Craig S. Keener
Jesus' return and presence. 14:1–31
ANY MODERN OUTLINE of the last discourse will be somewhat arbitrary; a flow chart would diagram the flow of thought much more accurately than an outline. The second-person verbs in 14are plural and hence address all the disciples; yet the topic of 13:36–38 remains. An outline heading that coincides closely with a traditional chapter, as ours does, naturally warrants some suspicion; chapter breaks were added long after the writing of the NT. A section from 13:31–14would work better in some respects but would equally arbitrarily separate 13:31–38 from its essential preceding context. Any outline will thus prove arbitrary; nevertheless, if one outlines this material, collecting 14:1–31 around a common theme can at least underline the basic unity of this section.
Going to the Father (14:1–6)
The disciples want to know where Jesus is going so they can follow (13:36–38); Jesus informs them that they can follow him only after he has gone to the Father to prepare a place for them (14:1–6). The disciples cannot follow Jesus now, but they will follow him eventually (13:36); by his death, Jesus is going to prepare them a place in the Father's presence and will return after the resurrection as their way to the Father's presence. The prerequisite for their entrance here is not martyrdom but faith (14:10–12); yet true faith must ultimately be ready to meet the test of martyrdom (13:36–38). There is no real break between these verses and those that follow: that Jesus is the way to the Father (14:6) also means that he is the Father's revelation (14:7–10).
1. Trusting the Father and Jesus (14:1)
Shifting from addressing Peter alone to addressing all the disciples (evident in the shift to plural pronouns and verbs), Jesus encourages them not to be disturbed.8357 («Heart» is singular here and in 14and 16:6, 22, perhaps intended as analogous to most passages applying to corporate Israel in the law.)8358 The cause of anxiety in the context is clearly his indication that he is going away and that they cannot follow him yet (13:36–38); the following verses indicate how the disciples мая follow Jesus' way to the Father when he returns to them after his resurrection (14:2–7). Some argue that Jesus' reassurance in 14and 27 bracket off the intervening section,8359 but it is more likely that 16rather than 14closes the bracket; 14merely reiterates and develops the point.
It is likely that both uses of the verb πιστεύω in 14should be taken in the same mood; probably either both are indicative or both are imperative; in either case, taking both the same way links Jesus with the Father as the supreme object of faith. In the context of their anxiety, the imperative is more likely: «Believe in God; believe also in me.»8360 («Believe in» could be idiomatic for «Trust,» e.g., Gen 15MT.) Such words of encouragement were common to those in distress,8361 such as the «Have courage» of 16:33;8362 Scripture was also replete with «Do not fear» oracles.8363 Glasson claims that this was a recurrent theme of Deuteronomy, and мая be right that the fuller «Do not be troubled or afraid» of 14reflects the double exhortation of Deut 31(cf. Deut 1:21, 29; 7:18; Josh 1:9).8364
These words do not allude to Jesus' deity per se, though in the light of the whole context of John's Christology these associations are certainly present as wel1. (Carson is right that first-century Jews did not exhort others to believe in them as they believed in God.)8365 The words themselves allude to the role of Moses, an object of faith (as God's agent) alongside God: when Israel «saw» how God destroyed the Egyptians, they feared the Lord and believed in both the Lord and his servant Moses (Exod 14MT).8366 (The language, by extension, then applied to the prophets in genera1.)8367 As Israel at least temporarily believed Moses' sign (Exod 14:8), Jesus would invite trust on the basis of his works if necessary (John 14:11).8368 In context they do not constitute so much a summons to proceed beyond signs-faith to enduring faith (as in 20:31)8369 as an encouragement to continue persevering in the face of opposition. The difference between these alternatives is less one of substance than one of delivery style: both are deliberative, but the exhortation to deeper faith мая constitute firmer rhetoric potentially evoking the epideictic rhetoric of blame, whereas this passage is closer to pure encouragement or consolation.8370
2. Dwelling in the Father's House (14:2–3)
Modern interpreters frequently understand 14:2–3 as future eschatology, as one might expect in a Synoptic eschatological discourse. But the words by themselves here are ambiguous, and the following context plainly applies them to realized eschatology (although future eschatology does appear elsewhere in this Gospel). The apparently eschatological wording мая be coincidence, or (perhaps more likely) John мая consciously reapply the language of future eschatology to emphasize the eschatological presence of Jesus. In the latter case, future eschatology might provide a model for John's realized eschatology, which in turn provided a foretaste for his community's future expectations (which I believe are suggested most fully in Revelation). In either case, however, the emphasis on present dwelling is clear (cf. 14:23).
2A. The Father's House (14:2)
On the historical level, the large house prepared for the disciples (probably known in the oral tradition; cf. Mark 14:15) мая have furnished Jesus an illustration for his disciples.8371 But the Gospel and early Judaism in general supplied rich associations for the imagery that would probably spring more quickly to the minds of John's first audience. A Torah scroll that was burnt was said to have returned to heaven, to «its Father's house.»8372
Holwerda thinks that the Father's house in John 14refers to heaven,8373 but most scholars see it as an allusion to the temple.8374 The Father's house elsewhere in John is the temple of Jesus' body (2:16–19, using a cognate term) or the household in which the son but not the slave has a permanent part (8:35, employing the same term).8375 The temple is spoken of as a «house» in postbiblical as well as biblical Judaism; the Tannaim could call it «the Eternal House,»8376 and a Roman Jewish inscription calls it the οίκος εΐρη(νη)ς, the house of peace.8377 (This house had more «rooms"–a possible sense of μοναί–than any other known to most Jewish people, even aside from the fact that the text speaks of the Father's house.)8378 This мая be Johannine double entendre: a place in the Father's house could mean dwelling in Christ God's temple or entering God's family through Christ the Son. Some ancient commentators also noticed some of these Johannine motifs, although possibly because of their philosophic training: Augustine suggested that in 14Jesus is talking about preparing the dwellers, for Christians are God's house, his temple.8379 This is not to deny that John plays on the language of future eschatology, however.
2B. Dwelling and Deity
The language of «dwelling» in relation to the worship of the divine мая be significant. Philo can speak of dwelling (οίκείν) in God's Word as in a fatherland (πατρίδα).8380 Plutarch stresses that the divine νόμος should always dwell with (συνοικών) the good ruler, indeed, within (εντός) him.8381 A Neoplatonist speaks of a wise person's mind as a temple and shrine for God.8382 Epictetus wants to dwell (οίκείν) where no one can hinder him any longer, that is, in death,8383 and speaks of the presence of the deity in all people:
Wherefore, when you close your doors and make darkness within, remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not alone; nay, God is within [ό θεός ένδον εστί], and your own genius is within [ό υμέτερος δαίμων εστί].8384
... you are a fragment of God; you have within you a part of Him [μέρη θεών ... έν σεαυτω μέρος εκείνου]. Why, then, are you ignorant of your own kinship?8385
Thus «God Himself is present within you [παρόντος έσωθεν].»8386 The Roman Stoic Seneca likewise insists that God comes near people, indeed, comes into them (in homines venit), divine seeds being sown (semina ... dispersa) in people.8387
More to the point are Diaspora Jewish references to the Spirit dwelling in or upon those inspired by the prophetic Spirit.8388 In L.A.B. 28:6:
And when they had sat down, a holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled [lit., «dwelling"] in him and put him in ecstasy, and he began to prophesy, saying... [Et dum sederent, insiliit Spiritus sanctus habitans in Cenez, et extulit sensum eius, et cepit prophetare dicens ... ]8389
In T. Sim. 4:4, Joseph had the Spirit in him (έχων πνεΰμα θεοΰ έν αύτω) and consequently did good. In the eschatological time, according to T. Zeb. 8:2, God would dwell in (or with) any compassionate person he found (έν αύτω κατοικεί). Testament of Dan 5admonishes,
Avoid wrath, and hate lying, in order that the Lord мая dwell among you [κατοικήσει έν ύμίν], and Beliar мая flee [φεύξεται] from you.8390
Testament of Joseph 10promises:
if you pursue self-control and purity ... the Lord will dwell [κατοικήσει] among you [έν ύμίν], because he loves self-contro1.8391
If the question of date renders the testimony of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum or the Testaments problematic, the same is not true with similar language in Paul, although John's language takes its own direction.8392 The testimony of Septuagintal texts regarding the indwelling of divine Wisdom is of still more direct import:
And abiding (μένουσα) in her[self] makes all things new;
and in all generations into holy souls entering she makes (them) friends of God and prophets.8393
2C. A Dwelling Place (14:2)
Most scholars recognize that the μονή of 14plays on the μονή of 14:2;8394 the movement between these verses is not polemical correction8395 but is developing 14:2–3 in Johannine terms.8396 One could argue for various allusions in John's use of μονή here. For instance, if this «dwelling» is related to Sukkoth, it emphasizes that the sukkah, or dwelling place, is the disciplés regular abode during the time of the feast8397 symbolizing the wilderness, the time between redemptive events. Such an allusion is possible, though it should be recalled that this passage appears in the context of Passover (11:55; 13:1), not Tabernacles (7:2).
Others have suggested that an eschatological «dwelling» is in view here. The idea of a future «dwelling» is not foreign to Judaism. Answering Peter's apparent willingness to follow him to the death (13:37), Jesus мая be using the Jewish tradition of an abode after death. Tobit, for instance, notes that he is ready to die, and prays that he мая go είς τον αίώνιον τόπον (Tob 3:6). Similar sentiments мая be expressed in Diaspora Jewish funerary inscriptions, in which the deceased have entered an eternal house (οίκος αιώνιος; בית עולם; domi [a]eternae).i 8398 This мая ultimately reflect a reading of «eternal home» in Ecclesiastes (12:5, εις οίκον αιώνος αύτοΰ) that harmonized it with the rest of the canon; but both мая simply reflect the popular Greek view that tombs were «eternal houses.»8399 In 4 Ezra 7:80, 85,101, the righteous enter «habitations» shortly after their decease.8400
One мая compare some Greek texts about the abode of the soul after death, such as one of the Cynic Epistles attributed to Heraclitus:
Yet my soul will not sink, but, since it is a thing immortal, it will fly on high into heaven [εις ούρανόν]. The ethereal dwellings [αιθέριοι, δόμοι] will receive me.8401
Some texts мая refer to an eternal dwelling in the world to come, rather than one entered immediately at death. Second Enoch 65parallels eternal dwelling places (A has the singular) and paradise,8402 and in 2 En. 36:3A (not J), an eternal «place» is «prepared» for Enoch before God's face; in both recensions of 9:1, paradise «has been prepared» for the righteous (as Gehenna is for the wicked, 10:4; cf. Matt. 25:34, 41).
These references мая all be too late to accurately reflect any Jewish eschatology in the Johannine period, but they мая also act as commentary on J En. 91:13, in which the righteous in the final time receive «houses» as rewards,8403 and some passages in the Similitudes (39:5,41:2,45:1). In T. Ab. 20A, the σκηναί of the righteous ones and the μοναί of the holy ones, Isaac and Jacob, are in paradise.8404 Some also suggest an early eschatological reading of Ps 42:3, although the LXX (42:3) has σκηνώματα.8405
A rabbinic tradition, apparently established by the early Amoraic period, promises a sukkah in the world to come to those who keep the commandment of dwelling in sukkoth in this world;8406 if such a tradition were substantiated as early, it could suggest that John develops a motif related to Jesus' fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles (chs. 7–9). In a tradition attributed to the Tanna R. Meir, the abode of the righteous «on high» is contrasted with that of the wicked in Gehenna;8407 some Amoraim spoke of ranks of canopies in the world to come, according to onés merit.8408
But the term used here, μονή, is rare in Greek and occurs only twice in John–here and in v. 23, where the present reference is explained;8409 it is related to its verbal cognate μένω, which assumes prominence in the first paragraph of ch. 15 and is a theologically loaded term throughout the Gospe1.8410 Both v. 23 and the use of the verb in ch. 15 indicate that the present experience of believers in God's presence is the point of «dwelling place» in John 14:2.8411 The idea is that the Shekinah will always be among them (cf. Matt 1:23; 18:20; 28:20) and the community ought always to recognize this.8412
2D. A Place Prepared (14:2)
If, as we have argued above, «the Father's house» alludes to the temple, some might draw a connection between that house and the «place prepared.» The temple was sometimes spoken of as a place that had been prepared, as the building «which will be revealed, with me, that was already prepared from the moment I decided to create Paradise.»8413 Whether or not we accept McNamarás contention that «preparing a resting place» for God was a regular expression for God's sanctuary in this period,8414 the idea of preparing a place for the disciples in God's house might connote the places the priests would have in the eschatological temple (Ezek 45:4–5; cf. 40:45–46; 42:13; 44:16); and in the Fourth Gospel, the eschatological temple is clearly in Jesus himself.8415 Since the temple would naturally be viewed as a dwelling of the deity8416 and the hope of Israel was God's covenant-dwelling among them (Rev 21:3, 22),8417 the point of the text would not have been difficult to grasp. In Scripture, God had promised to dwell among his covenant people (Lev 26:12; Ezek 37:26–28); in the new covenant, God would put his laws in their hearts (Jer 31:33).
Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether John intends a deliberate allusion to the temple with «prepared.» Other texts speak of eschatological places God prepared for his people (Matt 20:23; 25:34; Heb 11:16), and most significantly, Revelation employs John's language for the present period of suffering and divine protection between the first and second coming, without reference to the temple (Rev 12:6).8418 The language of «preparing» was also appropriate for «preparing a house"–for instance, getting things there in order or meeting someone important (Tob 11:3); it so functions in the passion tradition familiar from Mark (Mark 14:15).
One мая read 14:2, with many versions, as a question: «If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?» Reading the line as a question allows one to take the ότι into account.8419 Others read the line as a statement rather than a question because Jesus had nowhere promised to prepare a place for them earlier in this Gospel and John is too thorough in foreshadowing to have likely omitted the explicit source for a reference here.8420 If Jesus' «going» to prepare a place for them (14:2–3) meant going to the Father by death (13:33,36; 14:12,28; 16:5,7,10,17, 28), then presumably the preparation was completed on the cross, probably when Jesus declared, «It is finished» (19:30).
