Tag: Union with Christ

May 4: Ephesians 2:13-18

Ephesians 2:13-18

The final passage from the Pauline letters to be examined in these notes is Ephesians 2:11-22, focusing specifically on the portion from verse 13 to v. 18. In the view of many commentators, Ephesians is pseudonymous. This is not the place to consider the various arguments for and against Pauline authorship; the main point to note is that even scholars who would maintain that the letter is pseudonymous recognize its Pauline character. That is to say, the author (if not Paul) was certainly influenced by Paul’s writings, and himself writes in a way that very much reflects the Pauline theology and manner of expression.

An important theme in Ephesians, especially in the first half of the letter, is the unity of believers in Christ—Jews and Gentiles alike. This was also a central theme for Paul in Romans, and relates to his distinctive (and controversial) view regarding the place of the Torah in the new covenant. His line of exhortational argument in 2:11-22 reflects the same religious and theological viewpoint, and could serve as a summary of Paul’s thoughts on the matter.

The key statement is in verse 13, where Paul (or the author) indicates that this unity—between Jewish and non-Jewish believers—was brought about through the death of Jesus:

“But now, in (the) Anointed Yeshua, you, the (one)s being in times (past) far off, (have) come to be near, in [i.e. by] the blood of the Anointed.”

The expressions “in (the) Anointed Yeshua” and “in the blood of the Anointed” are clearly parallel, and largely synonymous. They reflect the key Pauline themes of believers being “in Christ” and of ‘dying and rising with Christ’ —that is, of our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the previous notes, we have seen how, in Paul’s view, this participation is realized for believers through the presence of the Spirit.

The main focus in this passage, however, is on how our shared participation in Jesus’ death means that there is no longer any separation or division between Jewish and non-Jewish (Gentile) believers. The old religious identity, with its distinctions and exclusivity, no longer applies for believers in Christ. This new reality is expressed here in terms of those who were “far away” (makra/n), i.e. Gentiles, coming to be identified (along with believing Jews) as God’s people—they now come to be “near” (e)ggu/$). As part of God’s people, Gentiles are able to come near to God, in a covenant bond of relation to Him (cf. below on v. 18). This is, of course, a new covenant, which supersedes the old covenant and its Torah (on the definite contrast, see esp. 2 Cor 3:6, 14, in context).

The emphasis on unity between Jew and Gentile is expressed powerfully in verse 14, stressing again how this unity was achieved through Jesus’ death—and of our participation, as believers, in his death (“in his flesh” [e)n th=| sarki\ au)tou=]). Such unity could only be achieved by abolishing the old religious differences (which were ethnically and culturally defined). The Torah regulations represent the terms of the old covenant, which were binding for God’s people. Now, with the coming of Christ—and, specifically, through his sacrificial death (on the cross, cf. Gal 2:19ff; Col 2:14)—these regulations of the old covenant are no longer binding for believers in Christ.

This is the essence of Paul’s view of the Law, expressed (as I see it) in unmistakable terms, throughout Galatians, Romans, and in 2 Corinthians 3. It is also expressed quite clearly here in verse 15. Following the thought in v. 14, where it is stated that Jesus’ death ‘dissolved’ (vb lu/w) the “middle wall of the fence” that previously separated Jew from non-Jew. This “wall” is further identified, in verse 15, as “the law [no/mo$] of e)ntolai/ e)n do/gmasin.” This particular qualifying expression is difficult to translate. The noun e)ntolh/ fundamentally refers to a charge or duty that is placed on a person, which he/she is obligated to complete. In context, it clearly refers to the regulations and requirements in the Torah, and is typically translated flatly as “command(ment)s”. The word do/gma essentially means an (authoritative) opinion, often in the sense of a view that is presented as a guiding principle; in a governmental or legal context, it can refer to an official ordinance or decree. Here, the expression e)n do/gmasin refers to the specific Torah regulations/requirements in their written (legally binding) form.

Jesus’ death literally made these binding regulations “cease working”; that is the fundamental meaning of the verb katarge/w, which Paul uses repeatedly to express the idea that the Torah regulations are no longer binding for believers in Christ. It occurs 4 times in 2 Corinthians 3 (vv. 7, 11, 13-14) and twice in Rom 7:1-6 (vv. 2, 6); Paul also uses it, in the same context, but in the reverse sense—viz., that continuing to live under the old covenant effectively invalidates the Gospel and faith in Christ! (cf. Rom 4:14; Gal 5:4, 11). Paul was fully aware how controversial this view of the Torah was, especially for Jewish Christians. In Rom 3:31—a verse that can easily be misunderstood—he declares that his view of the Torah does not nullify/invalidate (same verb, katarge/w) the Law. God’s Law continues to be upheld, but through the Spirit and by following the example of Jesus (esp. the ‘love command’), rather than by continuing to treat the Torah regulations as legally binding.

The thought in vv. 14-15 is developed and restated in vv. 16-17, emphasizing again how the unity of believers was achieved through Jesus’ sacrificial death. In the climactic verse 18, Paul (or the author) ties this unity directly to the presence of the Spirit:

“(for it is) that, through him, we hold the way leading toward (God)—the both (of us) in one Spirit—toward the Father!”

The death of Jesus gives believers direct access to God the Father. The noun used is prosagwgh/, which essentially refers to the way “leading toward” something (or someone); it can also have the more active (verbal) meaning of bringing someone forward. In any case, believers are brought (or allowed to come) “toward” (pro/$) God (the Father). This coming toward God is made possible through our participation in Jesus’ death (“through him”), but it is realized “in the Spirit” (e)n pneu/mati). The exact expression, e)n e(ni\ pneu/mati (“in one Spirit”), could conceivably refer more generically to a ‘spirit of unity’ between human beings. While this would be valid, any ‘spirit’ of unity among believers is realized through the presence of the Spirit. The concluding use of the word pneu=ma in verse 22, makes absolutely clear that the focus is on the Spirit of God (and Christ). From the Pauline theological standpoint, as we have seen, it is through the presence of the Spirit that the life-giving power of Jesus’ death (and resurrection) is communicated to us. I have no doubt that the author of Ephesians—if that person is not Paul himself—shares this same Pauline perspective.

In the next daily note, our final note in this series, we will look at the statement in Hebrews 9:14, which is one of the very few passages in the New Testament indicating a role for the Spirit in Jesus’ actual death.

March 25: Romans 8:17 (continued)

Romans 8:17, continued

The final clause of v. 17 (cf. the previous note) gives us an idea of how it is that we, as believers, are “co-heirs of Christ” —lit. ones holding the lot (klhrono/moi) together with (su/n) him. The prefixed preposition sun– alludes to our fundamental union with Christ. Paul expounds the significance of that union in the final clause:

“… (and) if indeed we suffer with (him), (it is) that also we shall be honored with (him).”

He utilizes a pair of compound verbs with a similar prefix (sun-):

    • sumpa/sxw—meaning “suffer [pa/sxw] together with [sun]” another person
    • sundoca/zw—in the passive, “be esteemed/honored [doca/zw] together with [sun]” another

The latter verb occurs only here in the New Testament, the former only here and in 1 Cor 12:26; neither is used in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). Thus, we are dealing with distinctively Pauline language, as an expression of a uniquely Pauline theological emphasis—namely, that of believers’ participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In this, Paul is developing a basic early Christian concept, symbolized principally by the baptism ritual. However, Paul develops the concept in a way that is most distinctive, and which must surely be regarded as an original contribution to Christian thought. The key passage is Romans 6:1-11, beginning especially with verse 3:

“…as (many) of us as were dunked [i.e. baptized] into (the) Anointed Yeshua, we were dunked into his death“

He builds upon this statement in verse 4:

“(So) then, we were buried together [sunta/fhmen] with him, through the dunking into (his) death, (so) that, even as (the) Anointed was raised out of (the) dead through the honor/splendor [do/ca] of the Father, so also we should walk about in newness of life.”

