11. For more on this, see the recent article in the series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament”.

In the Johannine theology and religious outlook, the term “world” (ko/smo$, perhaps better rendered “world order“) refers to the current Age (i.e. the current order of things) that is dominated by darkness and wickedness and fundamentally opposed to God. The end-time Judgment—already being experienced in the present—involves the judgment/defeat of these forces of evil, led and embodied by the figure here called “the chief [a&rxwn] of this world”, perhaps also personified as “the Evil (One)” (o( ponhro/$, cf. 1 John 5:18-19; John 17:15, etc). In more traditional religious language, this figure would be identified as the Satan/Devil. This expression “the chief of this world” also occurs at 14:30 and 16:11:

“…the chief of the world comes, and he holds nothing in/on me” (14:30)
“(the Spirit will demonstrate [the truth] to the world) …about (the) Judgment, (in) that the chief of this world has been judged” (16:11)

The statement in 16:11 corresponds closely with that in 12:31; in terms of the context of the narrative, 14:30 and 16:11 are ‘located’ before and after the death and resurrection of Jesus, which confirms the idea that his death/resurrection is the moment when the “ruler of this world” is judged. The actual verb used is e)kba/llw (“throw/cast out”), with the adverb e&cw giving added emphasis (“thrown outside“). This means that the power/control of the Evil One is broken and he no longer has dominion over the world. Revelation 12 similarly sets the Satan’s expulsion from heaven (being thrown out/down) in the context of Jesus’ death and resurrection (vv. 5-9ff). The saying of Jesus in Luke 10:18 (“I observed the Satan [hav]ing fallen as a flash [of lightning] out of heaven”) relates to the time of his earthly ministry, and the authority he has (over evil spirits, etc), the same power/authority he gives to his disciples (i.e. believers) over the forces of evil (cp. the statement on the purpose of Jesus’ mission in 1 Jn 3:8). His death, of course, represents the completion of his mission on earth, and is to be seen especially as the moment of the Evil One’s defeat. This will be discussed further in an upcoming note.

To this statement is added, in v. 32, an apparently separate saying which resembles, and repeats the message of, that in 3:14f:

“…even as Moshe lifted high the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to be lifted high, (so) that every (one) trusting in him would hold (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life].” (3:14-15)

“…and I, if I am lifted high out of the earth, I will drag all (people) toward myself” (12:32)

As previous noted, the verb u(yo/w (“lift/raise high”) in these Johannine passages (cf. also 8:28) has a dual meaning: (1) Jesus’ death, being lifted up on the stake, and (2) his exaltation (resurrection and return to the Father). The author’s comment in v. 33 specifies that the first of these is primarily in view, as is fitting for the Passion-context of the narrative at this point. To come toward (pro/$) Jesus means to trust in him, even as the Greeks who wish to “come toward” Jesus and see him (vv. 20-22) represent all the believers from the surrounding nations who will come to trust in him.

A sense of election/predestination (to use the traditional theological terminology) is connoted by the verb e(lku/w (“drag”), a verb that is rare in the New Testament, being used in 21:6, 11 in the context of fishing (i.e. pulling/dragging in the nets). It is also used in the judicial context of ‘hauling’ someone into court, etc, which would fit the judgment theme in verse 31 (cf. Acts 16:19; James 2:6). The most relevant parallel, however, is found in 6:44, in the Bread of Life discourse, as Jesus speaks of the dynamic of people “coming” to him (i.e. to trust in him):

“No (one) is able to come toward me, if (it is) not (that) the Father, the (One) sending me, should drag [e(lku/sh|] him (there)…”

The language almost suggests someone being pulled against his/her will, which would be a bit too strong of an interpretation; however, there is a definite emphasis in the Johannine Discourses on what we would call election or predestination—believers come to Jesus because they (already) belong to God, and have been chosen. The inclusive language in 12:32— “…I will drag all (people)” —is best understood in terms of all believers, especially in light of the presence of Greek (i.e.  non-Jewish) believers here in the narrative context; that is to say, believers from all the nations/peoples will come to him.

Verse 34

The response of the crowd in verse 34 is another example of the motif of misunderstanding that is built into the Johannine discourse format. Which is not say that these instances do not reflect authentic historical details, but only that they have been tailored to fit the literary context of the discourse. Indeed, the response of the crowd here is entirely believable. It refers primarily to the main line of the discourse—the saying in verse 23, along with the latter statement in v. 32—that is to say, the core tradition regarding the death of the “Son of Man”:

Then the throng (of people) gave forth (an answer) to him: “We heard out of the Law that ‘the Anointed (One) remains into the Age’, and (so) how (can) you say that ‘it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to be lifted high’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”

This is best understood as a summary of different questions Jesus’ followers (and other interested hearers) had regarding his message. It reflects two basic issues, in terms of Jesus’ Messianic identity:

    • The idea that Jesus, as the Messiah, would die (and/or depart) before establishing the kingdom of God (on earth) in the New Age.
    • The manner in which he identified himself with the “Son of Man” figure—in two respects:
      • The Son of Man sayings which refer to his upcoming suffering and death
      • The eschatological Son of Man sayings, which refer to the appearance of a heavenly deliverer at the end-time

This will be discussed further in the upcoming note for Palm Sunday; you may also wish to consult my earlier series on the Son of Man Sayings of Jesus.