2E. Future or Realized Eschatology? (14:2–3)
Many have taken Jesus' words here as a promise of his future coming. Irenaeus read John 14as a promise of future mansions: those who had performed the greatest works would have the largest mansions; those who produced fruit one hundredfold would live in the heavens; those who produced sixtyfold, in paradise; and those who produced thirtyfold, in the city.8421 Thus some scholars read this text as a promise of Jesus' future coming.8422 Holwerda argues this because Jesus will take the disciples to be with him where he is;8423 his argument falters, however, if «where Jesus is» means simply «in the Father's presence» (cf. 12:26; 16:28; 17:24; Rev 14:4), the only meaning one would need to derive from the context. He argues that «if His coming is fulfilled in the resurrection appearances, the disciples would again be orphans after the ascension,»8424 but this assumes that the impartation of the Spirit does not continue Jesus' presence in the same measure as it was experienced in the resurrection appearances, a position John appears to refute (14:16, 23; 20:19–23). Ridderbos suggests that scholars find realized eschatology here only because they deny future eschatology in John's Gospe1.8425 This objection cannot apply to all scholars. I do recognize some future eschatology in John's Gospel (5:28; 6:39–40,44, 54; 12:48), but there is also much realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25; 11:24–26); the question must thus be decided by the immediate context.
Others think that the language was originally eschatological but has here been adjusted toward the later Johannine perspective;'8426 others feel that this is a Johannine double entendre, retaining an eschatological sense while emphasizing the present;8427 still others believe Jesus is going to the cross and the point is entirely personal communion with Jesus in the present age.8428
Given the context, one of the two latter views must be correct. Dodd8429 and Bult-mann8430 are probably right that John here treats Jesus' death and resurrection as eschatological events, in which case the eschatological language that мая be present should be construed in this instance (not everywhere in John) as focusing on Jesus' coming after the resurrection8431 to impart the Spirit who will continue his presence.8432 Jesus' return to the Father is how the place is prepared;8433 the «place prepared» мая be connected to Rev 12:8,8434 developing the Johannine new-exodus motif in which the present age is portrayed as the wilderness (John 1:23; 3:14; 6:31; 11:54).
Some writers find a future «coming» in 14:3,8435 as in 21:22, but unless 14:2–3 includes a double entendre, their conclusion ignores the context, which develops the language of these more ambiguous lines, lines that of themselves need not have pointed to Parousia expectation unless assumed to belong to the context of early Christian future eschatology. Jesus makes it plain exactly where he is going in w. 4–6–to the Father–and in the same verses says that they will end up in the same place by coming through Jesus. After his glorification is complete, he will come to them, manifest8436 himself to them, and impart the Spirit to them so that they мая continue in his presence (w. 7–26). This is the only coming (v. 18, 23, 28) and dwelling place (v. 23) of which the chapter as a whole speaks, and whatever sources John мая or мая not have incorporated into his text, this is the only way to make sense of the text as it now stands.
The emphasis in v. 17, then, that the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of Jesus, will abide with them, indicates that they will together constitute a new temple, the place where God and Jesus dwell and manifest their presence. This fits Qumran and early Christian imagery of the community as God's temple (cf. Ezek 36:27; 37:14, 27–28).
Jesus' words in 14:2–3, isolated from their context, are ambiguous enough to lend themselves to either an eschatological or an immediate postresurrection interpretation. Thus it is hardly surprising that the Johannine context proceeds to qualify the meaning of the promise for John's audience. (John structures the material for his purposes but very probably depends on earlier tradition.)8437 Like the first-time reader of the Gospel, Jesus' disciples do not grasp his import; Thomas insists that they do not know where Jesus is going, and still less (arguing qal vaomer) do they know the way (14:5).
Jesus responds that he himself is the way for them to follow where he is going, that is, to the Father (14:6), and they come to the Father by embracing Jesus as the full embodiment of the Father's revelation (14:7–11), which results in doing Jesus' «works» (14:12) and an intimate relationship with God (14:13). Jesus' «coming» in this context can represent only his postresurrection coming to impart to them the Spirit (14:16–18), and the «dwelling places» in the Father's presence can refer only to God dwelling in believers (14:23). Although both John (e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39–40,44, 54; 11:24; 12:48) and his audience (cf., e.g., 1 John 2:28–3:3; Rev 1:7) accept future eschatology,8438 the emphasis of this passage is clearly realized rather than future eschatology.
The context develops more naturally as a flow chart than as an outline of points and subpoints, but some motifs recur throughout the context, especially as responses from disciples invite further development or explanation.8439 Sometimes a teacher would prepare disciples for the teacher's impending absence, such as in Socrates' encouragement of his disciples «in the wise pursuit of independent skills.»8440 By contrast, Jesus here prepares his disciples for his absence by promising his continued presence (14:16–27; cf. Matt 28:20) and empowers them by inviting their dependence on him (15:4).
3. Jesus as the Way (14:4–6)
When Jesus tells the disciples that they «know» the way he is going, he alludes to his previous announcements of his impending death (12:23–25,32–33), announcements that, however, they have not understood and hence do not now understand (14:5).8441 He is going by way of the cross,8442 and those who would follow him must go the same way (12:25–26); the road to experiencing such hostility from this world begins with embracing Jesus' identity (14:8–11) and thus sharing in his rejection by the world (15:18–16:4).
For the disciples, the «way» (14:6) means the way leading to the Father's presence.8443 Jesus goes to the Father by virtue of his identity and character; the disciples will come to the Father by means of Jesus and their participation in him.8444 The disciples «know the way» (14:4) precisely because they know Jesus, who is the way (14:6), whether or not they understand the implications of that fact; in the same way, the expected Spirit was already with them and known by them (14:17) because he was present in Jesus (1:33).
A cupbearer or some other high official could control access to a king's presence, but out of affection the king might waive this obstacle for his young son or grandson (cf. 8:35).8445 In turn, this child might receive whatever gifts he requested for his friends (cf. 14:13–14).8446 The idea here includes access (though it involves more, namely, remaining in his presence, 14:23), but also the access becomes direct in Jesus, no longer mediated through him at one remove (14:17; 16:26–27).
3A. Background of «the Way»
One suggestion is that the passage uses visionary literaturés title «the way» as the route for heavenly ascents.8447 This suggestion is plausible but can be presumed as what John's ideal audience would have understood only if one reconstructs vision mysticism as central to their setting. This reconstruction, too, is plausible, but a preponderance of the evidence probably points in a different direction (below).
Another possible background for the «way» in 14is Isaiah's «highway to Zion.»8448 This explanation is reasonable, for the only prior reference to the «way» in the Fourth Gospel is the Isaiah citation in 1:23, in which John prepares Jesus' mission. In its Isaian context, the text proclaims a new exodus, by which God would return his people to the land; the «way» is the highway on which God's people will return to the Holy Land (Isa 35:8; 40:3; 42:16; 43:16, 19; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10; cf. 19:23). The image evokes the exodus of old (Isa 51:10).8449
Yet an allusion to this single text would probably impress itself on John's intended audience less forcefully than a more common metaphoric use of «way.»8450 The LXX of Isaiah (30:11, 21; 33:15; 40:14; 42:24; 48:17; 58:2; 63:17; 64:5) and other biblical tradition (e.g., Exod 18:20; 32:8; Deut 8:6; 9:16; 10:12; 11:22, 28), especially the wisdom tradition,8451 also apply the image of the «way» to the way of righteousness and wisdom. In both biblical (e.g., Isa 55:7–9; 56:11; 59:8; 66:3) and early Jewish sources,8452 «ways» refer to behavior, as in the rabbinic use of halakot.8453 «Ways» as behavior represents a usage that would be understood in John's circle of believers (Rev 15:3).
Thus Philo can declare that Moses will guide the seeker on the way (ηγεμόνα της όδοΰ) and they will see the place that is the Word;8454 the way of discipline is the way of wisdom and is safe.8455 Tannaim spoke of Torah as the «way» (m. ;Abot 6:4), hence the path for walking, for halakah; later rabbis spoke of the Torah as the «path of life.»8456 More significantly (and perhaps allowing that John might allude to the new exodus anyway), the Dead Sea Scrolls present the «way» of Isaiah 40 as study of the law (1QS 8.15–16).8457 «The way» could also occasionally apply to hermeneutical method in Greek thought.8458 After Socrates notes the road (όδός) he has followed, others press him to discover what road he means, and like Jesus in this passage, he only gradually reveals to them what he means; Socrates means his method of investigating the truth.8459 Epictetus praises Chrysippus because his philosophical reasoning «shows the way» (δεικνύοντος τήν όδόν) to correct thinking,8460 that is, to «truth.»8461 Those who do not think properly have wandered astray and «do not know the road» (την όδόν άγνοοΰντα).8462
3Β. The Claim's Exclusivism
Because John envisions Jesus as the embodiment of divine Wisdom (1:1–18) and because the moral use of «way» was the predominant figurative use of the term, it is highly probable that this image constitutes the primary background for «way» in 14:6. In this case the «way» is no longer purely ethical but christologica1. This image also sharpens the claim of christocentric exclusivism, for the Jewish wisdom tradition portrayed morality in binary terms: one walked in ways of righteousness or in wickedness (e.g., Prov 4:18–19; 10:9, 17; 12:15). Jesus is the sole adequate revealer of God, for he alone knows God fully (3:13; 6:46). The image of a new exodus, if in view, would also point in the same direction.8463 Other evidence from the Jesus tradition suggests that Jesus did in fact adopt the binary image of the «two ways» from the broader religious milieu (Q material in Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:23–27)8464 and believed that his teaching constituted a dividing line equivalent to wisdom in wisdom tradition and Torah in early rabbinic tradition (Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:46–49; cf. Matt 7:22–23).8465 Just as Judaism as a whole drew boundaries around the claim of one God, Johannine Christians (and apparently most other early Christians as well, e.g., Acts 4:12) drew boundaries around the claim that Jesus was the only fully adequate way to the one God.
Some prefer to reinterpret the exclusivism of texts such as 14in light of a particular reading of cosmic-Christ texts such as 1:9.8466 Some others argue that the claim of 14is legitimate but that this claim in 14is redactional, hence not authoritative.8467 But whatever contemporary theology мая do with the text, this was hardly what would appear to have been the point of the text for its ideal audience.8468 In whatever other sense John мая or мая not have been sectarian, he was certainly sectarian at least in believing that of his fellow Jews only those who followed Jesus became receptacles for the Spirit's regenerative activity (cf. 3:1–8), and if so, the rest of «the world» could have fared no better. Jesus was the «way» in the sense in which he was the «door"–only robbers tried to enter the sheepfold by other means (10:1, 7, 9)–a claim this Gospel directed specifically against members of the Judean religious elite.8469
One cannot argue, as some have,8470 that the claim of 14addresses merely Gentiles; both John's audience and Jesus' audience in the story world are Jewish, and the Fourth Gospel employs the claim particularly in its polemic against the «Jews,» that is, the Jewish political and religious elite.8471 Early Christians were ethnically universalist but proved «much less willing to recognize the possibility of salvation for nonbelievers, be they Jews or Gentiles,» than some other early Jewish groups.8472
They were more like the highly sectarian Essenes, who regarded their «way» as normative, including for Israe1. God would judge the nations in battle by «the perfect of way» (1QM 14.7); the Jews saved in the end time would be those who joined their ranks, for other Jews would prove apostate and suffer judgment with the nations.8473 Yet whereas the Qumran community viewed itself and its lifestyle as the «way» (e.g., 1QS 9.17; 10.21; 4Q403 1 1.22),8474 a general idea adopted by early Christians (Acts 9:2; 18:25–26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14,22; cf. Matt 21:32), this passage identifies Jesus himself as the way. Jesus as the «way» is the only «door» (10:7, 9) through which his sheep мая find safety within the fold (10:1).8475 Given John's polemic, however, we should note that his exclusivity is not a claim that other ways to the Father existed and Jesus closed them off. The claim is more universal than that: given the world's alienation from God, there was no way to the Father, and Jesus provided one (3:18–19; cf. 1:10; 1 John 5:19).8476
3C. Truth and Life (14:6)
«Truth» and «life» merely clarify the «way» in this passage;8477 as in Jewish wisdom tradition, God's ways were truth and life (e.g., Prov 2:19; 3:2, 16, 18; 4:10, 13, 22). Truth in-eluded moral integrity (cf. John 3:21). Later rabbis use «Truth» as a title for God because God's character was truth; they remarked that «truth"(אמת) used the first, last, and middle letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and God as the first and the last was therefore to be called the «truth.»8478 Israel's God also appears as the «truth» in some popular circles, including magical texts.8479 Rabbis sometimes also felt that Scripture designated Torah as «truth.»8480 Truth is central to John's theology because of his focus on revelation, but for John this is not the more Hellenistic conception of reality (see comment on 1:14) but truth in Christ.8481 John probably has in view primarily God's character revealed in Jesus (1:14–18; 8:31–32); only in truth could God be worshiped, through Jesus and, after his earthly ministry, through the Spirit of truth (4:23–24; 14:17).
On «life,» see especially the comment on 1:4. The term is appropriate for a «way» of behavior but also appropriate to the one who brings them life (11:25; 14:19; 1 John 1:2; cf. Deut 30:20), the very source of their ability to walk in God's way (John 15:4–5).
Revealing the Father (14:7–14)
Jesus is the way to the Father (14:4–6) because he reveals the Father's very character (14:7–9), just as did God's revelation of glory to Moses in Exod 33:19; 34:6–7. Jesus is here the revelation of the Father's glory (1:14–18). Those disinclined to believe otherwise should believe because of his works, which testify of him (14:10–11); indeed, those who do believe would perform the same works (14:12–14).
Because one thought flows freely into another, clear breaks in this section are impossible. Jesus speaks of revealing the Father in 14but is continuing a thought begun in 14:6; the «works» of 14:12–14 мая include in some sense the «commandments» of 14:15, but the occurrence of commandments here parallels 14:21,23–24 and in all these instances obeying the commandments мая function as a prerequisite for receiving or maintaining the activity of the Spirit.