Note two key parallels with our passage:

    • The use of a similar compound verb with a sun– prefix (sunqa/ptw), emphasizing our participation in the death of Jesus
    • The idea of (God) the Father bestowing esteem/honor/glory (do/ca) upon His Son

The exposition continues in verse 5:

“For if we have come to be planted together [su/mfutoi] in the likeness of his death, (the) rather (all the more) shall we also be (in the likeness) of his standing up again [i.e. resurrection]”

This time an adjective with a sun– prefix (su/mfuto$) is used, expressing the idea of death (and burial) through the image of a seed planted in the ground, yielding new life and growth (cf. John 12:24); for other use of the seed-motif, cf. 1 Cor 15:37-38; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 Jn 3:9. The message is clear: by participating in Jesus’ death, believers also participate in his resurrection. This Pauline teaching of ‘dying and rising with Christ’ is mentioned or alluded to elsewhere in his letters (e.g., 1 Cor 15:20-49; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Gal 2:19-20; 5:24-25), but the more direct parallels in Col 2:12 and Gal 3:26-27 illustrate both centrality of the concept, as it is expressed here, and its association with the baptism ritual.

While our participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection may be symbolized by baptism, it is realized through the presence of the Spirit. This is clear enough from the context here in chapter 8. The spiritual aspect of the participation-concept is particularly emphasized in verses 9-11. Our union with Christ is understood as realized by being “in the Spirit” (e)n pneu/mati), and also by the Spirit being in us (“the Spirit…houses [i.e. dwells] in you”).

This state of being characterizes the true believer in Christ; indeed, having the Spirit in us means we have Christ in us, since the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ (v. 9). And, through union with his Spirit, we participate—in a spiritual way—with his death and resurrection:

“And, if the Spirit of the (One hav)ing raised Yeshua out of (the) dead houses [i.e. dwells] in you, (then) the (One hav)ing raised Yeshua out of (the) dead will also make alive your dying bodies, through His Spirit housing [i.e. dwelling] in you.” (v. 11)

Paul alludes to this entire matrix of theological (and Christological) thought in the final phrases of v. 17.

An important, but sometimes overlooked, aspect of this spiritualism, is the way that Paul understands our participation (in Jesus’ death and resurrection) as being realized, in space and time, throughout the course of our earthly lives. Even though the participation is fundamentally spiritual, there are practical and tangible effects to the whole person—body and spirit. Here in chapter 8, Paul emphasizes two specific ways that we participate, on a daily basis, in Jesus’ death:

First, we actively and willingly “put to death” the “deeds of the body” (= works of the flesh), vv. 12-13. For Paul, this is a practical consequence of the true believer being “crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:19)—i.e., participating in his death. This requires a willing commitment by us to ‘walk’ in the Spirit (Gal 5:16ff), allowing ourselves to be guided by the Spirit, which, in turn, results in personal ethical/moral transformation (i.e, the “fruit of the Spirit”) that has a most tangible and practical effect.

Second, as believers, we can be expected to endure suffering in this life. The suffering to which Paul refers (in verse 18ff) is not only the result of the internal struggle between the Spirit and the flesh; it also is realized through hostility and persecution by the world. All of this is part of the world’s continuing bondage under the power of sin (and death)—bondage from which we, as believers, have been set free. Paul refers to this, summarily, by the expression “the sufferings of the time now [i.e. the present moment]” in v. 18. In vv. 19-23 Paul gives profound expression to the (eschatological) idea that all of creation will ultimately be set free and will come to share in the same promise of glory that believers now possess, in Christ. This will be realized at the final resurrection.

March 24: Romans 8:17

Romans 8:17

“And, if (His) offspring, (then) also (one)s holding the lot—holding the lot of God, and holding the lot together with (the) Anointed; (and) if indeed we suffer with (him), (it is) that also we shall be honored with (him).”

This final verse builds upon the theme of believers as sons of God. Here, as in v. 16 (cf. the previous note), the more general (and inclusive) term te/kna (“offspring, children”) is used; however, the context of inheritance clearly shows that Paul still has the sonship idea in mind. The plural ui(oi/ (“sons”) was used in v. 14, along with the noun ui(oqesi/a (“placement as a son,” i.e., adoption) in v. 15. The son-heir theme also features prominently in Galatians 3-4, and the parallels between Gal 4:5-6 and our passage have been noted.

The noun klhrono/mo$ literally means “one holding the lot [klh=ro$]”. A klh=ro$ is a broken piece or small fragment (of wood, stone, etc), used in the casting of lots. From this specific (concrete) usage, the more general idea of a portion or allotment developed. Often this refers specifically to an inherited portion—i.e., an inheritance; and, thus, the klhrono/mo$ is a person holding the right to an inheritance, i.e., an heir.

Here, Paul is declaring that believers hold the right of inheritance, as sons of God. It is indeed, from God Himself that we inherit, as the expression “heirs of God” (klhrono/moi qeou=) indicates. The genitive qeou= (“of God”) is an objective genitive, designating what it is that we inherit—namely, the things belonging to God. However, it is normally the eldest son who inherits; and, in applying such an illustration to a Christian context, this means that Jesus Christ, the Son, is the true heir of God. We, as believers, can be considered heirs only through our union with him. Paul expresses this point here through use of a me\n…de/ construction (“on the one hand…on the other…”):

    • me\n:
      klhrono/moi qeou=
      (“heirs of God”)
    • de/:
      sugklhrono/moi xristou=
      (“heirs together with Christ”)

On the one hand (me\n), we are indeed heirs of God; but, on the other hand (de/), this is only true because we are heirs together with Christ. Syntactically, the two expressions are the same, and the translation probably should reflect this:

      • “heirs of God / co-heirs of Christ”

Literally, this would mean that we all, together as believers, are co-heirs to what Christ, first, inherits. However, what follows in v. 17 suggests that the preposition sun– should be understood in relation to Christ (i.e., together with him). This would mean that the noun sugklhrono/moi would be translated “heirs  together with (him)” (lit. [one]s holding the lot with [him])—i.e., we share Christ’s inheritance together with him.

And, how is that we come to share in his inheritance? Paul alludes to this in the remainder of verse 17: it is by way of our union with him, realized through the Spirit. This point is essential to Paul’s spiritualism, and is deserving of special attention. We focus on the nature and significance of this spiritual union in the next daily note.

March 23: Romans 8:16

Romans 8:16

“The Spirit itself gives witness together with our spirit that we are (the) offspring of God.”

In verse 15 (cf.the previous note), Paul refers to the Spirit within believers as “the spirit of placement as sons [ui(oqesi/a]” —that is to say, through the Spirit we, as believers, acquire the status of sons (i.e., children) of God. We share this sonship with Jesus himself, as is clear from the parallel in Gal 4:6, where Paul refers to “the Spirit of His Son”. Earlier in our passage (v. 9), Paul uses the expression “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” interchangeably, as a reference to the Spirit. It is thus the Spirit of Jesus (the Son) even as it is the Spirit of God (the Father), the two sharing the same Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 15:45 combined with 6:17). In a similar way, through union with Christ, believers also share in this Spirit.

Here, in verse 16, Paul emphasizes the role of the Spirit as a witness (ma/rtu$) to our identity as God’s children. He uses the compound verb summarture/w, which means “give witness [marture/w] together with [sun] another”. The ‘other’ witness is our own spirit.

The noun pneu=ma is one of several terms that refer generally to the inner aspect of a human being. Paul uses pneu=ma in this sense in Rom 1:9, and also in 1 Cor 2:11; 5:3-5; 7:34; 14:14-16; 2 Cor 7:1; Gal 6:18; 1 Thess 5:23, and in a few other references as well. There is not always a sharp distinction made between pneu=ma (“spirit”), yuxh/ (“soul”), and nou=$ (“mind”)—all three terms variously reflect overlapping aspects of what Paul elsewhere calls the “inner” (e&sw) person (Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; also Eph 3:16); and note also the inward/outward contrast in Rom 2:29. Paul’s emphasis on the inward aspect of Christian identity and religious (spiritual) experience is a general indication of his spiritualism.

In Rom 8:23, Paul makes clear that we, as believers, hold the Divine sonship within (e)n) ourselves, through the presence and work of the Spirit. Paul gives us a portrait of how the Spirit of God (and Christ) interacts with our own spirit in vv. 26-27; cf. also the discussion on 1 Cor 2:10-14 in the earlier article in this series. Here the Spirit’s interaction (with our spirit) does two things: (1) it confirms for us that we are, indeed, the sons of God; and, (2) it gives us the authority/ability to declare this, by crying out (vb kra/zw) “Abba, Father!” —declaring God to be our Father, in the same manner in which Jesus (the Son) addressed the Father (e.g., Mk 14:36). The second aspect was emphasized in v. 15, the first is the focus here in v. 16.