1. Seeing the Father in Jesus (14:7–9)
So thoroughly is Jesus the way to the Father that he is the Father's exact representation (14:9; cf. 12:45; Heb 1:3); rejecting the Father's image meant rejecting the Father as well (15:24). Although one might cite a few late sources suggesting that approaching a scholar full of Torah was analogous to approaching God,8482 the image evokes more common, hence more probable, sources. Moses reflected God's glory, but in the Fourth Gospel it is more often the disciples than Jesus who parallel Moses seeing God's glory (1:14; 14:8; cf. 2Cor 3:7–18; though cf. John 6:46). Most clearly, wisdom was the exact representation of God's glory,8483 and Jesus fulfills this place in the Fourth Gospel (1:1–18, esp. 1:18). No one, including Moses, beheld God's full glory until Jesus (1:18); in Jesus, however, God had come unveiled. «From now on» (14:7) suggests that the climactic revelation of God in Jesus comes in his «glorification,» beginning with the cross (13:31).8484
Philip's question, like questions and objections in Socratic dialogues, provides the foil for advancing the explanation. John reports the words of several disciples in this section, including some featured much less in the Synoptic line of tradition: Thomas (14:5; cf. 11:16; 20:24–28; 21:2), Philip (14:8–9; cf. 1:43–46; 6:5–7; 12:21–22), and Judas not Iscariot (14:22). Writers and haggadists sometimes added names to traditions to make them more vivid;8485 but the consistent details of names in this section could also suggest a tradition based on recollections by an eyewitness. Thus Xenophon reports the names of troops who died when these were members of his own command, details not characteristic of the parts of his narrative where he was less likely to know the names of the soldiers.8486
Philip's request that Jesus «show» them the Father (14:8) might echo the typical language of a rhetorical challenge seeking a demonstration.8487 More likely, however, he seeks a theophany, probably evoking Moses' request to see God's glory (δεΐξόν μοι την σεαυτου δόξαν, Exod 33LXX).8488 (The wording differs in Philo, who also emphasizes the event.)8489 One could also speak of God «manifesting» himself to others;8490 thus, according to Philo, God only became manifest (εμφανής) to Abraham when he gained true understanding.8491 But a specific allusion to Moses fits John's theology (1:14). Philo declares that Moses, as God's son, sought to see God as his father (i.e., creator) but could see only God's glory;8492 also that Moses was not satisfied with any reflection of God in his creation but became the supreme illustration of a mind pursuing full vision and knowledge of God.8493 John's circle of believers probably understood such revelation at least sometimes in apocalyptic, visionary terms (Rev 1:1; 4:1; 17:1; 21:9–10; 22:1, 6).8494 The model for receiving such revelation was Jesus himself, to whom the Father «showed» his works; Jesus then followed his Father's example by showing these works to others (2:18; 10:32; 20:20).
Philip's request not only evokes the account of Moses but also reflects the assumption that Jesus had access to God's glory, which he could in turn reveal to others, a true premise in Johannine theology (3:13,32; cf. Q material in Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22). Viewing Jesus as the mediator of divine revelation was true Christology, but by itself it was inadequate; other recipients of revelations also showed the contents of their revelation to their circles (e.g., 1 En. 83:1,10).
2. Doing the Father's Worh (14:10–11)
To see Jesus is to see the Father not as if Father and Son are the same person (see 1:1b) but because they are one (10:30), and here because they dwell in one another so thoroughly, and Jesus remains so utterly dependent on the Father's will,8495 that their character is indistinguishable, as his works demonstrate (14:10). To a lesser extent, Jesus' followers will also reflect his glory by reflecting the divine character of unity produced by Jesus' indwelling presence (17:23; cf. 14:20). The way to develop that intimacy is to keep his commandments (15:10; cf. 8:29; 11:42; 1 John 3:22).
As in the exodus tradition, divine signs attest the identity of the true Lord.8496 Jesus summons them to believe even if initially only because of the works (14:11). Early Judaism would have grasped the principle of pursuing a goal even if not for its own sake, recognizing that one would ultimately end up pursuing it for its own sake.8497 Indeed, within a century after the Fourth Gospel's completion, some teachers felt that God told Israel in the wilderness that even if they would not believe God's promises concerning the future, they should at least believe what he had already accomplished for them.8498 See further the comments on 10:25, 38; cf. 15:24.
3. Disciples Doing the Same Works (14:12–14)
Comparison was a standard rhetorical technique,8499 but scholars debate the meaning of «greater works» in 14:12. (All are agreed that Jesus does not imply that the disciples themselves will be greater than Jesus; see 13:16.) Various options must be considered. Some suggest, for example, that it indicates the Gentile mission.8500 Others apply it to Jesus' ministry–for instance, continuing his ministry of healing and salvation through the church's sacraments.8501 One can make a particularly strong case for miraculous signs; certainly the early Christians believed that miraculous gifts continued in their day,8502 and as late as the fifth century, Theodore of Mopsuestia, not given to credulity, attests continuing miracles.8503 Because healings in this Gospel function as «signs» glorifying Jesus, it is natural to expect that John intended the reports of Jesus' signs as paradigmatic for his own audience doing signs to reveal Jesus' authority.8504 Which meaning of «greater works» best fits this context?
3A. The Meaning of «Works» (14:12)
A survey of Jesus' «works» in the Fourth Gospel will indicate that these мая include miraculous signs (5:20, 36; 7:3; 9:3–4; 10:25, 32–33, 37–38; 15:24) but also his mission as a whole (4:34; 17:4). One might also apply the term to Jesus' ethical deeds (3:19–21; 7:7; 8:39, 41).8505 Thus Jesus might refer to his followers multiplying his righteous acts because there would be more of them to do them;8506 thus «keeping commandments» in 14may include doing the Father's «works,» because «works» in this Gospel includes doing God's wil1.
But the ethical nuances, while probably present, are probably not primary here. The «commandments» of 14match more properly the line of thought in 14:21, 23–24, where they function as prerequisites for more fully acquiring or maintaining Jesus' presence, suggesting that 14has more to do with 14:16–17 than with 14:12–14. In John most ethical uses of the term apply to others besides Jesus, who «works» in this context, and the immediate context is probably one of miraculous works (14:10–11), for it echoes 10:32, 37–38, which probably reflects Jesus' recent healing of a man born blind (9:3–4). Jesus had done many signs (20:30), and the world itself could not contain them all (21:25), but somehow his followers could do more works, whether by virtue of their numbers or the new state in salvation history.
Thus disciples should do miraculous works through faith (though such signs by themselves cannot produce adequate faith and must be supplemented with proclamation, which remains central; cf. 20:29) as well as continue Jesus' ministry in other respects. This idea is consonant with the disciples joining the Spirit as witnesses (15:26–27) and the Spirit presenting the living Christ through their word (16:7–11); in short, disciples would reflect the life of Jesus present in them the way branches revealed the life of the vine (15:1–8). The reason for «greater» works мая be debated. Some contend that the works are greater because Jesus worked in only one land whereas his followers work everywhere;8507 or that the work would be multiplied because no longer confined to one person's ministry;8508 or because the disciples participate in the newer and greater phase of redemptive history after the completion of Jesus' earthly work («because I go to the Father»).8509 In any case, «greater» works imply greater magnitude than one has seen in Jesus' earthly ministry (for this sense of «greater magnitude,» see the parallel language of 1and 5:20). The promise of «greater works» calls John's audience to look not only backward but also to the present, where Christ continues to remain active through his presence by the Paraclete and his proclaimed word.8510
More miracles are reported of Elisha than of Elijah, which мая supply part of the paradigm for Jesus' going in this context (cf., on the Paraclete as Jesus' successor, the comment on 14:16);8511 this is more explicit in Acts 1:8–11, which recalls the clearest OT ascension narrative as well as the impartation of the prophetic spirit in 2 Kgs 2. In view of John 14:13–14 and its possible invitation to ask for the Spirit (14:16), it is significant that in 2 Kgs 2Elijah invites Elisha to «ask what he wills,» and he requests Elijah's «spirit.»
3B. Prayer in Jesus' Name (14:13–14)
The meaning of prayer «in Jesus' name» here (14:13; 15:16; 16:23–24) requires comment.8512 Practitioners of magic often employed name invocation,8513 and magical papyri attest the special proficiency of Jewish magicians who claimed access to the hidden name of God (cf. Acts 19:13–20).8514 Once one acquired an «angel's» name, one could offer sacrifice and become his friend,8515 and then the angel would do all sorts of magic for the person.8516 But the magical use is hardly in view here, where Jesus invites disciples to ask both himself and his Father in his name; early Christians in fact repudiated that use of Jesus' name (Acts 19:13–20).8517
Aside from magic, one might compare this passage with various strands of Greek and Roman prayer practices.8518 In many cases pagans piled up multiple names of the deity they were entreating,8519 apparently hoping that at least one would prove effective.8520 Roman magistrates read prayers exactly as they had been handed down through tradition; «if one syllable or one ritual gesture was performed incorrectly, the prayer might well be invalid.»8521 If during a sacrifice a priest's hat fell off, this disqualified him from the priesthood (Valerius Maximus 1.1.5), and if games were marred, deities could demand the games be done over (Valerius Maximus 1.7.4). Pagans also reminded a deity of favors owed, seeking an answer on contractual grounds, as many classical texts attest.8522 Israel's God was more apt to respond to moral obedience than to sacrifice, however, and it is obedience that this context emphasizes (14:15).
More likely, praying «in onés name» might evoke praying «on the merits of» or because of another's status before the one entreated. Thus the patriarchs had earned Israel favor before God, and they could seek God's favor on account of their ancestors' favor (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27; 2 Chr 6:16–17).8523 Biblical tradition was clear that God answered the prayers of the righteous (e.g., Ps 34:15–18; Prov 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9)8524 and the repentant (2 Chr 7:14; Neh 1:6); but God in his mercy often showed favor to the descendants of the righteous (Deut 9:5), and prayer «in Jesus' name» could mean prayer predicated on his merit alone. (Some also find the background for «in his name» in the biblical tabernacle traditions; one praying in or toward God's house would secure an answer to prayer.)8525
A related proposal draws on the ancient Mediterranean role of a broker;8526 patrons could write letters of recommendation to procure for their clients favors from other members of the elite, and others could use their favor as agents to secure favor for others as wel1. For example, a prince in the king's special favor might secure whatever he asked for his friends.8527 Given the loving intimacy between the Father and the Son in this Gospel, the reader is secure that with Jesus as the agent or the one in whose name disciples ask, their request will be answered. This assumes, however, that they, too, have a close relationship with the Son.
In earlier biblical usage, «name» often connoted reputation, so that when God acted «on account of his name,» he defended his honor, a matter readily understood in the ancient Mediterranean with its emphasis on honor and shame. «In God's name» could signify a representative acting on God's behalf (Exod 5:23; Deut 18:19–22; Jer 14:14–15), according to his command (Deut 18:5,7), by his help (Ps 118:10–11; Prov 18:10), or using his name for a miraculous act (2 Kgs 2:24). In prayer, which might suit this context (John 14:13), calling on the deity's name meant addressing him (1 Kgs 18:24–26, 32; 2 Kgs 5:11; Ps 9:2; 18:49); similarly, in 1 Chr 16:2, when David blessed the people in the Lord's name, he apparently was calling on the Lord to bless them. That various early Jewish circles could employ «name» as a polite surrogate for pronouncing the divine name also fits this usage.8528 Which of these usages (or what combination of them) is in view here, given John's general usage?
Most likely, asking «in his name» signifies asking «as his representative, while about his business,» just as Jesus came in his Father's name (5:43; 10:25).8529 It involves prayer «in keeping with his character and concerns and, indeed, in union with him.»8530 This usage («in the name of» meaning «as onés representative») was common8531 and fits the context (14:26; 15:21; cf. 15:26–27). (Later rabbis also spoke of passing on traditions in another's name, i.e., on another's authority, e.g., m. 'Abot 2:8.)8532 Jesus' promise, «I will do it» (14:13), мая well echo God's word to Moses in Exod 33:17;8533 this epitomizes the apparent paradox of Johannine Christology: like the Father, Jesus answers prayer (14:13–14), but the Father's rank remains superior, so that the Father is glorified in the Son (14:13).8534 Such prayer naturally implied desiring the sort of thing that Jesus would desire–hence praying, as best as one knows, according to God's will (cf. 1 John 5:14).
Some other thinkers in antiquity also recognized that people often prayed for what was not best from the divine perspective;8535 they regarded prayer as conversation with the gods rather than petition8536 and opined that deities would reward the deserving whether or not they prayed.8537 An analogous emphasis on intimacy with God did not lead early Christians, however, to avoid praying for themselves as it led some ancient thinkers to do.8538 Nor did Christians likely expect, as in some myths,8539 that their deity would grant destructive gifts for which they wrongly asked in their ignorance. As in early Judaism, right motives in prayer mattered.8540
That anything believers ask in Jesus' name would be granted far exceeds the more specialized guarantees attached to most magical charms.8541 Such guarantees of answered prayer appear in early Jewish texts but are unusua1.8542 For the most part, such broad expectations of answered prayer apply to special pietists such as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa, with their Elijah-like faith; but the Jesus tradition invites all believers to that level of bold faith (Mark 11:23–24; Matt 7:7–11; Luke 11:8–13), a confidence continued in early Christianity (Jas 5:16–18; cf. Heb 4:16).8543 The Johannine circle of believers is no exception (15:16; 1 John 3:22); for them, the Gospel provides models of prayers through the confident example of Jesus (11:41–42; 17:1–26). Perhaps the primary object of asking, under which other enablements are subsumed, is the Holy Spirit, which Jesus will request for them (14:16, admittedly with a different term for asking) as in Luke 11:13's adaptation of Q (a more traditional form of which appears in Matt 7:11).8544
The intimacy in prayer implied in this image would have appealed to many people in the ancient Mediterranean world on a popular leve1. As major cults became more formal during the first three centuries of the common era, many people turned toward noncultic religious expressions, such as oracles, for emotional attachment, with a corresponding shift from primarily communal to primarily individual spirituality.8545 The Fourth Gospel, more than the Synoptics, emphasizes an individual's relationship with God rather than solely a corporate perspective.8546
Jesus' Coming and Presence by the Spirit (14:15–26)
The dwelling place in the Father's presence (14:2–3) was achieved by approaching the Father through Christ (14:4–6), who had revealed what the Father was like (14:7–9). Believers would experience the continuing presence of the Father and the Son through the Spirit, whom Jesus would impart to believers when he came to them after his resurrection. As Gordon Fee emphasizes for Pauline Christianity, so among Johannine Christians the Spirit was an experiential and not merely theoretical matter.8547
1. Preliminary Questions
The structure of the passage is debatable; the major theological themes, however, appear fairly clear.
The structure of this section is open to much debate; it is not clear that John intended any particularly discernible structure. One might propose a minor chiastic structure in 14:16–26:
A Another Helper with them (14:16–17)
Β Jesus' coming and presence (14:18–20)
C Revelation to the obedient (14:21–24)
B' Jesus' current presence (14:25)
Á The Helper will reinforce Jesus' word (14:26)
The assymetry in the Jength of the units makes a conscious chiasm less likely, but not impossible. But if 14belongs in this section, the emphasis on obedience occurs in 14:15, 21, 23–24, which undercuts the likelihood of an intentional chiasm here.
Segovia found in 14:15–27 a cyclical repetition of three major motifs: the meaning of love for Jesus (14:15,21a, 23ab, 24), promises to those who love Jesus (14:16–17,21b, 23cd, 25–26), and contrasts between lovers of Jesus and the world (14:17bd, 18–20, 22, 27ac), arranged in the sequence abc, cab, cab, and abc.8548 The amount of material available мая remain too small to test Segoviás proposed pattern, however. Whether his proposal represents the precise structure of the passage or not, it is clear that the basic motifs he mentions recur throughout the passage. Jewish tradition also emphasized God's reward to those who love him more than worldly treasure or life.8549 The sort of cumulative argument by repetition rather than linear development possibly found here and in 1 John also characterized some other ancient writings.8550
The section heavily emphasizes love for Jesus and the association of love for him with keeping his commandments. Keeping the commandments (in the context, especially love–13:34–35) seems a prerequisite for acquiring or continuing in the activity of the Spirit. God's blessings also were often conditional on keeping his commandments, as in 14:158551 (e.g., Exod 15:26). Early Judaism generally believed in the renewal rather than the abrogation of Torah in the end time.8552 Faith and love, the central requirements of the covenant in Deuteronomy, also appear as the basic requirements here;8553 in biblical covenant tradition, those who love God will keep his commandments (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13; 30:16).8554 Thus, for John as for the law, love is not mere sentiment but defined by specific content through God's commandments.8555
Does this imply that for John the Spirit can be earned? Evidence suggests that many Jewish people thought in terms of meriting the Spirit,8556 prophecy,8557 or (sometimes interchangeably in the accounts) the divine presence;8558 Christian tradition could certainly speak of God giving the Spirit only to the people who obey him (Acts 5:32).8559 Yet by contrast, early Christian tradition, which viewed the Spirit as more widely available than did most contemporaries, often viewed it simply as an eschatological gift (Rom 5:5; Gal 3:2; cf. Ezek 36:24–27). Clearly for John the Spirit is not simply merited; apart from Jesus' presence, the disciples can do nothing (15:5), and the Spirit is received through faith (7:39). At the same time, the Spirit comes only to the disciples, to those committed to Jesus (14:17); those who obey (14:15) receive greater power for obedience (14:16–17), moving in a cycle of ever deeper spiritual maturation. For John, an initial «experience» without continuing perseverance is not ultimately salvific (15:6; 8:30–31); the Spirit comes to believers and forms them into stronger believers (on the inadequacy of initial signs-faith, see introduction) who in turn become more obedient to the life of the Spirit. God's answers to Israel were conditional on obedience (e.g., Deut 7:12), but both promise and commandments were given only to a people already redeemed by God's covenant mercy (Exod 20:2).8560
No less striking, commentators point out, is the section's Christology, repeatedly comparing Jesus with the Father's role in earlier biblical and postbiblical Jewish tradition; the disciple follows Jesus' commandments (14:15, 23; 15:10);8561 they expect an eschatological, life-giving vision of him (14:19); his presence will indwell his people alongside the Father's (14:23);8562 the Spirit also appears as Jesus' gift.8563 The role of Jesus in this passage (14:12–15), while expressly distinguished from that of the Father (14:12–13), is a role attributed to God in early Jewish texts: believing in Jesus, praying to him, Jesus answering for his namés sake, and them keeping his commandments because they love him.8564 But Jesus continues to subordinate himself to the Father as well (14:24, 28).
1C. The Paraclete Passages in Context
The Paraclete passages fulfill a strategic function for the Gospel and therefore merit more extended comment than some others. These passages essentially reveal the Jesus of gospel history to be leading his followers in the present through his agent, the Spirit; they provide a key to understanding John's emphasis on the situation of his audience as well as how he wants his audience to apply the rest of the Gospel in their own setting.
We will endeavor to interpret the Paraclete passages (14:16–17, 26; 15:26–27; 16:7–11) in their final, Johannine context,8565 although it has often been supposed that they derived from a source different from their context and that some of them fit this context only awkwardly.8566 The figure of the Paraclete, after all, appears only in the Johannine corpus,8567 with roughly the same function throughout.8568 The unity of the first two sayings with their context is generally accepted,8569 and the Paraclete sayings use Johannine language and style.8570
Various purposes have been proposed for John's use or composition of these pericopes. Many argue that they function to validate the Johannine tradition against heretical or persecuting opposition.8571 Gottfried Locher suggests that the «Spirit of truth» protects the disciples from error in the metaphorically forensic situation experienced subsequent to Jesus' departure.8572 Mussner believes that the pericopes are to verify the Jesus tradition, tying the Spirit to the historical Jesus, against the challenges of the Docetists.8573 Brown writes,
John uses the concept of the Paraclete to justify the audacity of the Johannine proclamation. If there are insights in the Fourth Gospel that go beyond the ministry, Jesus foretold this and sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, to guide the community precisely in this direction (16:12–13). Yet the Paraclete is portrayed not as speaking anything new but as simply interpreting what came from Jesus (16:13–15; 14:26).8574
Johnston proposes to extend the insights of Barrett, Bultmann, Schweizer, and Mowinckel, who apply the Paracletés work to apostolic preaching, «to other aspects of the life of the Johannine church in a time of danger and crisis near the end of the first century: namely, teaching, interpreting what Jesus had said, prophesying, witnessing, and doing battle with the 'world' in the law-courts of Rome or the beth din of the synagogues."8575
Undoubtedly all these activities were attributed to the work of the Spirit of God, but what is significant is that these functions of the Spirit relate to the general category of the prophetic Spirit in Judaism, who speaks the truth of God. The particular characteristics attributed to the Spirit must be examined passage by passage, however (below, on each passage).
2. Background of the Paraclete Image
The immediate background of the Paraclete image is widely debated. Because scholars are trained to establish themselves by demonstrating the unique value of their own contributions, many of the proposals offered contradict one another less than their proponents have claimed:8576 for instance, an understanding of how early Jewish readers would have generally understood supernatural intercessors is hardly in conflict with the view that the intercessor in this case is personified Wisdom. (Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that John was specifically alluding to, say, Michael, Metatron, and Wisdom all at once.) Our discussion will draw attention to useful perspectives even where we will not conclude that the data on which these perspectives are based provide the immediate antecedents for the Johannine Paraclete.
One proposed background that we will not investigate here is that of the protognostic and Mandean «helper.»8577 The suggestion of a protognostic background for the Paraclete has been severely critiqued as deficient, as an inadequate parallel offered when much better parallels could be adduced;8578 it мая be added to the variety of anachronistic interpretations given to the Paraclete, such as those applied to Montanus, Mani, or Muhammad.8579 The tendency today is to seek the background for the Paraclete in Jewish sources.8580
2A. Senses Related to Παρακαλέω
The relationship of the term, which frequently bears a forensic usage, to the function of the Paraclete in John has been a subject of much academic discussion. On the analogy of one sense of the cognate verb παρακαλέω and the context as a farewell discourse,8581 some scholars read the Paraclete as the «Consoler.» This view is at least as old as Origen8582 and has often been held by modern commentators in opposition to the forensic sense often inferred from the term.8583 J. G. Davies argued in 1953 that since παρακαλέω in the LXX normally means «console» and replicates much of the semantic range of נחם, παράκλητος, despite the passive form, referred to an active consoler.8584
But the passive form should not be so easily ignored, and the fact remains that the noun is used quite differently than its verbal cognate–particularly since Johannine literature nowhere employs the verb.8585 The term «comforter» in the English Bible dates from Wycliffés translation, based on the Latin con fortis, comfortare (one who strengthens);8586 but this is simply not the standard use of the Greek noun, which typically connotes an intercessory function. None of the functions of the Johannine Paraclete specifically refer to comfort, and the context of Jesus' departure need not imply the meaning of comfort (cf. 14:28). More significantly, 16suggests that Jesus is departing in order to send the Paraclete (as Shafaat points out, would he depart to send him to console the disciples over that departure?); and finally, this reading of «Paraclete» makes no sense of the «other comforter» in 14:16: concerning whose departure had Jesus been comforting them? We мая conclude that there is no evidence for taking the Johannine παράκλητος in this sense.
In 1945–1946, an article of Norman Snaith argued that «Paraclete» meant a «convincer,» based on the term's etymology.8587 Although such a sense would not be unrelated to the more common forensic usage suggested below, this sense cannot be regarded as established as the most natural reading of the term, since etymology is inadequate to establish meaning (as is now generally recognized).
Others have applied the cognate παρακαλέω in such a way as to establish a connection with παράκλησι,ς, preaching and teaching.8588 To be sure, the Spirit in this context empowers the church for proclamation. Johnston argues (probably rightly) that John 14shows that the Paracletés function is to be fulfilled through (rather than independently from) the ministers of the word.8589 Although these functions are attributed to the Johannine Paraclete, they are never expressed in terms of παράκλησις, and one is again left to draw an inference from a verbal cognate while ignoring the normal sense of the noun.8590
Several other proposals have been offered that look for functional parallels to the Paraclete concept without seeking a linguistic parallel per se. Ahmad Shafaat argues for the Geber («man») of the Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns and Rule of the Community as back-ground for the Johannine Paraclete.8591
Eskil Franck, in a learned study, suggests that the background for the Paraclete figure, who functions as a teacher, is the meturgeman in the synagogue.8592 Although this could be part of the context for understanding the conceptual range of teaching, it fails to cover most of the functions ascribed to the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourses. It also presupposes that the meturgeman was found in the average Palestinian synagogue of the first century C.E. or perhaps even in the Greek-speaking Diaspora, a premise open to challenge.
2B. Forensic Interpretation of the Paraclete
Although the proposed forensic background is not the only background for the Johannine Paraclete (perhaps the most essential is, of course, the Spirit in early Judaism and Christianity), it is likely an important one.
Παράκλητος in both classical and rabbinic usage refers to an advocate, frequently8593 in a forensic context.8594 As a loanword in rabbinic texts, פרקליט appears, as Mowinckel says, «als Zeuge, Fürsprecher und Ankläger,» witness, intercessor, and prosecutor.8595 It is a synonym for סניגור, συνήγορος, which appears as the opposite of κατήγωρ, «accuser.»8596 Although some Mediterranean cultures omitted that office,8597 both the official and the more common unofficial use of the role would remain widely known.8598 Rhetors could function as advocates for their friends;8599 while the image is not so specific as a friend-advocate here, the idea is consistent with the context (15:15; 16:13).
Mowinckel was apparently the first to link this Paraclete to the מליץ of Job and thus to an angelic intercessor8600 but has been followed by Johnston8601 and others.8602 This suggestion is not without its problems–including the fact that this Hebrew term is not usually rendered by παράκλητος.8603 But it has at least pointed discussion in the fruitful direction of trying to explain the combination of personal, supernatural, and intercessory/legal features of the Johannine Paraclete image.
2C. Angelic Advocates and Accusers
Roman law provided no public prosecutor, depending instead on delatores, private ac-cusers.8604 If rabbinic texts provide a sufficient window here, Palestinian Jewish practice probably presupposes both an advocate and a prosecutor,8605 but as with the Romans, witnesses against a person constituted de facto prosecutors, and witnesses for a person constituted de facto advocates.8606 An accuser (normally κατήγωρ, as in Rev 12:10)8607 was the opposite of an advocate,8608 and on the supernatural level, Michael8609 (the most popular angel in early Jewish literature),8610 as Israel's defending counsel, was opposed to Sammáel, Israel's accuser.8611
Although the degree of angelic mediation or intercession varies in ancient Jewish texts,8612 the tradition of angels in God's court helping decide cases became widespread in rabbinic circles.8613 Satan,8614 or Mastema,8615 regularly appears as Israel's accuser in early Jewish texts; by the Amoraic period, he accuses Israel continually except on Yom Kippur8616 (cf. Rev 12:10). Satan's role as prosecuting attorney, of course, is as old as the book of Job, where ha-Satan is a title designating the accuser.8617 This is illustrated in many Jewish texts, some of them associated with the angels of the nations that opposed Israel in the heavenly court: «Every day Satan sits with Sammáel, Prince of Rome, and with Dubbíel, Prince of Persia, and they write down the sins of Israel on tablets and give them to the seraphim to bring them before the Holy One, blessed be he, so that he should destroy Israel from the world.» But because the seraphim know God's will, they burn the tablets.8618 Commentators frequently see such a legal opposition between Michael as advocate and Satan as accuser in Rev 12:10–11 and context.8619
Other intercessors besides Michael existed, although this is more prominent in our later texts. The Torah could serve as an intercessor against Satan (in some late texts),8620 although, like the Attribute of Justice,8621 it could also accuse Israel when she sinned.8622 Merits of the patriarchs also served an intercessory function in Amoraic texts.8623 A good deed (e.g., a lulab cluster) could testify on onés behalf at the Judgment; but if one had gotten it by robbery, this advocate would instead become an accuser.8624 One мая compare the oft cited8625 phrase in 'Abot 4:11:8626 «He who does one precept gains for himself one advocate [peraqlit] ; and he who commits one transgression gains for himself one accuser.»
In m. 'Abot 4God is judge, witness, and accuser at the Judgment;8627 redemption (Lam 3:58) and vindication by the prosecution of onés adversaries (Jer 51:10, 36) are related concepts, and the Spirit-Paraclete is not the first figure in Jewish texts to collapse these roles, which we would regard as distinct in our own culture.8628 In Job 16:19–21, God is Job's witness who can defend him before himself.8629 Amoraim could observe, «In human courts, two stand before the king, one acting as prosecutor and the other as defender; he who acts as an accuser does not act for the defence, while he that defends does not prosecute. Not so, however, is it in the case of God. He Himself both defends and accuses.»8630 R. Hiyya bar Abba said that when Moses had finished defending Israel, the Holy Spirit pleaded on their behalf;8631 R. Aibu claimed that Israel's «advocate among the nations» was the bat qo1.8632 Despite the lateness of these texts in relation to the Johannine period, they мая illustrate that the image of God or His Spirit defending Israel before his own court probably would not have sounded strange even to Judean immigrants in John's audience.