That is to say, here the Spirit functions as a confirming witness. This dual-witness concept is not unique to Paul, as it seems to have been an important component in early Christian thought. Outside of the Pauline letters, it is particularly emphasized in Luke-Acts and the Johannine writings. In the case of Luke-Acts, the dual-witness motif is part of a broader narrative treatment of the role of the Spirit among early believers, and in the inspired (prophetic) nature of the Gospel proclamation; in particular, we may note the wording in Acts 5:32 and 15:28. In the Johannine Gospel, the Spirit clearly functions in a way that parallels the disciples’ own teaching (which they received from Jesus himself)—cf. 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13ff. There are closer parallels to our passage in 1 John, where the Spirit’s witness confirms that Jesus Christ (and his sonship) abides in us, and that we, in turn, are also sons/children of God—cf. 3:24; 4:6, 13. The “witness” motif is particularly prominent in the Johannine writings, and the Spirit is the ultimate witness for believers (Jn 15:26; 1 Jn 5:6-8).

Verse 16 begins with the (neuter) personal pronoun au)to/ (“he/it”), in emphatic position. The neuter case agrees with the noun pneu=ma, and the pronoun is used used here in an emphatic/intensive way—i.e., “the Spirit itself.” This could also be translated “th(is) same Spirit” —that is, the “spirit (of sonship)” mentioned in v. 15, which is also the “Spirit of God” (in v. 14). In other words, the very Spirit of God in us, the Spirit that establishes us as His sons, confirms the truth (for us) that we are, indeed, His children.

In v. 14, Paul used the plural ui(oi/ (“sons”), while here the neuter plural te/kna (“offspring, children”) is used. There is no real difference in meaning, though te/kna is certainly the more general and inclusive term, which makes clear that the statements in vv. 14-15 apply to all believers—male and female. As previously noted, in the Johannine writings, te/kna is always used of believers (Jn 1:12-13; 1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2), never the noun ui(o/$, which is reserved for Jesus. Paul shares this belief in the uniqueness of Jesus’ Sonship, but is not averse to using the noun ui(o/$ when speaking of believers as God’s children. Through our union with Jesus, who is the Son (and heir) of God, we share in the same Sonship, and thus become, ourselves, sons (and co-heirs) with him; cf. the discussion in Galatians 3-4, and here throughout chapter 8. The point is made more explicit in verse 17, which we will examine in the next daily note.

Spiritualism and the New Testament: Paul: Romans 8:1-17ff

Romans 8:1-17ff

Romans 8 represents Paul’s most extensive and concentrated teaching on the Spirit. It is thus central to a proper understanding of his spiritualism. In this chapter, Paul touches upon many of the themes and ideas expressed in the earlier passages we have studied, bringing them together in a more systematic way. This article will focus on verses 1-11, while vv. 12-17, though included in the discussion below, will be dealt with in more detail in a set of supplemental daily notes.

Chapter 8 is the fourth, and final, major section of the probatio of Romans (Rom 1:18-8:39). The first three sections were:

    • Rom 1:18-3:20: Announcement of God’s (impending) judgment, according to the Law (of God)
    • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s justice/righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
    • Rom 6:1-7:25: Announcement of Freedom from the Law and Sin

This last section (chapter 8) I would divide as follows:

    • Rom 8:1-30: Announcement of Life in the Spirit (Exhortation)
      —8:1-11: The conflict (for believers) between the Spirit and the Flesh
      —8:12-17: Believers are sons (of God) and heirs (with Christ) through the Spirit
      —8:18-25: Believers have the hope of future glory (new creation) through the Spirit
      —8:26-30: Believers experience the work of salvation through the Spirit
    • Rom 8:31-39: Doxology: The Love of God (in Christ)

Having just worked intensively through the relation between Law and Sin (see the article on Rom 7:7-25 in the series “Paul’s View of the Law”), with the emphasis on the believer’s freedom (in Christ) from both, Paul now proceeds to discuss the life of the believer in the Spirit (of God and Christ). This thematic emphasis is, in some ways, parallel to the exhortation in Galatians 5:16-25 (discussed in the previous article in the current series)—believers who are freed from the binding force of the Law (and Sin), now live according to the power and guidance of the Spirit.

Two main themes are present in the discussion on the Spirit here in Rom 8:1-11:

    • The presence of the Spirit marks the New Covenant for God’s people (believers), taking the place of the Old Covenant Law (Torah) as the guiding and governing principle
    • The Spirit is tied to believers’ union with Jesus Christ, as symbolized in the baptism ritual
Verses 1-11

The theme of this section is the conflict for believers between the Spirit and the Flesh, introduced by Paul in Rom 7:14, but which is more familiar from the famous discussion in Gal 5:16ff. In Rom 7:7-25, human beings were dramatized as struggling with the flesh, but under the enslaving power of sin and the Law; now, having been delivered from the Law and sin, the struggle with the “flesh” (sa/rc) remains. This deliverance is defined according to two principal declarations in vv. 1-2:

“(So) then, now (there is) not any judgment against the (one)s in (the) Anointed Yeshua. For the law of the Spirit of life in (the) Anointed Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” (vv. 1-2)

    1. “Now there is not any [ou)de/n] judgment against [kata/krima] the (one)s (who are) in (the) Anointed Yeshua” (v. 1)—addressed collectively to all believers, this describes the elimination of judgment (by God) against human beings (announced in Rom 1:18ff); this judgment was the result of violation of the Law by human beings, under the power of sin. This removal of judgment is the product of “justification”, of God “making (things) right” again for humankind, and, in particular, of making believers right and just in His eyes.
    2. “For the Law of the Spirit of life, in (the) Anointed Yeshua, has set you free from the Law of Sin and of Death” (v. 2)—the majority text reads “set me free”, by which Paul would be personalizing the matter, much as he does in 7:7-25—either way, the personal pronoun is representative of all believers.

The entirety of the old order of things—bondage of humankind under the power of sin, and the corresponding bondage under the power of the Torah (with its regulations regarding sin)—has been swept away for believers in Christ. We are truly set free from both—sin and the Torah. Paul plays on the word no/mo$, which typically in his letters refers to the Old Testment Law (Torah), though occasionally he uses the expression “the law [no/mo$] of God”, which has a wider meaning—i.e., the will of God for His people, as expressed (specifically) in the Torah. Paul uses the word in both of these ways here in vv. 1-11, but also in two specialized expressions:

    • the law [o( no/mo$] of the Spirit [tou= pneu/mato$] of life [th=$ zwh=$]
    • the law [o( no/mo$] of sin [th=$ a(marti/a$] and of death [kai\ tou= qana/tou]

Here we find also a new use of the word no/mo$ (“law”) in the expression o( no/mo$ tou= pneu/mato$ th=$ zwh=$ (“the Law of the Spirit of Life”)—pneu=ma here certainly referring to the (Holy) Spirit. In Galatians, the Spirit is seen as taking the place of the Law for believers (cf. Gal 5:16ff), and should be understood in this way here, but with the added emphasis on its sanctifying and life-bestowing power—Life contrasted with Death. The expression “the Law of Sin and Death” is an expansion of “the Law of Sin” in Rom 7:23-25; it reflects the dynamic of Sin and the Law at work, both against each other, and also working together according to God’s purpose (see esp. Rom 11:32). The expression should not be reduced simply to the “principle of sin”.

The formal parallelism shows that here “the Spirit” is parallel with “sin”, and is meant as an absolute contrast; in light of the overall discussion in Romans, this would be defined as “bondage under sin” vs. “freedom in the Spirit”. Thus, in addition to the Torah itself, there is a “law of the Spirit” and a “law of sin” —two great guiding principles for all of humankind. Believers in Christ follow the law of the Spirit, while all other people are bound to continue following the law of sin. The Torah, which previously played a kind of intermediary role between these two principles, no longer applies for believers. Since it is sin that leads to a sentence of judgment (kri=ma) from God, and believers are freed from the power of sin (and all its effects), there is no longer occasion for any such sentence to be brought down (kata/) against us. Life is the opposite of death, which would be the ultimate punishment (judgment) for sin.