Johansson goes beyond Mowinckel's work to compare all kinds of intercessory roles in the OT8633 and Jewish tradition.8634 This broadening provides a healthy perspective and comparative control on parallels derived solely from angelic intercessors; but Johansson also has been critiqued for drawing conclusions from parallels far too distant in themselves to carry his case.8635
Betz, on the other hand, narrows down the background of the Paraclete too much. Ar_ guing for the role of Fürsprecher (intercessor) at Qumran, he believes John blends the spirit of truth known in Qumran literature with Michael the intercessor.8636 But although Michael does appear as an intercessor in early Jewish literature and probably in Rev 12, the intercessory function was nowhere limited to him, and we cannot suppose that the first readers of the Fourth Gospel must have known the Paraclete figure to allude to him.8637 The appeal to Rev 12 and thus to John 1218638 мая falter on another point: in this passage in Revelation, Michael's heavenly correspondence is to Christ,8639 not directly to the second Paraclete. Nor need John have been the first to combine the two images; Satan the prosecutor versus the Angel of the Lord as advocate was probably already often under-stood in terms of Qumran's dualism of two spirits, although not necessarily always.8640 God appointed «the Prince of Light» as Israel's «helper» [עוזרנו], and «all the spirits of truth [רוחי אמת] are in his dominion» (1QM 13.10).
Greco-Roman ideas of patronal intercession, presupposed as a matter of common knowledge in Jewish sources by the third century,8641 мая have also played a part in the development of intercessory figures, particularly given the patronal roles played by guardian angels of the nations in early Judaism. The patronal idea could be, although probably is not, present in John 15:15's language of friendship, as discussed below.
Torah would intercede for God's people.8642 More significant мая be Moses' role as advocate in some Tannaitic parables,8643 a natural image in view of Exod 32:11–14; 33:12–13; 34:9; Jer 15:1. Because Jesus is the advocate of his people before the Father (1 John 2:1; cf. John 14:16), he мая assume a role some sectors of Judaism ascribed to Moses, including perhaps among the adversaries of his community (5:45).8644 The Spirit who carries on Jesus' work among humanity naturally also is an advocate (same term as 1 John 2:1, and similar meaning).
2D. An Advocate in John 14–16?
A forensic reading of these passages fits the trial motif throughout the Fourth Gospel8645 and is becoming increasingly popular.8646 This is, as noted above, a quite natural way to read the term «Paraclete»; the problem is that some scholars8647 find difficulty relating this as a forensic term to what appear to be nonforensic functions in the Paraclete passages.8648 Shafaat admits the forensic connection of 15:18–16:7, which is inescapable once one recognizes that synagogues (16:2) also functioned as judicial assemblies (cf. Matt. 10:17); but he does not think the Spirit is said to provide forensic help for such a situation.8649 Pancaro objects that «among the functions of the Paraclete all are found attributed to the second Paraclete except that of intercession» and does not see an intercessory background to the Spirit-Paraclete at al1.8650
But the imagery of the Paraclete prosecuting the disciples' persecutors–who act particularly through the synagogue courts and possibly through Roman officials–seems to me clearly present in 16:7–11, as will be articulated in more detail below. The motifs of witness and God's agent standing against the religious establishment on behalf of his true followers appear throughout the Fourth Gospel, often in the context of dispute with the Jewish authorities charging Jesus and his disciples with breaches of the Law. This is especially clear in the excommunication narrative of John 9–10, where Jesus defends his followers by prosecuting the opponents for their breach of covenant with God. The other Paraclete continues this defending activity of Jesus.
2E. Divine Wisdom
As early as J. Rendel Harris, it was suggested that the personality of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel has its roots in Jewish wisdom tradition, which provides the backdrop both for the personification of the Word and for the personification of the Spirit.8651 Marie Isaacs has developed this thesis in arguing for a relationship between Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom language and the Johannine Paraclete,8652 and she is not alone in her view.8653 Bürge even suggests that John transfers the common Jewish image of water for wisdom or the Law to the Spirit,8654 but given the OT precedent for water as the Spirit, the contrast with ritual purification in the Fourth Gospel is sufficient explanation for the Spirit-as-water symbolism of this Gospel, as we have argued above.
What makes this thesis so appealing is that it can be demonstrated without much difficulty that personified Wisdom imagery does indeed play an important role in the Fourth Gospel and, assuming that the prologue belongs to the same Gospel in which the Paraclete sayings were written or inserted, contributes to the most basic image of Jesus as the descending divine agent. We must begin with a brief survey of modern perspectives on the personality of the Spirit and, under that heading, return to the image of the Spirit as divine Wisdom.
3. The Personality of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel (14:16–17, 26)
Although many scholars have argued that John's Spirit is a power rather than a person,8655 other scholars have argued that the Spirit is a person in the Fourth Gospe1.8656 Some have based their position on the masculine pronouns, which once appear, in 16:13, even where the masculine antecedent is not immediately in view.8657 But this particular argument is open to some question. It is unlikely that John is trying to refute a later, more common gnostic view that the Spirit is feminine8658 (which could blend into the notion of a female divinity);8659 given the focus of the rest of the Gospel, such a polemic is unlikely here, and the Hebrew for «spirit» is feminine in any case.8660 At the same time, it is also not clear that a masculine pronoun would need to indicate personality. Further, the indications of the Spirit's personality in earlier Jewish and biblical traditions8661 are inadequate to make the case, usually failing to distinguish the Spirit from God (in Johannine language, from the Father).8662 But given the possible Christian antecedents to a personalized Spirit8663 and particularly the parallels with the personal work of Jesus,8664 the case should weigh in favor of a personal Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel despite the weakness of earlier Jewish evidence supporting this view.
Some have suggested that Wisdom мая also have formed the background for John's (and probably his tradition's) personification of the Spirit.8665 To this suggestion we now turn.
3A. Wisdom and the Personal Character of the Paraclete
If John could draw upon Wisdom as background for his portrayal of Jesus (see our full treatment on 1:1–18), he certainly could do so also for his portrayal of the Paraclete. As in the case of Jesus, the Paraclete is portrayed as a person because the Paraclete was (or should have been) experienced personally by the Johannine community. But the personal imagery upon which John can freely draw is the imagery of divine Wisdom, which his readers мая recognize because of the parallel with Jesus, who is Wisdom/Torah incarnate.
Our investigation of this motif in the background of the Paraclete will not provide the same fertile ground we found in the prologue; here there is no concerted parallelism between John's subject and divine Wisdom, and also no development in rabbinic sources from Wisdom to the Spirit to provide material from that massive body of literature for analysis. But the parallels are at least suggestive, as Harris, Isaacs, and others have already noted.
In addressing the Pleroma of sapiential tradition, Harris argued early in the twentieth century that «the Holy Spirit came into the Christian Theology through the bifurcation of the doctrine of the Divine Wisdom, which, on the one side, became the Logos, and on the other the Holy Ghost.»8666 While he failed to develop any «bifurcation» adequately in pre-Christian texts, his observations concerning the relationship of the Spirit and Wisdom derive sufficient support from the LXX wisdom traditions to warrant serious consideration as important background for the personality of the Spirit where this occurs in the NT. Regarding especially the Fourth Gospel, Isaacs observes that «it is an over-simplification to talk of a 'bifurcation'»:
Whatever was to take place in later theology, no such development has taken place in the Fourth Gospe1. We have already seen [pp. 122–23] that John keeps Jesus and the spirit-paraclete in the closest possible relationship. In fact it could be argued that, far from reflecting any division, John drew upon wisdom concepts precisely in order to emphasize a continuity between the ministry of Jesus and that of the spirit.8667
Wisdom and the Spirit are paralleled in Wis 9:17:
And who has known your counsel,
Unless you have given [έδωκας] wisdom [σοφίαν],
And sent [επεμψας] his holy Spirit from above [άπό υψίστων]?
Thus men of earth below were taught (Wis 9:18). Wisdom will not enter a sinful person (Wis 1:4), for the άγιον πνεύμα of παιδεία will flee from sin and not let it enter (1:5).
For Wisdom is a spirit who cares for men [Φιλάνθρωπον γάρ πνεύμα σοφία];...
For the Spirit of the Lord fills the world [ότι πνεύμα Κυρίου πεπλήρωκεν την οίκουμενην].8668
In Wisdom is an understanding πνεύμα, which is αγιον, μονογενές, and so forth (7:22), and Wisdom is the άτμίς, breath or vapor, of God's power (δυνάμεως) (7:25), a σύμβουλος, or counselor (8:9).
Word and Spirit are often associated in the OT and later Jewish texts,8669 perhaps reflecting the ancient Near Eastern pattern of «word» as «a power effecting what it signifies.»8670 Philo identifies λόγος (and hence probably Wisdom) and πνεύμα in many ways; there are differences in usage, so that the Spirit is what is given rather than also the agency through which it is given.8671
There is, however, a serious weakness in the argument that John draws his imagery of the Spirit primarily from Jewish wisdom traditions. The problem with the connection is not that it occurs too rarely in early Jewish literature; given the rarity of discussions about the Spirit in this literature, this is to be expected. The problem is rather that the connection is rarely demonstrable outside Wisdom of Solomon. While John unquestionably could have drawn directly upon Wisdom of Solomon rather than upon a common portrayal of the Spirit in the milieu, one might have expected that he would have made clearer allusions to that book here (as he does, e.g., in 3:12–13) if he intended his readers to recognize this dependence. He could, for instance, have replaced his Παράκλητος with Σύμβουλος. On the other hand, he perhaps substituted the former term for the latter as more clearly connoting a forensic context (though even this term is not necessarily forensic). Nevertheless Wisdom of Solomon was both early and widespread, and мая constitute a primary source for John's image here. The evidence that wisdom tradition ultimately stands behind the personhood of the Spirit in John, whether mediated through Christian tradition or (more likely) modeled after Jesus' personhood, is sufficient for one to say that it is an entirely reasonable hypothesis; it is not sufficient, on the basis of currently extant sources, to demonstrate it beyond doubt. This is especially the case if, as is likely, the parallels with Jesus are the primary direct influence on John's personalization of the Spirit. (Because John's Jesus is divine Wisdom, the Spirit would then follow some characteristics of Wisdom by virtue of the Spirit's parallel with Jesus; Wisdom of Solomon might then prove useful to John in supporting such a connection.)
3B. The Spirit's Personality and Jesus
Some scholars have rightly pointed out that most of the personal functions of the Spirit are found in parallels with Jesus' functions and that the community мая have seen the Spirit as personal primarily because they experienced the Spirit as the personal presence of Jesus or the mediator of that presence.8672 The Spirit's activity in this Gospel is especially supportive, helping the Father, the Son, John the Baptist, and others fulfdl their stated functions.8673 Early Christian teachings that supplied the basis for later formulations of the Trinity8674 might also lend themselves to a development that would parallel Jesus and the Spirit.
Bürge summarizes the parallels:
|14:16||given by the father||3:16|
|14:16–17||with, in, by the disciples||3:22; 13:33; 14:20|
|14:17||not received by the world||1:11; 5[sic:43l; (12:48)|
|14:17||not known by world (only believers)||16:3; 8:19; 10:14|
|14:17||not seen by world (only believers)||14:19; 16:16–17|
|14:26||sent by the Father||cf. chs. 5, 7, 8, 12|
|14:26||teaches||7:14–15; 8:20; 18:19|
|15:26; 16:7, 13||he comes (from the Father into world)||5:43; 16:28: 18:37|
|15:26||gives testimony||5:31ff.; 8:13ff.; 7:7|
|16:8||convicts the world||(3:19f.; 9:41; 15:22)|
|16:13||speaks not from self but from what is heard||7:17; 8:26ff.; 14:10|
|16:14||glorifies his sender||12:28; 17:1,4|
|16:13ff.||reveals, discloses, proclaims||4:25; (16:25)|
|16:13||leads into fulness of truth||18:37; 14:6|
|15:26; 14:17; 16:13||is Spirit of truth/is truth||14:6|
|14(etc.)||a Paraclete||(14:16); 1 John 2:1|
Admittedly, several of the references in the Jesus column are directly to the glorified Christ, but most are to Jesus' identity and mission before his glorification. The discourses are clear that the Spirit, above all else, carries on Jesus' mission and mediates his presence, as will be noted further below. The personal functions of the Spirit are also the functions of Jesus in the rest of the book, and the sensitive reader cannot miss the connection.
Although it is easy enough to show that Jesus is a witness of the Father and convicts (ελέγχει) his accusers in the Fourth Gospel, where is the parallel to the Paracletés probable forensic advocacy of his people in times of trial before the world? The best parallel is probably also the most significant indicator of the Sitz im Leben of the finished Gospel: John 9–10.
In preceding chapters, the law of witnesses is cited in Jesus' debates with the religious authorities (chs. 5, 8), setting those debates into the context of preliminary accusations that prefigure his final tria1. In John 9, the synagogue authorities exercise their judicial authority to remove a supposed apostate from the community, directly anticipating the situation of the Johannine community spelled out in 16:2. The context would clearly be understood as forensic, for even in the Diaspora the Jewish community normally had its own synagogue courts to address internal religious issues.
Because the Spirit continues Jesus' role as advocate, we can look to earlier passages in the Fourth Gospel that exemplify Jesus' advocacy in ways the Johannine community can expect to continue in their own day. Toward the end of John 9 and through the first paragraphs of John 10, Jesus acts as an advocate: he defends the formerly blind man, representing the true sheep of Israel, and in so doing prosecutes his persecutors who claim to see (9:40–41), showing them to be thieves and robbers.8675 He thus brings both help and judgment (cf. 9:39).8676 Jesus appears as the true advocate of his people in times of oppression, and the Spirit stands in for Jesus in the time of the Johannine community, representing the risen Christ through the community to their opponents in all his prophetic force.8677 Just as Jesus brings judgment while defending his own (9:39), so the Paraclete will prosecute as well as defend (16:8–11).
Earlier in the Fourth Gospel, the writer alludes to Moses' function as advocate/accuser of Israel (5:45); but in the following chapter it is Jesus who is the agent of the Father who sends the true bread from heaven, and who is greater than Moses (ch. 6). Moses as a teacher, witness, and mediator of God's glorious revelation in Torah, and the prophet par excellence, is perhaps the most natural single OT figure whose functions are performed by the Paraclete; but these functions all derive from the character of the Johannine Jesus, who himself parallels both Moses and the Law.
3C. The Spirit as Jesus' Successor
The Spirit could be viewed as a successor to Jesus, as some scholars have pointed out.8678 Müller has shown the importance of a departing religious figure leaving behind documents to mediate his continued word in Jewish farewell discourses,8679 and this parallel мая help provide an apology for the Fourth Gospel itself. But succession texts provide closer parallels than this between the Johannine Jesus, on the one hand, and his dual successors (the Spirit and the believing community), on the other. Designation of a successor was essential; if a leader did not designate a successor, a power struggle usually quickly filled the void of ambiguity.8680
In an early-second-century tradition, the disciples of the prophets (מתלמידי הנביאים) succeeded them: Joshua and Moses, and Elisha and Elijah, though Baruch proved an ex-ception.8681 Jacob could replace Abraham as God's seed on the earth.8682 Such paradigms, probably already implied in the OT texts, had certainly become explicit by the time in which John was writing.
Acts 1:8–11 мая also imply a succession narrative, in which the Spirit succeeds the ascending Jesus as Elisha did Elijah. The parallels between Luke and Acts indicate a planned parallel between Jesus and the church moved by the Spirit who had anointed Jesus,8683 just as Peter and Paul (perhaps as representatives of the predominantly Jewish and Gentile missions) are paralleled in Acts.8684
Plutarch's Parallel Lives may provide an illuminating example of Greco-Roman literary technique applied to biography to create architectonic patterns useful to teach moral lessons.8685 Plutarch did not, of course, feel that he was contriving such parallels artificially; he felt he was discovering connections already present in the fabric of nature.8686 He nevertheless admitted that he drew the parallels between figures intentionally;8687 comparisons of different figures were a natural part of rhetorical technique,8688 and although few writers made such an art of it as Plutarch, such parallels were common enough to have been recognizable to the ancient reader trained in rhetoric.8689 Jewish writers also often felt that Jewish history was perpetually being reenacted.8690 Lukés use of architectonic parallels would thus likely not have been lost on his readers.
Although John is a very different sort of work than Luke-Acts, reflecting a much more traditional Jewish world of thought and less advanced Greco-Roman rhetorical training, it is probable that his readers would have grasped the connections between the figures of Jesus and his successors, the Spirit and the community empowered by the Spirit. Jesus' successor in the Fourth GospeJ derives some of his literary characteristics from his association with Jesus in the Gospe1.
The figure of the Johannine Jesus as personified Wisdom, the Law, and a successor to Moses subsumes under itself the most likely backgrounds for the particular images of the Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel, suggesting a close connection that would be useful in combating both synagogue authorities who rejected Jesus' messiahship and false prophets who claimed to have the Spirit but held inadequate Christologies.
If John or his community drew on the Jesus tradition and various Jewish motifs to portray the Spirit of Jesus in a personal way because that is how they experienced him, this мая suggest that one important model of spiritual experience in this community, perhaps through or alongside the more ecstatic model, or perhaps often instead of it,8691 was the intimate experience of a relationship between persons (see comments on knowledge of God in the introduction, ch. 6). That the «Trinitarian» or proto-Trinitarian distinction of the Spirit from the Father and Jesus occurs elsewhere in early Christianity (e.g., 2Cor 13:14; Matt 28:19; Didache) suggests that such an experience was not limited to the Johannine community alone.8692 That the community's continuing experience of Jesus was understood in terms of interpersonal communication is also suggested by many passages in the Fourth Gospel (esp. 10:3–4, 14–15; 15:15; 16:13–15).
Jesus appears as a prophet in the Fourth Gospel, though John's greater emphasis is that Jesus is the word himself;8693 Jesus is the pneumatic par excellence, the model Spirit bearer.8694 Some argue that John portrays Jesus along the model of later Christian prophets;8695 it seems more likely that the later prophets of John's audience would take as their model Jesus the pneumatic as they encountered him in the Johannine tradition.8696 But in any case, the Paraclete serves a sort of prophetic function,8697 and parallels among the Paraclete, Jesus,8698 and the disciples suggest the continuance of prophetic ministry in the Johannine community.8699 Parallels between the «other» Paraclete and Jesus8700 also suggest that the Spirit continues Jesus' presence in the Johannine community.8701
Successor images could be graphic. A speaker could beseech a governor to be like another (άλλος) Alexander.8702 Romans could speak of Claudius as another Germanieus, or Tiberius as another Augustus, or of the spirit of previous leaders in new ones.8703 lohn the Baptist could be a new Elijah (Matt 17:12–13; Luke 1:17); Jesus, a greater Moses (Acts 3:22); and among Johannine Christians the beast, probably a new Nero (Rev 13:3, 18; 17:10–11), and the church, a new Moses and Elijah (Rev 11:5–6).8704 The Spirit is Jesus' successor in stronger ways than these (being more than his successor), but such examples still provide a context for how early Christians would have heard the passage.
3D. Spirit of Truth (14:17; 15:26; 16:13)
The phrase «spirit of truth» is not limited to Johannine literature (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6; cf. 5:6; also p. 618). It appears in Jub. 25as an equivalent of the Spirit of prophecy: «And at that time, when a spirit of truth8705 descended upon her mouth, she placed her two hands upon the head of Jacob» and blessed him.8706 Qumran's Rule of the Community 4.21 equates the רוח קור (spirit of holiness, «the holy spirit») with the אמת רוח (spirit of truth).8707 Of course, 1QS 4.3 can speak of «the spirit of humility, patience, love, goodness, wisdom, ... understanding, purity,» and so forth;8708 but the writer(s) of this document give(s) the אמת aspect of the Spirit special prominence. The spirit of truth seems to be identified with the prince of the host of angels from Dan 8:11.8709
In some manuscripts of Jos. Asen. 19:11, Joseph's kiss imparts the spirit of truth.8710 The Testament of Judah, if a pre-Christian work, has at least Christian interpolations, but 20may reflect the possible Jewish Grundschrift; either way, it sets the spirit of truth in a forensic context:
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. [Και τό πνεύμα της αληθείας κατηγορεί πάντων και έμπεπύρισται ό αμαρτωλός έκ της Ιδίας καρδίας, και άραι πρόσωπον πρός τόν κριτήν ού δύναται.]8711
The early-second-century Christian work Shepherd of Hermas commands Hermas to love the truth and avoid all falsehood and lies, to walk in truth «and not to have joined an evil conscience with the spirit of truth, nor to have caused sadness to the holy and true Spirit.»8712
Some texts indicate a contrast between the Prince of Light (the spirit of truth) and the Prince of Darkness (the spirit of error);8713 perhaps John intends an allusion to this in his opposition between Jesus and the «prince of this world» (or this age) in 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11.
Testament of Judah 20employs this imagery:
So understand, my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error [... δύο πνεύματα ... τω άνθρώπω, τό της αληθείας καΐ τό της πλάνης].8714
Testament of Judah 14also speaks of the πνεύμα της πλάνης, which gets control of onés mind by much wine and can lead to sexual and other sins. Testament of Reuben 2:1, however (which мая reflect a different hand), does not refer to a single spirit of deception but to seven πνευμάτων της πλάνης, to match the seven good spirits with which people are created in 2:3–4. Testament of Issachar 4similarly associates the plural τά πνεύματα τής πλάνης with lusting after women. Since the Testament of Judah and the Testament of Levi are most often suspected of being from a Christian hand or containing Christian interpolations (the latter is certainly true, the former possible), we might think that the earliest form of the Testaments speaks only of spirits of error in the plural, were it not for T. Sim. 3:1, where the hearer is admonished, «Beware of the spirit of deceit and envy [τοΰ πνεύματος της πλάνης και τοΰ φθόνου].»8715
By the third century C.E., or whenever the Testament of Solomon was completed, ή Πλάνη was the name of a demon, the fifth of the seven astrological demons, the στοιχεία/ κοσμοκράτορες τούς σκότους (8:3); Error claimed to have been deceiving Solomon for some time (8:9). But the demonological developments between the first and third century, evident in rabbinic texts and possibly indicated by the magical papyri, render this evidence too tenuous to be read back into pre-Christian literature without other corroboration.
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide our strongest base of evidence for an early contrasting of two spécifie spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. One could speak of spirits of truth and of evil in 1QS 3.18–19, but the context indicates that one of each is intended (4.21–23). Charlesworth has shown parallels with the Fourth Gospel's language on the Spirit of truth.8716
Betz thought that John identified the Spirit of God with Michael, the angelic spirit of truth; Johnston, conversely, thinks that the identification is pre-Johannine and that John combats this view as a heresy.8717 While Johnston мая be right to challenge Betz's view that John made the identification, he offers little direct evidence to support his own position.8718 The use in the Scrolls is probably fluid enough that one could identify the spirit of truth either with an angelic power or with the holy Spirit of God; a Philonist might have seen little difference between the two. But John could easily enough have taken one identification available to him without knowing of, or necessarily polemicizing against, the other.
John мая have adopted a variety of possible nuances available to him in the term. That Michael мая appear as a heavenly advocate representing Christ (not the Spirit) in Rev 12 does not indicate that the Johannine community would have identified Michael and the Spirit of truth. But the fluid imagery in which the seven spirits could be identified with the Spirit of God (cf. Rev 1:4–5) or the seven archangels (compare 5with Zech 3:9; 4:10, in light of Zech 1:10; 6:7) or the guardian angels of the churches (1:20) мая warn us against excluding or including possible nuances every time the term appears; the Johannine community мая have tolerated a degree of pneumatological ambiguity unthinkable to most theologically nuanced post-Nicene Christians.
By identifying what could have been the angelic spirit of truth, or the divine Spirit of truth (or both), with the Holy Spirit (14:26) and writing of him indwelling the disciples and fulfilling the functions of the Spirit of prophecy, the writer of the Fourth Gospel clearly points more in the direction of the divine Spirit than toward the angelic idea. Paralleling the Spirit with Jesus, whom the Gospel also presents as divine and distinct from the Father, further tends toward this position. The spirits of truth and error that correspond to true and false prophets in 1 John 4:1–6 can be understood in one of two ways: as angelic messengers who bring revelations8719 or as specific manifestations of the basic opposing forces: the Spirit of truth (the Spirit of God, v. 2) and the spirit of deception (the spirit of the antichrist, v. 3). Given the Epistlés dualism, emphasis on the divine indwelling, and lack of emphasis on angelology or demonology, we мая suppose that the latter is more likely.
The title «Spirit of truth» is undoubtedly particularly relevant to the Farewell Discourses because of the earlier identification of Jesus as the truth (14:6).8720 This again binds the Spirit to Jesus.
4. Coming and Staying (John 14:15–20)
If the disciples keep Jesus' commandments (14:15), especially loving one another to the death (13:34–35), he will send them another Advocate to minister for them in his stead (14:16–17). Thus, when Jesus comes to them after the resurrection to give them resurrection life (14:18–19), he will in some sense remain with them–indeed, in them (14:20). Although John presupposes that his audience knows of Jesus' ascension (20:17), like Matthew he does not narrate it because, as in Matthew, Jesus in some sense remains among his people (Matt 28:20).
Those who love Jesus keep his commandments (14:15, 21; cf. 21:15); those who keep his commandments will abide more securely in his love (14:21; 15:10). What Jesus describes here is not a formula–it is far too circular for that–but the pattern for a developing relationship. For discussion of the significance of the commandments of 14:15, see comment on 14:21–25.
4A. The Paraclete Brings Jesus' Presence (14:16–17)
For discussion of the «Paraclete,» the «Spirit of truth,» and possible legal implications of the image, see the lengthy introductory sections above, pp. 953–71. Of primary significance in these verses is the relation of the Spirit to Jesus; he is «another Paraclete,» Jesus' «successor» (see discussion above). Further, like Jesus, the Spirit мая be related in some manner to the image of divine Wisdom in early Jewish sources (see discussion above); if this connection is likely, then just as Jesus' opponents attacked the very divine Word they claimed to uphold, so do the opponents of John's audience attack what they purport to defend.
Later, after Jesus returned and the disciples were empowered, disciples would be able to ask what they wished in Jesus' name (16:26), but until that time they remained dependent on Jesus, who would secure the other Paraclete for them (14:16). Clearly, the Father must authorize the Spirit's sending (cf. Acts 5:32; 1Pet 1:12), but Jesus also plays a direct role in it (15:26; 16:7; cf. 3:34; Luke 24:49). Further, as the Father dwelled in the Son (14:10), so would the Spirit dwell in the disciples (14:17). The remaining of the Spirit with them «forever» (14:16) reflects language familiar in the Johannine circle (cf. 2 John 2; perhaps John 8:35); just as the Spirit «remained» on Jesus (1:32), the Spirit would remain with the disciples (cf. 1 John 2:27). The disciples, ready to lament Jesus' departure, would in fact obtain his continuing presence by the Spirit once he was glorified!
While 14designates the Spirit as «another Advocate,» so relating the Spirit to Jesus (see comments on the Paraclete as Jesus' successor, above; 1 John 2:1), 14assigns the Spirit's presence wholly to believers in Jesus, excluding «the world.» In the context of the Fourth Gospel, «the world» is all those outside Jesus' following and is exemplified particularly by the Judean religious authorities who probably stand for the opposition in John's day. This passage fits its context by explaining Jesus' return and abiding presence among believers.8721
The Spirit of truth, foreign to a world that could not know the truth or perceive the risen Christ (14:17, 19; cf. 1 John 3:1), would come to the disciples (14:17–18). As John puts it, assuming the more widely accepted reading:8722 ύμεΐς γινώσκετε αυτό, ότι παρ' ύμΐν μένει και έν ύμιν εσται. Although the «with» and the «in» мая be equivalent,8723 if the μένει be read as a present and the εσται as a future, the present presumably refers to God's Spirit as present in Jesus and the future to the time when the Spirit would indwell the believers directly.8724 This would fit the Johannine temporal perspective on pneumatology: although the availability of the Spirit could be pro-leptically implied as early as Nicodemus (3:5), the Spirit would be fully available only after Jesus' glorification (7:39,20:19–23). (On the background of the dwelling image, see comment on 14:2–3.)