In verses 3 and 4, this deliverance is described in terms of Christ’s sacrificial death:

“For the powerless (thing) of the Law [i.e. what the Law lacked power to do], in which [i.e. in that] it was weak through the flesh, God (has done), sending his own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin [i.e. sinful flesh] and about [i.e. for the sake of] sin, judged against sin in the flesh, (so) that the just/right (thing) of the Law should be filled up [i.e. fulfilled] in us—the (one)s not walking about according to (the) flesh, but according to (the) Spirit.” (vv. 3-4)

These powerful verses are dense with key elements of Pauline theology, expressed in language that can be difficult to translate (as the glosses in brackets above indicate). There are two especially important ideas that define Paul’s line of thought:

    • it is in the “flesh” (sa/rc) that the power of sin is localized and manifest in human beings, evident by a universal impulse toward sinful thoughts and actions; even for believers, this impulse to sin remains in the flesh (to varying degrees), though we are no longer enslaved by its power—i.e. we have the ability not to respond to the impulse
    • it was the sacrificial death of Jesus that enables believers to be free from the power of sin (and the judgment of God against sin)

Paul uses the verb katakri/nw (“judge against, bring down judgment [against]”), which is cognate to the noun kata/krima in verse 1 (cf. above), to make the point that the judgment against sin was realized in the death of Jesus—not against the human beings who sinned, but against sin itself, stripping it of its death-yielding power over humankind. The matter of the relationship of Jesus’ death to sin is highly complex, and cannot be discussed in detail here (cf. my earlier note on these verses [along with 2 Cor 5:19-21]). The main point of emphasis here, in term of Paul’s view of the role of the Spirit, is twofold:

    • Christ’s death freed humankind (believers) from the power of sin, located in the “flesh”
    • Believers are likewise freed from the Law—and we effectively fulfill the Law completely (and automatically) insofar as we “walk according to the Spirit” (cf. the previous article on Gal 5:16-25)

The remainder of this section, vv. 5-11, follows very much in line with Galatians 5:16-25, contrasting the Spirit with the flesh.

“For the (one)s being [i.e. who are] according to the flesh give mind (to) the (thing)s of the flesh, but the (one)s (who are) according to (the) Spirit (give mind to) the (thing)s of the Spirit. For the mindset of the flesh (leads to) death, but the mindset of the Spirit (leads to) life and peace, through (the fact) that the mindset of the flesh (means) hostility to God, for it is not put in order under the law of God, and (indeed) it is not able to be; and the (one)s being [i.e. who are] in (the) flesh are not able to please God.” (vv. 5-8)

These verses essentially expound the contrast between “walking according to the flesh” and “walking according to the Spirit”, the ethical and religious aspect being broadened to cover the anthropological (and ontological) dimension of humankind. We are dealing with two kinds of people: (1) faithful believers in Christ, and (2) all other human beings. The first group is guided by the Spirit, the second by the flesh (and the impulse to sin that resides in the flesh). This shows how deep the flesh vs. Spirit dichotomy (and dualism) was for Paul.

Paul’s use of the word translated “flesh” (sa/rc) is complex and highly nuanced; it primarily refers to the human body, and its parts, but especially in the sense that it is affected and influenced by the impulse (e)piqumi/a) to sin. Paul clearly believed that this impulse to sin still remained in the “flesh”, even for Christians (Gal 5:17), but the enslaving power of sin had been removed—believers now have the freedom and ability to choose to follow God’s will. This choosing is expressed by use of the word fro/nhma (vv. 6-7, also in v. 27), rather difficult to translate, but which indicates the exercise of the mind, both in terms of understanding and the will. In typically dualistic fashion, Paul contrasts the fro/nhma th=$ sarko/$ (“mind[edness] of the flesh”) with the fro/nhma tou= pneu/mato$ (“mind[edness] of the Spirit”).

“And (yet) you are not in (the) flesh, but in (the) Spirit, if indeed (it is that the) Spirit of God houses [i.e. dwells] in you. And if any (one) does not hold (the) Spirit of (the) Anointed, that (person) is not his [i.e. does not belong to Christ].” (v. 9)

The condition of being and “walking” (i.e. living/acting) in the Spirit depends on the Spirit being in the believer. The reciprocity of this relationship is stressed by Paul no less than in the Johannine writings. What is striking is the way that this is expressed by the dual identification of the Spirit as both “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ“. The latter expression is rare in Paul’s letters, but, as this verse indicates, “Spirit of Christ” is used interchangeably with “Spirit of God”, as though both refer equally to the same Spirit. For more on this point, see the supplemental notes on vv. 12-17 (and cf. also the earlier note on 1 Cor 6:17ff; 15:44-46).

In verses 9-11, Paul gives a threefold qualification of the Spirit:

    • the “Spirit of God” (pneu=ma Qeou=) which dwells (“houses”) in [e)n] believers (v. 9a)
    • the “Spirit of [the] Anointed {Christ}” (pneu=ma Xristou=), which likewise is in [e)n] believers (v. 10), but believers are also said to “hold” it (v. 9b)
    • the “Spirit of the (one) raising Yeshua from the dead” (i.e. of God), which also dwells in [e)n] believers, and gives life to our mortal (lit. “dying”) bodies just as Christ was raised from the dead (v. 11)

Verse 10 is discussed further in a separate daily note; but here we may consider briefly vv. 10-11 as a unit:

“And if (the) Anointed (One is) in you, (then on one hand) the body (is) dead through sin, but (on the other hand) the Spirit is life through justice/righteousness. And if the Spirit of the (One hav)ing raised Yeshua out of (the) dead houses [i.e. dwells] in you, (then) the (One hav)ing raised (the) Anointed out of (the) dead will also make alive your dying bodies, through His Spirit housing [i.e. dwelling] (with)in you.” (vv. 10-11)

Again, the Spirit dwelling in the believer means Christ dwells in the believer, since the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ. This means that, when we are united with the exalted Jesus through faith (and symbolized by baptism), and his Spirit unites with our spirit, we are also united with the Spirit of God.

The baptismal symbolism involves our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul only alludes to this here, having addressed the point earlier in 6:1-11; indeed, it is one of the most distinctive aspects of his theology. The power of Christ’s death and resurrection is communicated to us through our union with his divine Spirit. The power of his death puts to death the sin in our “flesh”, while the power of his resurrection transforms our entire being with divine life, so that even our decaying bodies will be raised to new life—just as his own body was raised by the power of God’s Spirit. The Spirit is literally to be understood as the very life of God.

Verses 12-17

Verses 12-13 are transitional to vv. 14-17ff, but they also serve to bring the discussion on the Spirit in vv. 1-11 to a close. Paul’s statement in v. 13 could not be more direct or to the point:

“for if you live according to the flesh, you are about to die away, but if, in (the) Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live.”

The contrast between the Spirit and the flesh continues in these verses, which likewise have strong parallels with Galatians:

    • V. 12: An exhortation not to live “according to the flesh” (kata\ sa/rka)—cf. Gal 5:16-17
    • V. 13: A reminder that living/acting according to the flesh leads to death, while the opposite leads to life—cf. Gal 6:7-8; for the idea of “putting to death the deeds of the body”, see Gal 5:24 (also 6:14)
    • V. 14-16: Declaration that through the Spirit believers are made sons/offspring of God—cf. Gal 3:26; 4:1-6 —in particular, verse 15 is extremely close to Gal 4:5-6
    • V. 17: The declaration follows that, if we are sons of God, then we are also his heirs—cf. Gal 3:29; 4:1ff (esp. verse 7); Paul adds here the detail that we are co-heirs (“ones receiving the lot together”) with Christ (see Rom 8:29)

These verses will be given a more detailed exegetical treatment in a set of supplemental notes.

Verses 18-25ff

The theme of believers as sons (and heirs) of God continues in this section with the hope (and promise) of future glory (new creation) that we have through the Spirit. In a truly beautiful, if somewhat enigmatic, passage, Paul describes all of creation as currently in the process of giving birth to something new— “the glory of the offspring of God” (v. 21). Believers are the “firstfruits” of this new creation, a process of our being realized as sons/children of God which will only be completed with our final resurrection and glorification— “the loosing of our bodies from (the bondage of death)” (v. 23). This also is ultimately the realization of salvation (“by [this] hope we are saved”, v. 24).

Verses 26-30

This section emphasizes that believers experience the work of salvation through the Spirit, which Paul describes in two ways:

    • Vv. 26-27—The Spirit works on our behalf before God, described according to two richly detailed, compound verbs:
      —sunantilamba/netai, “he takes (hold) together opposite (us)”, i.e. he helps and assists us “in our lack of strength”
      —u(perentugxa/nei, “he reaches in (and) over (us)”, i.e. he meets us and intercedes on our behalf, specifically in the context of prayer, of “speaking out toward” God
    • Vv. 29-30—God works on our behalf; here Paul presents a schematic or chain of what could be called an “order of salvation”:
      —proe/gnw, “he knew before(hand)”
      —prow/risen, “he marked out before(hand)”
      —e)ka/lesen, “he called”
      —e)dikai/wsen, “he made right”, or “he made/declared just”
      —e)do/casen, “he esteemed/honored [i.e. granted honor/glory]”

For more on description of the Spirit’s role in vv. 26-27, cf. my recent discussion in the “Notes on Prayer” feature (along with an earlier study); on the parallels with 1 Cor 2:10-16, cf. the article on that passage in the current series.

March 3: 2 Corinthians 3:18; 4:6

[This is the final note in the series on 2 Corinthians 3, supplemental to the current exegetical study series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note concluded our discussion on 4:3-6; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

CONCLUSION (2 Cor 3:18; 4:6)

Following our discussion in the previous note, we shall now consider how Paul understands the seeing of God by believers. The focus will remain on the statements in 3:18 and 4:6 in light of Paul’s line of argument and exposition throughout the passage (2:14-4:6). Mention was made of the juxtaposition of the seeing/image motif with the fundamental idea of the believer’s encounter with God taking place spiritually, at the level of the Spirit. How, indeed, does one ‘see’ God in the Spirit?

In answering this question, we must begin with the overall context of the passage—namely, a description (and defense) of the apostolic ministry by Paul, with specific emphasis on the mission of proclaiming the Gospel. This is very much the focus in 2:14-17, and Paul returns to this point of reference at the conclusion of the passage (4:1-3); note, in particular, how 4:3 reflects the earlier wording in 2:15, as an example of the way that Paul deftly blends together the thematic strands of his discussion.

Thus, we may say that the process of ‘seeing’ God, begins with the believer receiving the Gospel of Christ. The ‘blindness’ of the world is defined specifically in terms of being unwilling (or unable) to accept the Gospel and to recognize its truth (4:3, par 3:14-15). The missionary/minister plays a vital role in bringing the light of the Gospel, at first, to the believer. Note, again, the parallel expressions used by Paul in 4:4 and 6:

    • the good message [eu)agge/lion] of the splendor of Christ //
      the knowledge [gnw=si$] of the splendor of God

The Gospel leads to the knowledge of God’s glory; for more on this parallelism, cf. the previous notes on vv. 3-6.

Once a person has received the Gospel, trusting in Jesus Christ, then he/she receives the Spirit. The locus of the Spirit’s presence within the person is usually referenced as the “heart” (kardi/a), as here in 4:6. Traditionally, the giving/sending of the Spirit by God is expressed in terms of liquid (water or oil) being poured. This would have been reinforced by the symbolism of the baptism-ritual. Paul fully embraces this imagery, referring repeatedly to believers receiving the Spirit in their hearts (Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; cf. also the context of Rom 2:29; 8:27; and here in 2 Cor 3:3ff). He does not often describe the presence and activity of the Spirit through light-imagery, but there can be little doubt that here in 4:6 the light that shines in the heart is the same as the Spirit that is poured, etc, into the heart (Rom 5:5). For a similar reference to light shining in the heart, cf. 1 Cor 4:5.

In a number of passages in his letters, Paul describes various aspects of the Spirit’s activity, in and among believers. Some of the key points may be summarized as follows:

Thus, according to Paul, the Spirit’s role within the believer covers the full range of religious experience. However, it is important to remember that the specific references to the Spirit here in 3:17-18 are fundamentally Christological—particularly in terms of our ‘seeing’ God through the Spirit. Indeed, the ‘image’ (ei)kw/n) which we see in the Spirit is Christ’s image. Paul makes explicit in 4:4 what is implied in 3:18, essentially explaining that “the same image” (th\n au)to/n ei)ko/na) which we behold—and into which we are transformed—is that of Christ as “the image of God” (ei)kw\n tou= qeou=, cf. also Col 1:15 and Rom 8:29).

What is specifically involved in this transformative beholding of the image of Christ? There are several key aspects which should be emphasized:

    • Noetic—i.e., the mind of the believer is transformed, to become like that of Christ himself. In this regard, Paul follows Philo’s application of the Moses traditions in Exod 34, even so far as his use of the mirror (ka/toptron) motif and the rare verb katoptri/zomai; cf. the discussion in the prior note. By allowing ourselves to be guiding by the Spirit within, the way we think is changed, and this leads to fundamental (ethical/moral) changes in the way we act. Cf. Rom 8:5-7; 12:2; 1 Cor 2:16; Phil 2:5; and note the context of Gal :16-25. See also the recent study in this series on 1 Cor 2:10-16.
    • Mimetic—along with the ethical transformation that comes from the renewal of our minds and allowing ourselves to be guided by the Spirit, there is the specific idea of following the example of Christ. The conscious imitation of Jesus should be viewed as a specific aspect of ‘walking in the Spirit’ (Gal 5:16, 25). Cf. Phil 2:5ff. Often Paul frames this in terms of following his own example, as he himself imitates Christ—1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 1 Cor 11:1; 4:16; Phil 3:17.
    • Mystical Union—Paul defines the believer’s union with Christ in a very distinctive way, in terms of participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The key passage is Romans 6:3-4, but the idea is expressed all throughout his letters; most notably, cf. Rom 7:6; 8:2ff, 10-11ff; Gal 2:20; 5:24-25; 1 Cor 15:20-24ff, 49; 2 Cor 4:10-11; 5:14-21; Phil 1:21; 3:10-11. Paul’s association of this concept with the symbolism of the baptism ritual is quite clear; in addition to Rom 6:1-11, cf. Gal 3:26-27; Col 2:12. However, this union is realized through the presence and power of the Spirit.
    • Spiritual Union—Paul also hints at a union of the believer with God, realized through our union with Christ, in the Spirit. Cf. 1 Cor 6:17, and various allusions throughout his letters; typically, the idea is couched in terms of the future glory that awaits believers (with the resurrection).

The knowledge (gnw=si$) of God that begins with receiving the Gospel, culminates in the union of believers with God Himself (theosis). To ‘see’ God in this respect entails a conscious awareness, and a volitional (willing) exercise of our heart/mind. The greatest form of knowledge is union, illustrated by the idea of knowing fire. One can know something about fire by hearing it described; then, one can know it better by actually seeing it and feeling its warmth; it can be known even further once a person is burnt by it; however, one cannot fully know fire until one is united with it, being completed consumed by fire.

It is through Christ’s presence that we are able to ‘see’ God’s image in this way; and his presence is realized through the Spirit. Our ‘seeing’ does not take place through the eyes (or any of the senses), but is spiritual. So also our union with Christ (the Son), and so ultimately with God (the Father), is realized through the Spirit. This Christological and mystical dimension of Paul’s spiritualism is well expressed here, at the climax of his expository discourse, in 3:17-18. First, he emphasizes that “the Lord is the Spirit,” meaning that God can only be experienced through the Spirit—which is also the Spirit of His Son Jesus (Gal 4:6). This is clarified through the declaration in verse 18, which concludes emphasizing that our transformation (vb metamorfo/w) into the image of God (in Christ), takes place through the same Spirit of God— “…just as from (the) Lord (the) Spirit.”

Notes on Prayer: The Last Discourse (Summary)

Conclusion

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points.

First, the nature of the requests that believers will make to the Father—that is, the requests made “in Jesus’ name”, which are promised to be answered. These requests are referenced in a comprehensive and open ended manner—i.e., “whatever you would request”. The implication is that every prayer will be answered. This may be affirmed as correct, but only in the qualified sense required by the theological context of the Last Discourse.