4B. Jesus Comes to Them (14:18)
Jesus promises to «come» to the disciples (14:18); in this context (14:16–17), the coming must refer to his coming in 20:19–23 to impart the Spirit to them (cf. 14:3,23).8725 At the same time, that he will not leave them bereaved as «orphans» suggests that his presence will continue with them through the Spirit. «Orphan» language was sometimes applied figuratively to the loss of important figures in peoplés lives, certainly applicable to Jesus for the disciples (13:33).8726 Although «orphan» technically referred to the fatherless, it could also apply to other sorts of bereavement,8727 such as a proselyte rejected by her family on account of her destruction of their gods.8728 But the «fatherless» image is likely here. Because teachers could be compared with fathers, great teachers who died could be said to leave a generation «fatherless»;8729 this fits Jesus' own portrayal of his relationship with them (see comment on 13:33).8730 In a general sense, the image fits the context of the Paraclete as Jesus' successor; in a pre-Christian testament, Mattathias, nearing death, exhorted his sons that their brother Simeon, a man of counsel (άνήρ βουλής), would be a father to them (1Macc 2:65).8731 But more specifically, because Jesus will overcome death and bring his eternal presence to them, they will not be fatherless in this manner.
There is a further sense in which the image of «orphans» мая relate to the context of the Paraclete as a forensic intercessor. In light of biblical tradition, «orphans» were a class of people most susceptible to being oppressed;8732 Jesus and the Spirit would prove to be their advocates (see comment above on the meaning of the Paraclete), defending them against the oppression of the world.
4C. Resurrection Life at Jesus' Coming (14:19–20)
Here Jesus' «little while» refers to the second «little while» of 16(or the sum of both «little whiles»); after his glorification, the world will remain unable to behold him, just as the disciples could not immediately after his death. The time would come when it would be too late for outsiders to hear Jesus (12:36); after that he remained hidden (cf. 12:36) except through the witness of his followers and the unity of their community of faith (1:7; 13:35; 17:21–23).
It is the risen Christ who comes to bring them the Spirit and breathe new life into them (20:22); thus, when Jesus comes to them (14:18) to impart the Spirit (14:16–17), the disciples receive resurrection life (14:19).8733 This newness of their life is predicated on his own (14:19; cf. 1 John 4:9; Rev 1:18) and is «eternal life» (see comment on 3:16), the product of a new birth (see comment on 3:3, 5). Probably many early Christians believed that Jesus' new life had created new life in those united with him by faith (Rom 6:4–5; 8:2, 11; 1Cor 15:2, 20; 2Cor 5:5; 13:4; 1 John 5:12).
«In that day» (14:20; cf. 16:23) can bear eschatological connotations8734 but, in keeping with John's emphasis in this context on realized eschatology, refers to the time beginning from Jesus imparting the Spirit. John 14:20–23 refers to Jesus' presence with his disciples by the Spirit after the resurrection.8735 For the mutual indwelling of Father and Son in 14:20, see also 14:11.
5. Revelation to the Obedient (14:21–25)
Jesus again emphasizes that keeping his commandments shows love for him (14:21, 23–24; cf. also 21:15–17; for more on «commandments,» see comment on 13:34). The most striking feature here is the contrast between Jesus' teaching here and its narrative illustration: the disciples in fact fail to obey him, failing to love him or one another enough to lay down their lives (13:34–35), as Jesus himself predicted (13:36–38). Nevertheless Jesus gives them the Spirit (20:22)! But the text мая imply some partial obedience on their part. Their only sign of mutual love is their group cohesion, their failure to scatter from one another (20:19); thus those present receive the Spirit, but Thomas, who was not among them, was not yet able to receive the Spirit (20:24). This might suggest that the Spirit is received by individuals primarily in the context of the believing community and that those who withdraw from that community (cf. 1 John 2:19) also withdraw from the true Spirit–that is, they exchange the Spirit of truth for the spirit of error (1 John 4:6).
When Jesus connects obedience with love, biblically literate Jewish hearers would immediately think of the associations between obeying God's commandments and loving God (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:16; Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4; Sir 2:15; 4Q176 frg. 16, line 4). Some might also recall wisdom tradition: love (αγάπη) is the keeping (τήρησις) of Wisdom's laws (νόμων; Wis 6:18).8736 Jesus speaks of «having» and «keeping» the commandments. Jewish teachers debated whether knowing or doing Torah took precedence, but all agreed that both were necessary (see comment on 7:17).
Given the abundance of ancient literature, it is not difficult to find other examples of selective revelation (14:21; cf. Acts 10:41). Thus, for example, Odysseus and the dogs witnessed Athene, but Telemachus could not (Homer Od. 16.159–163); perhaps more relevant, Apollo appears only to the good (who must also be great, not lowly; Callimachus Hymns 2 [to Apollo], 9–10); likewise, on his peoplés behalf, God reveals his glory to all except his people (3Macc 6:18). Some teachers also warned that their most special teachings were only for a select group, like initiates in the Mysteries.8737 Nevertheless, Jesus' selective revelation (14:21) has roots in the historical Jesus tradition (e.g., Acts 10:41; cf. Mark 8:11–12; Matt 16:1, 21). The world is skeptical because Jesus does not manifest himself or his Father to the world (7:4) but only to his own (17:6); this takes the idea of a messianic or kingdom secret to a new (and more chronologically extended) leve1. But on the theological level, Jesus' selective revelation especially conforms to his identity in this Gospel; Wisdom was not manifest (φανερά) to the masses (Wis 6:22); likewise, in wisdom tradition, God becomes manifest (εμφανίζεται) to those who do not disbelieve in her (Wis 1:2).8738 Another allusion might have impressed itself more quickly on John's first audience, however; as 14echoed Moses' request to be shown the Father, so might Judas's desire to understand how only the disciples would receive the revelation in 14:22.8739
Yet whereas the first eyewitnesses alone received the first postresurrection revelation (20:19–20) like Moses (1:14), here all believers are privileged to experience the same revelation by Jesus' continuing presence among his community (14:23). Jesus is not manifest to the world (14:22) because he is revealed only to those who love and obey him (14:23), not to those who do not (14:23). (The disciples' opponents, who claim to obey Torah yet do not obey Jesus, are not truly obedient to the Father's law; 5:45–47.) Narrative sequences such as 1:37–39 (and the presence of Jesus' disciples through the Gospel) мая suggest that in practice a person can start with some revelation of Jesus, grow to love him more, and thus secure more revelation.
John writes not from purely historical interest concerning the first generation but also from theological and apologetic interest for his own. Subsequent generations continue to experience the glory greater than what Moses experienced, sharing with those who knew Jesus in the flesh (1:14–18, on the revelation of his character), because now the Spirit lives in them and reveals Jesus to them. They continue to embrace his glory (1:14) because, after his full glorification (7:39), the Spirit continues to glorify Jesus to the disciples (16:14).8740 Direct physical sight and hearing like Moses' are significant (Deut 34:10), as are visions and revelations (2Cor 12:1; Acts 2:17), but for John the greatest revelation seems to be recognizing Jesus' character and walking in the light of his character and presence continually (manifested in love, which provides general direction, and probably also specific prophetic long-range direction in 16:13d). Jesus continually saw (5:19–20) and heard (8:38) the Father, and the Father was continually with him (8:29), though his public activities make it doubtful that he continually experienced visions.
The name Judas and its distinction from Iscariot (14:22) probably represents simply a historical reminiscence. Just as many people bore multiple names,8741 ancient writers often listed others who shared the same name as a person about whom they were writing (sometimes in the same generation), to distinguish them,8742 and Judas (Judah) was a common Jewish name in the ancient Mediterranean.8743 If two people with the same name were present, one had to identify by a distinct title the lesser known (e.g., Polybius 9.24.5, using a nickname).
Through the Spirit (14:16–17, 26), Jesus and the Father would come (cf. 14:3,18) and make their «dwelling place» within the believer (14:23; 15:4; for much more detail, see comment on 14:2; for the joint dwelling of Father and Son, cf., e.g., 1 John 2:24). In a figurative sense, God was already a «dwelling place» and refuge for his people (Deut 33:27; Ps 90:1; 91:2);8744 here Jesus мая play more fully on the image of a new temple or the eschatological promise of God dwelling among his people (Ezek 37:26–28; Rev 21:3, 22).8745 But whereas most of the biblical promises and early Jewish images about the Shekinah applied to Israel as a whole, Jesus' promise applies to the experience of individual believers.8746 Effectively, Jesus' hearers мая have envisioned the Jerusalem temple–one of the largest and most spectacular structures in the ancient world until a little over two decades before the composition of this Gospel8747–dwelling in the believer.8748 (Similarly, Paul can apply the image of believers as a corporate temple [1Cor 3:16] on a more personal level [1Cor 6:19].) As Stephen S. Smalley points out, both Paul and John involve the whole Trinity in indwelling the believer, but John does so more fully:
|You in God||Col 3:3||John 17:21|
|You in Christ||2Cor 5:17||John 15:4–5|
|You in the Spirit||Rom 8:9||John 4:23–24|
|God in you||Phil 2:13||John 14:23|
|Christ in you||Col 1:27||John 14:18–20|
|Spirit in you||1Cor 3:16||John 14:16–178749|
Like most Jewish sages, John teaches through much repetition of his key themes; loving the Father requires loving the Son (8:42), which in turn requires keeping his commandments (14:24). When Jesus says he has spoken these things (14:25), he refers to the whole of his teaching in the discourse, for «These things I have spoken to you» becomes a familiar refrain concerning their activity in the world (15:11; 16:1,33). But further revelation would come with the Spirit (16:6–7, 12–13), who would supplement and interpret Jesus' historical teaching for new situations (14:26).
6. Teaching Jesus Tradition (14:26)
The commandments and words Jesus had already given them (14:21–25) were incomplete; but rather than depending on midrashic techniques to apply Jesus' meaning to more specific situations, believers would have the Spirit to explain all these matters to them (14:26). That the Spirit comes «in Jesus' name» probably means «in his place,» «as his representative» (see also comment on 14:13).8750
6A. The Spirit as Teacher and Recaller (14:26)
The Spirit is here the «Holy Spirit,» as elsewhere in John only in the Gospel's first and last references to the Spirit (1:33; 20:22); the full title мая help draw attention to the statement. As in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Holy Spirit could appear as a teacher (e.g., 1QS 2.3).8751 Given the difficulty of distinguishing between the Spirit as provider of inspired wisdom or insights8752 and the Spirit as inspirer of prophecy, I have elsewhere treated these categories together.8753
The Paraclete had been sent not only to continue Jesus' presence in the experience of the community but also to expound the teachings of Jesus within the proper confines set by those teachings. Such teaching, like haggadic midrash,8754 could no doubt be expansive;8755 but it would have to remain faithful to the Johannine Jesus tradition held by the community.8756 The Fourth Gospel itself might be seen as such a valid articulation of the Jesus tradition.8757 This, too, is closely connected with the context,8758 which concerns keeping Jesus' commandments (14:15–25); the Johannine community's equivalent of traditional halakah was the guidance of the Spirit.
The Spirit was going to teach (διδάξει) them πάντα (a familiar term with more limited nuances than the term itself need suggest; cf. 16[πάση,with v. 15]; 1 John 2:20,27) and bring to their remembrance πάντα that Jesus had spoken. Probably the phrase «which Jesus had spoken» should delimit both uses of πάντα here, so that the Spirit's teaching is neither wholly innovative nor simply repetitive (for the latter, «bring to remembrance» would have sufficed) but explanatory and applicational, like the exposition of Jewish sages.8759 The idea that the Spirit is «sent»8760 subordinates the Spirit to the sender's purpose as his agent, just as Jesus is also the Father's agent;8761 that he is sent «in Jesus' name» guarantees fidelity to the original message in the same way.8762
The Spirit's «teaching» activity probably stems from authentic Jesus tradition (Luke 12:12)8763 and also draws on a function of the Spirit and Wisdom in Wisdom texts. In Wis 7:21, Wisdom έδίδαξε Solomon; in Wis 8:7, Wisdom έκδιδάσκει φρόνησιν; in 9:17–18, God sent (επεμψας) his Holy Spirit from above and thus they were taught (έδιδάχθησαν).8764 For John, teaching must stem from God (6:45) and not merely fleshly human intellect (3:10). The Spirit's teaching role also appears as the «anointing» in 1 John 2:27, where the anointing teaches discernment between truth and error (2:26).
«Remembering,» of course, was key to the learning process not only in Jewish education8765 but throughout the Greco-Roman world.8766 Greeks thought that deities could bring matters to onés remembrance,8767 and sometimes associated this with special inspiration (Homer I1. 2.492). Jewish sources also emphasize divine help for memory.8768 A closer and more specifically relevant parallel here мая be Wis 12:2, where God both reproves (ελέγχεις) those who sin (cf. John 16:8–11) and reminds (ύπομιμνήσκων) them of what they have done; although the disciples are not accused of sin here, the verse мая recall the tradition of God as the reminder in Wisdom of Solomon, a popular and widely read work. In this context of the Paraclete, 14probably means that the Spirit will give wisdom in the hour of testing before the court of «the world,» bringing to remembrance the polemic of the Fourth Gospel for use in debates with the hostile synagogue leaders and those influenced by them.8769 After Jesus was glorified, the Spirit would bring to remembrance his teachings and works and help believers understand them in light of Scripture (2:22; cf. Luke 22:61) and know how to apply them (16:4; cf. Rev 2:5).
6B. Implications for the Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel is often thought to imply its own inspiration.8770 The parallels drawn by some scholars between the Paraclete and the implied author, the beloved disciple,8771 however, do not give enough attention to the fact that the whole community shares these parallels with the Paraclete and Jesus, as agents of the Father and/or Jesus.8772 But the case does not depend only on parallels between the Paraclete and the Fourth Gospel's implied author.