In this regard, it may be noted that, in the Gospel of John, there is little or no practical teaching regarding prayer, such as we see at various points in the Synoptic Gospels (the Lord’s Prayer, etc). There is virtually nothing said regarding prayer for the practical necessities of daily life—food and drink, healing from illness, release from suffering, deliverance from persecution and temptation, etc. In fact, if anything, Jesus seems to draw a clear contrast between ordinary food and drink, etc, and the true spiritual nourishment that he provides for believers (4:7-14; 6:22-59; 7:37-39). Even in the Synoptic tradition, in the Lord’s Prayer, personal requests to meet daily needs are clearly subordinated to petitions related to God and His Kingdom.

The focus of the requests in the Last Discourse is defined by the thematic emphases that run through the Discourse-complex; of these, we may draw particular attention to:

    • Understanding of who Jesus is, and his relation to the Father
    • Jesus (the Son) as the one sent by God the Father, who makes known, through word and action, the truth of the Father; believers, in turn, are sent by Jesus to do the same—i.e., make known the truth of God the Father and Jesus the Son
    • The bond of love that unites believers to Father and Son; it is the same bond that unites believers with one another (including those chosen ones who have not yet come to faith)
    • The presence of the Spirit, uniting believers with Father and Son (and each other); through the ministry of believers, the Spirit is communicated to others, even as Jesus communicated it to the first disciples (20:22)

Second, the significance of prayer in Jesus’ name. As previously noted, this cannot be limited to a facile inclusion of the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of prayers (though early Christians did adopt this practice). Rather, the phrase is a fundamental mark of identity—that is, those who are true believers in Christ. From the standpoint of Johannine theology, this especially refers to the union of believers with Christ, and of his personal presence abiding in and among them. This emphasis is scarcely unique to the Johannine tradition; it was part of the wider early Christian tradition, including the baptism ritual. Even in the Synoptic Gospels, we find a saying such as in Matt 18:20, where the phrase (“in my name”) clearly indicates the personal (spiritual) presence of Jesus (cf. also Mk 9:37 par).

The Johannine writings go much further in developing the early tradition, especially here in the Last Discourse, where Jesus’ teaching to his disciples is expressed, overwhelmingly, in terms of the Johannine idiom (cp. the language and manner of expression in First John). In the Last Discourse, the abiding presence of Jesus (= “in Jesus’ name”) is defined primarily in terms of: (a) love, and (b) the Spirit. These are addressed in the final two points.

Third, prayer involves fulfillment of the ‘love command’ and is focused on the extension of the bond of love. When one keeps the ‘command(s)’ of Jesus (and of God the Father), the meaning, in the Johannine context, is two-fold. The ‘command’ (or duty) begins with a true trust in Jesus—that is, who he is as the Son of God—and continues (and is completed) as believers love each other, according to the example and teaching of Jesus himself. Jesus’ ultimate prayer (chap. 17) to God the Father was that believers would be united through the bond of love, and this is to be the overriding focus of our prayers, as believers, as well (cf. especially the closing verses 20-26). The mission and ministry of believers, preaching the Gospel and following the example of Jesus in our actions, is a basic sign of love—even to those elect/chosen ones of God who have yet to become believers.

Finally, prayer is centered in the presence and work of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is central to the Last Discourse. There are key statements regarding the Spirit in all three of the main divisions of the Discourse-complex: in 14:16-17, 26, in 15:26, and in 16:7ff, 13-15. The Spirit is also called by the descriptive title para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), “(one who is) called alongside” to give help and assistance.

The references to the Spirit are most notable in the first and third divisions which emphasize the impending departure of Jesus (back to the Father). When Jesus departs, and is no longer physically present with his disciples, the Spirit will be sent to take his place. This is abundantly clear in terms of the framework of the first division, and it is equally clear how closely connected prayer is to the coming of the Spirit. Note the sequence:

    • V. 12: Jesus’ departure (“I am going away”)
    • Vv. 13-14: Prayer/request in Jesus’ name
    • V. 15: Believer’s fulfilling the duty/command of love
    • V. 16: The sending of the Spirit (called “another” para/klhto$, implying that Jesus was the first para/klhto$ [1 Jn 2:1])
    • Vv. 17ff: The Spirit will abide (“remain”, vb me/nw) in and with believers, continuing the presence of Jesus (the Son), and uniting believers with Father and Son

This same sequence is restated in verses 21-27ff (note the context of prayer in vv. 23-24).

In a very real sense, the Spirit is the answer to our prayer. The teaching of Jesus on prayer in Luke 11:1-13 has much the same focus, climaxing with a declaration on God sending the Spirit in answer to his disciples’ prayer (v. 13). The variant reading of the Kingdom-petition in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (verse 2b [v.l.]) explicitly interprets the coming of God’s Kingdom with the coming of the Spirit. And, indeed, the Spirit is identified with the Kingdom of God, both in the narrative of Luke-Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Acts 1:6-7; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50; Gal 5:21ff). As Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22-31 par makes clear, our prayer/requests should focus on the Kingdom of God, rather than on our daily needs, etc.

At the same time, the Spirit guides the prayer of believers. This is implied by the description in the Last Discourse of the Spirit’s work, and of the basic idea of the Spirit as “one called alongside [para/klhto$]” to help and assist us. Throughout the book of Acts, the Spirit is depicted as guiding and directing believers in all aspects of their life and ministry, and we may fairly assume that this includes their prayers as well. Paul makes this connection more specific at several points in his letters (cf. Rom 8:26-27, etc). The principle expressed in Rom 8:5 is worth nothing:

“the (one)s (who are) [i.e. who live] according to the Spirit (have their mind on) the (thing)s of the Spirit”

In other words, our thought and intention will (and should) be focused on the Spirit. The clear implication is that our prayer should be focused on the Spirit—its presence, work, and communication to others—as well.

 

Notes on Prayer: John 15:16; 16:23-26

John 15:16; 16:23-26

John 15:16

The second of the two declarations regarding prayer in 15:7-17 occurs at the close of the section, and is parallel to the declaration at the beginning of the section (v. 7):

“If you would remain in me, and my words remain in you, then request what ever you would wish (for), and it will come to be (so) for you.” (v. 7)
“…(that) you should bear fruit, and (that) your fruit should remain, (so) that what ever you would request (from) the Father in my name, He would give (it) to you.” (v. 16)

In the previous study, we saw how the “words” that remain in believers are to be understood in the context of two key themes central to the Last Discourse: (1) Love as the bond (and binding commandment) for believers, and (2) the presence of the Spirit. The first of these is emphasized especially in the exposition portion of this section (vv. 9-15), but the presence of the Spirit is very much in view as well. Much the same may be said regarding the “fruit” that remains (v. 16).

The motif of fruit (karpo/$), of course, follows upon the Vine illustration of verses 1-3ff. This imagery is also central to the use of the key verb me/nw, since the vine image effectively illustrates the theological significance of the verb. The principle involved is two-fold: (1) if the branches (believers) remain in the vine (Jesus), they will bear fruit; yet, at the same time, (2) if they do not bear fruit, then they will be ‘cut off’ and will no longer remain in the vine. This seems to create a paradox: on the one hand, bearing fruit depends on remaining in the vine, but, on the other hand, remaining in the vine depends on bearing fruit.

What does the fruit signify, and what does it mean for Jesus’ disciples to “bear fruit” (v. 8)? Here, we must keep in mind the two central themes of the Discourse: Love and the Spirit. Based on the immediate context of the exposition in vv. 9-12ff, we may fairly interpret “bearing fruit” as manifesting the divine Love. We do this by fulfilling the “love command” —that is, demonstrating true and abiding love towards fellow believers, in accordance with the teaching and example of Jesus (13:1, 12-15, 34-35, etc). It is especially the sacrificial aspect of this love that is emphasized in the Last Discourse, set as the Discourse is in the narrative context of Jesus’ impending death (cf. verse 13, and the saying in 12:24). One should be willing to offer one’s own life for another believer.

When we turn to the theme of the Spirit, one is immediately reminded of Paul’s famous reference to the “fruit of the Spirit” (o( karpo\$ tou= pneu/mato$) in Galatians 5:22ff. There is a strong ethical/moral aspect to this teaching, and, elsewhere in the Pauline letters, the idiom of “fruit” certainly relates to the idea of righteous or upright behavior and “good works” (cf. Rom 6:21-22; 7:4-5; Phil 1:11; Col 1:10; also Eph 5:9). For believers in Christ, this “fruit” is in direct contrast to the sinful passions at work in the “flesh” (Gal 5:16-21).

However valid this Pauline association between “fruit” and the Spirit may be, the Johannine emphasis is rather different. The focus is not ethical, but Christological. The Spirit represents the abiding presence of Jesus (the Son) in and among believers; and it is through him that we are also united with God the Father and experience His presence. Thus, from this standpoint, “bearing fruit” must be understood in terms of communicating the Spirit to others—that is, to other believers (i.e., those who will become believers).

For the first disciples, the Spirit was communicated through the personal presence of Jesus after his resurrection (20:22); however, with Jesus’ departure to the Father, this now occurs through the work of the Spirit in the ministry of his disciples (believers). This involves proclaiming and exemplifying the Gospel message regarding the person and work of Jesus, summarized, within the Johannine idiom, as fulfilling the two-fold duty of trust and love (1 Jn 3:23-24). Love is the uniting bond, and the Spirit is the uniting presence—and both of these, manifest in the life and action of believers, are communicated to others. This basic understanding informs the entire Last Discourse, but is especially prominent in the later portions (cf. below), and in the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17 (esp. the closing verses 20-26).

The missionary aspect is emphasized by the wording here in verse 16, serving to introduce the principal declaration:

“…I gathered you out and set you (so) that you should go away and bear fruit…”

The verb rendered conventionally as “go away”, u(pa/gw, literally means “lead (oneself) under”, i.e. make oneself hidden, going out of sight. The primary significance in the more generalized usage is of leaving the immediate vicinity and going away. The implication is that there is a mission field, away from where we currently are, however near or far that may be, and that other chosen ones (those belonging to God) are to be found there, waiting to become believers (cf. 4:35-38).

John 16:23-26

The other references to prayer in the Last Discourse are found in the final division (16:4b-28). It may be worth summarizing again the basic structure of the entire Discourse-complex:

    • 13:31-38—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 division is parallel to the first, and deals primarily with the theme of Jesus’ departure to the Father. This departure, and the related idea of the disciples seeing Jesus again, can be understood at the level of the historical tradition in two ways: (1) Jesus’ death and post-resurrection appearance, or (2) his ‘ascension’ to the Father and future return. However, from the standpoint of the Johannine theology, the paradigm is properly understood in terms of the giving of the Spirit. It is only after receiving the Spirit that the disciples truly see (that is, know and experience) Jesus—the presence and life-giving power of his person. Following his death and resurrection, Jesus ‘ascends’ (i.e., departs) back to his Father (20:17), and then returns to his disciples (vv. 19-23)—an appearance that culminates with Jesus giving them the Spirit.

Indeed, it is the promise of the Spirit (the one “called alongside,” para/klhto$) that is the focus of the first part of this Discourse-division (vv. 4b-15), and the references to Jesus’ departure and return (vv. 16-24) must be understood in this light. The context of the Spirit (cf. above) also informs the statements regarding prayer in vv. 23-26. As in the case of 15:7-17, the section is bracketed by two parallel statements:

“And, in that day, you will not ask anything (from) me. Amen, amen, I say to you, (that) whatever you would request (from) the Father in my name, He will give (it) to you.” (v. 23)
“In that day you will request in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask (it of) the Father about you” (v. 26)

Both of these statements refer to “that day” (“in that day,” e)n e)kei/nh| th=| h(me/ra|), an expression that relates to “the hour” (w%ra) that is to come (v. 25). This term w%ra (“hour”), in the theological context of the Johannine narrative, signifies the entire compass of Jesus’ Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Return to the Father. From this standpoint, “that day” is the moment when Jesus appears again to his disciples and gives the Spirit to them. This “day” motif was introduced in the first portion of the Gospel narrative (1:19-51), which is divided into four successive ‘days’ (note the repeated use of the expression “upon the morrow” [th=| e)pau/rion], i.e., ‘on the next day,’ in vv. 29, 35, 43). Each ‘day’ involves a chain of witness, attesting to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah and Son of God. On the first ‘day’ (1:19-28), John the Baptist denies this identity for himself; on the second ‘day’ (1:29-34) he affirms it of Jesus (in the context of Jesus’ baptism); on the third ‘day’ (1:35-42) the Baptist’s witness leads to the first disciples following Jesus; and, finally, on the fourth ‘day’ (1:43-51) these disciples (the first believers) give this witness to others.

The nature of this witness changes with the coming of the Spirit. Now, believers can truly see Jesus (the Son of God), through his abiding presence in the Spirit. It also changes how believers relate to God the Father. Jesus explains this here in vv. 23-26, as he tells his disciples of the ramifications of what will happen on “that day”. The difference is two-fold, reflected in the statements of vv. 23 and 26:

    • V. 23: They will no longer need to ask questions of Jesus (vb e)rwta/w), regarding who he is, his relationship to the Father, etc. The reason for this is that Jesus will be present with them (and united with them) through the Spirit, and they will suddenly have a new (and far deeper) awareness of things.
    • V. 26: Jesus will no longer have to ask of the Father on their behalf, i.e., interceding for them in their (prayer) requests (vb ai)te/w), etc. Again, the reason for this is the presence of the Spirit. Being united with the Son (Jesus) means that believers are also united with the Father, and so are able to communicate with Him directly.

The last point is made clear by the explanation in verse 27: “for the Father Him(self) considers you dear [vb. file/w] (to Him)”. The use of the verb file/w (par. with a)gapa/w) is another way of referring to the bond of love (a)ga/ph) that unites believers with Father and Son. In this dynamic, the requests made by believers to the Father will be answered. This is stated as a promise, as in all of these prayer-statements that occur in the Last Discourse. The contrast between this and the current situation (before “that day” occurs) is explained in verse 25:

“until now you (have) not requested anything in my name—request (it)! and you will receive (it), (so) that your joy may be fulfilled”

They have not yet made their requests “in Jesus’ name” since they have not yet been united with him through the Spirit. Clearly, this is far more significant than simply including the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of one’s prayers (though early Christians certainly did adopt this practice); the emphasis in the Gospel of John is fundamentally theological and Christological: to be “in his name” means to be united with him through the Spirit, and through the bond of love. The early Christian baptism ritual alludes to this very dynamic, at the traditional level. Authors such as Paul gave to the ritual symbolism a deeper theological meaning, in reference to our union with Christ through the Spirit (Rom 6:3-4 [cp. 8:11ff]; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; 4:6); and the Johannine Tradition certainly did the same.

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points. However, since this requires more than a cursory treatment, and space is needed to draw together all of the strands, this analysis will be saved for next week’s study.

 

December 31: John 1:16 (continued)

John 1:16, continued

kai\ xa/rin a)nti\ xa/rito$
“and favor in place of favor”

This is the last of the three phrases in verse 16:

“and out of his fullness
we all (have) received,
and favor in place of favor“

It modifies and supplements the first two lines, and is thus epexegetical. The explanatory force of the line rather depends on how the initial conjunction kai/ is to be understood. There are two possibilities:

    • In addition to receiving from the fullness of the Son, believers receive the “favor a)nti/ favor” expressed in the third line
    • The expression “favor a)nti/ favor” further defines what it is that we we receive from the fullness of the Son

The second option is to be preferred; in this light, the conjunction kai/ could also be translated as “even”:

“and out of his fullness
we all (have) received,
even favor in place of favor”

There are two other components to the line: (1) the noun xa/ri$, and (2) the preposition a)nti/. We will examine each of these, and then see how they function in their combination.

xa/ri$

The noun xa/ri$ essentially means “favor” —that is, the favor that one person shows to another. Frequently in the New Testament, it refers to the favor that God shows to His people—particularly, to believers, in saving them from sin and Judgment. It is a common early Christian term, but, rather surprisingly, hardly occurs at all in the Johannine writings. Apart from the occurrences here in the Prologue (4 times in vv. 14, 16, 17), the only other instance is in 2 John 3, where it is used as part of a greeting. Thus, unlike many of the featured words in the Prologue, xa/ri$ is not a distinctly Johannine term.

It is thus necessary to consider carefully how the word is used here in the Prologue. The word describes the do/ca (“honor, splendor, glory”) of the pre-existent Logos (and Son) of God, and refers to the filling of the Son by the Father. Both this aspect of “filling” (adj. plh/rh$, noun plh/rwma), and the pairing of xa/ri$ with “truth” (a)lh/qeia), suggests strongly that it is the Spirit of God that is primarily in view. A careful examination of the Johannine theology and the context in the Prologue would seem to confirm this point (cf. also the discussion in the previous notes, on vv. 14, 16). God the Father shows favor to the Son by giving to him His own Spirit. An identification with the Spirit also fits the idea in the first two lines of v. 16—namely, that we, as believers, share this same fullness. We are united, through the Spirit, with both the Father and Son (cf. below).

The other occurrence of xa/ri$ is in the following verse 17, which will be discussed in turn; however, it is worth at least giving some consideration to it here, in terms of the meaning of the term xa/ri$. The point being made is a contrast between the Torah of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant realized (for believers) through the person of Jesus Christ. It thus represents a special kind of favor, whereby the Covenant relationship, between God and His people, is no longer established through sacrificial offerings, nor governed through the regulations of the Torah. Instead, it was established through the sacrificial death of Jesus, and is now governed through the presence and power of the Spirit.

Paul expresses this point in more traditional religious and theological terminology, in his letters, compared with the Johannine writings. However, the idea is certainly present in the Johannine Gospel (the Discourses). At a number of points, Jesus identifies himself with a particular aspect of the religious ritual and tradition. From an Israelite and Jewish standpoint, such tradition had largely been defined within the parameters of the Old Testament Torah. For more on this subject, cf. my earlier articles in the series “Jesus and the Law”.

a)nti/

The fundamental meaning of this preposition is “against”. While this meaning may be understood in the negative sense of opposition, there are many other instances where we have the more general idea of two people (or objects) facing each other. A face-to-face position may indicate antagonism or opposition, but can just as well signify a friendly encounter or exchange. The idea of an exchange is frequent with a)nti/, either in the sense of replacement, or as indicating a mutual relationship.

Let us now consider the meaning of the expression “favor a)nti/ favor”. Two questions must be asked. First, what are the two favors? and, second, how are they related (through the preposition a)nti/)? These questions are interconnected, and cannot be addressed separately. In the analysis that follows here, they will be discussed together.

To begin with, the identity of the two “favors” depends on the force of the preposition a)nti/ (“against”); and there are three options (cf. Brown, p. 16): (a) replacement, (b) exchange, or (c) accumulation. Unfortunately, the preposition only rarely occurs elsewhere in the Johannine writings, and never in its independent, unprefixed form, so there is little opportunity for comparison.

Some commentators (e.g., Brown, pp. 16, 33-35) take their cue from the verse that follows (17), understanding in this line a similar contrast between the Old and New Covenants. In which case, the preposition a)nti/ would have the sense of replacement—i.e., the New Covenant in Christ (and the Spirit) taking the place of the Old Covenant and the Torah. Two factors lead me to consider this interpretation to be incorrect. First, there seems little basis for applying the word xa/ri$ (“favor”) to the Old Covenant. That would tend to contradict the regular use of xa/ri$ among early Christians, as seen throughout the New Testament. But, more importantly, it is invalidated by the very contrast made in verse 17; there, the word xa/ri$ is decidedly not used in reference to the Old Covenant, but only to the New.

The idea of accumulation—i.e., a)nti/ in the sense of one thing stacked up against another—also seems to require an identification of the first xa/ri$ with the Old Covenant (i.e., in addition to the first covenant, we now have the greater New Covenant). If so, I would have to consider that line of interpretation to be incorrect as well. However, it may be that what is being expressed is the idea that, for believers, life in Christ, in the Spirit, is defined as the experience of one blessing after another. That would be more tenable as an explanation, though, in my view, still off the mark.

I would maintain that only the sense of an exchange properly captures the meaning of a)nti/ in context. The only question is whether it is a mutual exchange, or signifies a chain of transmission. Both are possible, but the latter option seems better to fit the Johannine context. There is a strong hierarchical emphasis in the Gospel: the Father gives to the Son, who, in turn, gives to believers (3:34-35; 5:20-21ff, 26ff; 6:27ff, 57; 12:49-50; 14:6-10ff, 21ff; 15:9, 15, 26; 16:15; 17:2, 7ff, 12, 14, 18, 22-23ff; 20:21).

According to this pattern, the favor the Father gives to the Son, the Son, in turn, gives to believers. It is the same favor, essentially identified with the Spirit of God (cf. above), and the exchange proceeds from Father to Son to believers. However, there is also an aspect of mutuality that is tied with the idea of union through the presence of the Spirit. Through the Spirit, we, as believers, are united with both the Father and the Son. I like to illustrate this with the following simple diagram:

Nowhere in the Gospel of John are the two aspects of hierarchy and mutuality more beautifully combined than in the great Prayer-Discourse of chapter 17, especially the closing section (vv. 20-26):

“That they all should be one, even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you—that they also should be in us… And the honor/splendor [do/ca] that you have given to me, I have given to them, so that they should be one, even as we (are) one—I in them and you in me, (so) that they should be (one)s having been made complete(ly) into one…” (vv. 21-23a)

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (I-XII), Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 29 (1966).

December 30: John 1:16 (continued)

John 1:16, continued

h(mei=$ pa/nte$ e)la/bomen
“we all (have) received”

This is the second of the three phrases in verse 16 (on the first phrase, cf. the previous note):

“and out of his fullness
we all (have) received“

The preposition e)k in the first line indicates the source, since it literally means “out of”. What we, as believers, receive comes out of the fullness of the Son.

There are three words to the phrase here in the second line, and it is worth examining each of them in some detail.

h(mei=$ (“we”)—the pronoun is specified and emphatic, occurring in the first position: i.e., “we have received”. This is significant, as it makes a crucial theological point of emphasis: that we, created human beings, are able to share in all that God possesses (and which He has given to the Son). This is the fullness (plh/rwma) of the Son, referring to everything that God has given to His Son. In particular, He has filled the Son with His favor and truth, but these descriptive attributes, in the Gospel of John, function as an allusion to the Spirit of God.

The first person plural “we” is a collective reference to believers in Christ. It encompasses both the first generation of believers—those who trusted in Jesus during his ministry on earth—and all who have come to believe since (cf. 17:20ff). Compare the references here in vv. 14, 16 with the opening of 1 John 1:1-4ff.

pa/nte$ (“all”)—this is the same adjective (pa=$, “all”) that was used earlier in the Prologue (vv. 3, 7, 9). The first reference was cosmological, i.e., “all things” (pa/nta) in the universe. The next two references have been narrowed to all human beings—and, in particular, all those elect/chosen ones who respond to the Light of God (i.e., His Word and Wisdom) and who come to trust in Jesus. Thus the cosmic scope of the adjective properly refers, as a comprehensive term, to all believers, everywhere in the world.

The comprehensive, universal aspect of the adjective also carries with it a great promise in the Gospel: everyone who trusts in Jesus will be united with him (and God the Father) through the Spirit, and will come to possess the eternal Life of God. Tied to this point is a strong sense of election/predestination in the Johannine Gospel—believers come to trust in Jesus because they/we already belong to God. On the key references, where the adjective pa=$ occurs, cf. 3:8, 15-16; 4:13; 6:37-40; 10:29; 11:26; 12:46; 15:2; 17:2; 18:37. There are also important references in 1 John, where the sonship of believers (i.e., as the “offspring” of God [cp. vv. 12-13 in the Prologue]) is emphasized—2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18.

la/bomen (“we received”)—this verb occurred earlier in the Prologue (vv. 12-13), under the traditional motif of the righteous receiving the Wisdom of God, i.e., giving it a welcome and a place to dwell. In the Johannine context, of course, this applies to trust in Jesus, who is the incarnate Wisdom (Logos). Now the situation is reversed, and believers receive from Jesus in turn. This aspect of an exchange is emphasized in the final line of verse 16, and will be discussed in the next note.

The verb lamba/nw occurs frequently in the Gospel of John, and often with this same specialized theological meaning. We may say that all of the references expressing a promise for believers were essentially fulfilled at the end of the Gospel, when the resurrected Jesus gives to his disciples the Spirit, with the words “receive [la/bete] (the) holy Spirit” (20:22). I have noted on several occasions in the prior notes how the “fullness” (plh/rwma) of the Son, the favor and truth of God, with which he is filled, essentially refers to the Spirit of God. And it is through the Spirit that believers are united with God and have access to his life-giving Power and Presence—the same Divine Presence that fills the Son.