D. Moody Smith is among many scholars who contends that the sayings tradition of the Fourth Gospel мая have been heavily permeated by Christian prophecy: «If sectarian Judaism was the germinal ground of the Johannine tradition, spirit-inspired prophecy мая well have provided the specific occasion for the emergence of Johannine Christian affirmation in the form of words of Jesus.»8773 If one accepts this premise, however, one must ask whether the sayings were composed in the Johannine community and then transposed into Johannine idiom for the Gospel, as a collection of oracles,8774 or whether they were composed spontaneously by the author under prophetic inspiration. If the former proposal is accepted, we must question how the discourses fit so thoroughly well8775 into the themes of a Gospel whose fabric is so complexly interwoven that tradition (whether historical or prophetic) and redaction are virtually indistinguishable.8776
Probably the author envisioned the inspiration of his Gospel as a whole. Narratives8777 and literary works8778 could also lay claim to inspiration; even extant oracular responses мая have been edited, such as the Pythian utterances transposed into Homeric hexameter.8779 Odes of Solomon lays claim to inspiration for the process of its writing, not to prior stages of oral tradition.8780 Given the emphasis on inspiration of Christian witness in the Fourth Gospel, it is likely that the author conceived of his own work as reflecting at least a substantial measure of the Spirit's guidance. At the same time, claims to inspiration need not rule out dependence on genuine earlier tradition, as Smith also points out (citing 12:25; 13:34).8781
But need such inspiration have functioned prophetically in the narrowest sense of that term (oracular utterances)? John's use of an omniscient narrator8782 and foreshadowing8783 are common literary techniques that need not imply prophecy; there are also other models that can explain how the Johannine Jesus tradition could have been adapted for publication addressing the current needs of the Johannine community.
Were Christian prophets ... the only preachers or homilists in the first-century Christian communities? Is it not every bit as likely, if not more so, that the discourses in the Fourth Gospel emanate from inspired teachers, able to discern the profound theological significance of traditional material concerning the earthly Jesus?8784
Franck argues that since «teaching» can include midrashic exposition, John мая use midrashic hermeneutics to interpret Jesus and that one thus cannot draw the line between old and new revelations.8785
This would not rule out the presence of a prophetic element altogether; those who articulated the pesharim of Qumran no doubt felt that their expansive, currently oriented interpretations of the Word were insights into God s mysteries guided by his prophetic Spirit. The Fourth Gospel is very different from the apocalyptic/prophetic genre of Revelation, but both haggadic midrash and apocalyptic texts existed side by side in the Qumran community, and the Johannine community мая have been no different.
It is difficult to demonstrate that writers of haggadic midrash would have always considered their writing inspired, but what is relevant is that John purports to report the postresurrection perspective of the Spirit and uses language implying that his work is a witness to divine revelation (20:30–31), perhaps analogous to the prophet-historians who were believed to have authored the OT narratives. If John's emphasis on the Spirit's enabling to speak мая be compared with prophetic revelation, then it is also likely that his own text is to be understood as prophetically inspired. John мая not have drawn the sort of distinction between prophetic and didactic genres we are more apt to draw today (cf. 6:45; 1Cor 14:31).
But this ministry of the Spirit cannot be limited to the apostolic witness nor to the Fourth Gospel itself (cf. 1 John 2:20–27). The presence of the Spirit with them «forever» indicates that this exposition is expected to continue in the community, not to end with the death of the apostles;8786 the Paraclete would equip the community to confront ever new situations posed by the hostile world's charges. It is also possible that 14:27's promise of «peace» applies to the gift of the Spirit in a hostile world situation (cf. 20:19).
Most important, ancients sometimes believed that a text or tradition that was divinely inspired might require divine inspiration to understand (Iamblichus V.P. 1.1; cf. 1Cor 2:12–16). Thus those who would misunderstand the Johannine tradition would be those lacking the genuine guidance of the Paraclete (1 John 2:20, 27; 4:2, 6).
The Spirit is thus given to the community not only to keep them aware of the continuing presence of Jesus among them but to enable them to continually reapply the teaching of Jesus to ever new situations without becoming dependent upon a system of communal halakah. The Spirit thus was also equipping the Johannine community for the situation that lay before them, enabling them to witness in the context of grave opposition.
Encouragement for the Disciples (14:27–31)
Jesus leaves peace with the disciples (14:27), again encouraging them not to be afraid (14:27; see 14:1); he assures them that his departure will be better for him, not a cause of grief to them (14:28); he gives them advance warning, not to grieve them but so they мая have confidence that this is part of God's plan (14:29); and he must go because it is the Father's commandment (14:31).
1. Peace in Jesus' Departure (14:27–29)
In an assurance oracle, Jesus provides a promise of peace after his departure (14:27). Jesus reiterates his earlier command not to be afraid (14:1), a theme that also closes his direct discourse to the disciples along with another assurance of peace (16:33). This promise relates to a central motif in Jesus' last discourse, recognizing that after Jesus departed, the disciples would have to confront a hostile world (15:18–16:4). The promise begins to be fulfilled in 20:19, 21.8787
The language of assurance is standard (e.g., Jdt 11:1; T. Ab. 9:4B). «Peace» applies particularly to war8788 or human relationships,8789 but also (for Stoic thinkers especially) to tranquility in the midst of hardship8790 or to the bliss of the righteous after death;8791 it is also an eschatological hope for Israe1.8792 The pacifist Pharisaic tradition that survived in rabbinic literature8793 highly extolled the value of peace.8794 While the emphasis on «peace» is not unusual, Jesus' statement that he «leaves» it with them (άφίημι) мая sound like a legacy from one departing (cf. 14:18).8795
Their situation would be peace, and Jesus' situation would be better than it was while he was talking with them; he would be with the Father (14:28), as he had been explaining to his disciples earlier (14:2–6). Love for Jesus was earlier expressed by keeping his commandments (14:15), undoubtedly especially loving one another (13:34–35); here it is expressed by rejoicing for his joy once he returns to the Father. Unselfish joy for the bridegroom's exaltation also characterizes John the Baptist (3:29), though John's hearers rejoiced in him (5:35). The Fourth Gospel especially associates joy with Jesus' resurrection (16:20–22, 24; 20:20), hence with the new life believers experience in fellowship with him and with one another (15:11; 17:13).8796
Jesus would be in a more pleasant state with his Father, he says, «because the Father is greater than I» (14:28). Elsewhere he speaks of the Father's greatness (5:36; 10:29); as Jesus is greater than those he sends (13:16; 15:20), so is the Father greater than Jesus as his sender. Ancient Mediterranean culture regarded fathers as greater in rank than sons,8797 and dependence on the abundance of a benevolent father or patron was a far superior state to dependence merely on onés own lesser means. Those who suggest, on the basis of texts such as 14:28, that John denies Jesus' deity8798 read them outside the broader context of John's theological framework. In the whole of his Gospel, John plainly affirms Jesus' deity (1:1; 8:58; 20:28) but distinguishes Jesus from the Father (1:1b, 2), a perspective that confuses modern logic (and not a few ancient thinkers, considering the christological arguments of early centuries) unless one proposes some sort of construct like the more explicit later Trinitarian thought.8799 The issue is not Jesus' nondeity, or even his distinction from the Father (which is assumed), but his subordination to the Father,8800 which portrays Jesus as the Father's obedient agent and therefore appeals to those who honor the Father to honor him.
By announcing his departure before it happens, Jesus guards his disciples against their faith being caught totally unprepared (14:29; cf. 16:4; Mark 13:23; Matt 24:25). Jews recognized that God normally declared his purposes in advance, through his servants the prophets;8801 the fulfillment of such prophecies would also vindicate the prophetic spokespersons who declared them (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.8 1 6–8 1 8).8802 Early Jewish sources echo the biblical perspective that the fulfillment of such warnings would prove that God was with his people (Jub. 1:6), but because the Bible was the most widely shared theological source for early Judaism, John's wording here probably suggests a specific allusion to God's advance warning in Isaiah, also given so that people might believe (Isa 41:26; 48:5–7).
2. The Coming Prince of the World (14:30)
The «prince of this world» probably corresponds to the early Jewish sectarian title «spirit of error.» Some early Jewish sources recognized in the world both the «spirit of truth» and the «spirit of error» (cf. 1 John 4:6; see comment on 14:16). As Jesus announces the coming Spirit of truth (14:16–17), the Holy Spirit (14:26), he also announces «the prince of this world» (on this title, see more fully the comment on 12:31; cf. 16:11), apparently an eschatological figure (cf. 1 John 2:18; 4:3).8803 Although it is less clear that they were written before John than Qumran references to a spirit ruling the children of darkness, some other early Jewish texts could likewise speak of Beliar as ruling the world8804 or Satan as «the ruler of deception» (ό άρχων της πλάνης)8805 or the «prince» of even Jews who followed him.8806 The rabbinic tradition and some other Jewish traditions normally reserve the title «prince of the world» for God,8807 defining the world as the created order; but once one defines the «world» in terms of the peoples hostile toward God, as John does, it is relevant that the rabbis also acknowledged that evil angels ruled nations hostile toward God's people.8808 In this instance the rabbis reflected views held much more widely in early Judaism (Deut 32LXX; Dan 10:13, 20–21).8809
Some suggest that Satan would come «in the person of Judas Iscariot,» comparing the devil's work through him in 13and Judas's impending coming in 18:2–3.8810 Certainly Judas is linked with Satan in John and acts as the devil's agent (6:70; 13:2); but «prince of the world» is hardly an appropriate title for Judas, who follows, rather than leads, the world's agenda. The Johannine community was familiar with the tradition of a coming «antichrist,» whose spirit the author of 1 John argues was already in the world (1 John 2:18, 22). As «son of destruction» (17:12), Judas мая have embodied this impulse (cf. 2 Thess 2:3). Yet the allusion looks beyond Judas as the devil's agent. The «ruler of the world» appears in 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11; because the «ruler» is «cast out» by Jesus' realized-eschatological glorification in 12:31, it is likely that at least one segment of the Johannine community would have understood that the casting out refers to an end to Satan's rights in heaven (Rev 12:8–10).
The prince is likely the devil, but the devil is associated with those who carry out the devil's will (cf. 8:44). Interestingly, the language of «ruler» or «rulers» (άρχων) appears elsewhere in John only in regard to Jerusalem's elite (3:1; 7:26, 48; 12:42). A connection is not necessary but certainly possible; Paul and his contemporaries spoke of angelic «rulers» because they thought of the celestial rulers whose movements stood behind the earthly ones (Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; 1Pet 3:19–22).8811 It is these hostile Judean authorities and their socially powerful allies in John's day (see 16:2) who specifically typify the broader community of «the world» in 15:18–25.
Jesus spoke about disciples being «in him» and the reverse, unless they refused to accept his sacrificial service for them (13:8), but is adamant that Satan has no place whatsoever in him (14:30).8812 That the prince has «nothing in» Jesus echoes a Semitic idiom indicating he has «no claim» on him.8813 Popular Jewish tradition already recognized that those who are of the devil's portion (μερίδος) would reap death (Wis 2:24). In one Jewish story, Sammael as the Angel of Death could not lay hold of Moses because he had no claim on him, so Moses died directly by God's agency.8814 Despite widely circulated traditions about the archangel Michael as Israel's guardian in apocalyptic circles, in one Jewish tradition God appointed rulers over the nations but dealt with Israel directly (Sir 17:17). The devil has no claim against Jesus because he is sinless (8:46);8815 Jesus dies exclusively at his Father's command (14:31).8816 Against those who attributed Jesus' activity to demons (7:20; 8:48), it is Jesus' opponents who are children of the devil and act accordingly (8:44).
3. Going to the Cross (14:31)
Many find in 14a conclusion to a discourse, suggesting a seam between John's sources; the words can anticipate 18:1, so that an uninformed reader would not notice if chs. 15–17 had been excised.8817 A smaller number of scholars have argued that it is more likely that a single author would transpose his own sheets (attested, yet more likely, in Ps.-Asconius than in John); 14:25–31, then, should conclude after 16:33.8818 The problem with this proposal is that it presupposes a kind of book coming into widespread use only in the early second century.8819 The earliest manuscripts of John were probably scrolls, but even if they had been codices, if pages were misplaced in the manuscripts (after the author's time), why is this not reflected in the manuscript tradition? Further, why do the «misplaced pages» always end with clean sentence breaks rather than in midsentence? (It would be easier to propose that his notes were disordered or that he added later something he meant to add earlier; but this would not explain why he or his disciples failed to reedit their edition before publication.) Some others suggest that the words merely add realism, suggesting that the disciples left the room and they continued conversation as they walked toward the Mount of Olives;8820 this proposal is possible, though one would expect some narrative indicators to confirm this choreography.
John probably reflects the earlier passion narrative here: when Judas brought Jesus' earthly enemies, Jesus summoned his disciples with «Rise, let us go; the betrayer is at hand» (Mark 14:41–42); here the ruler of the world has provoked the similar moment of crisis for the disciples.8821 Certainly the parallel in wording is exact: έγείρεσθε. άγωμεν (Mark 14:42; John 14:31); but assuming that these words are from John's source in the Passion Narrative, perhaps known to his audience, could his emphasis on literary symbolism (e.g., 13:30) allow another reading here?
Dodd suggests that «let us go» connotes the rousing call to meet an enemy;8822 some others regard this reading as «strained.»8823 The context, however, determines that we should hear the sense similarly, removing the need to view these words as representing an editorial seam. (Whether or not it is an editorial seam, the final author allowed the words to stand because they suited his overall point; ancient writers did not have as much opportunity as moderns to make word-processing errors that would interpolate lines at the wrong point.) In this case, Jesus is saying, «I am going to the Father, and I am the way for you to go to the Father» (14:3–6, 28, 31); thus, «Rise, let us go there» (14:31).8824 He then informs the disciples that they cannot do anything unless they participate in him; in life or in death, their life depends on his life (15:1–7; cf. 14:19). In obedience to his Father (14:31; cf. 10:18; 12:49–50), Jesus is going to his death (8:21; 13:3,33; 14:2–3, 12; 16:5, 7, 10,15, 28; esp. in context 14:28),8825 and as the plural subjunctive implies, the disciples are to follow (although at this point they will ultimately prove unprepared to do so, 13:36–38).
John's informed reader мая already be equipped to understand the point here; in 11Jesus goes to expose himself to death that Lazarus мая live; in 11the disciples are to accompany him. Jesus' obedience in all matters (14:31, emphasized by καθώς and ούτως; cf. 8:29) would be praiseworthy;8826 contrary to the accusations of the opponents of John's audience, it is not Jesus but his opponents who undermine obedience to God.
* * *
For «disturbed,» see, e.g., Tob 12:16; Diogenes Laertius 10.85; 10.144.17; see more fully the comment on 11:33.
E.g., Deut 5:29; 6:5–6; 7:17; 8:2, 5, 14, 17; 9:4–5; 10:12; 11:13, 18; 13:13. John follows the Semitic preference for a distributive singular (Brown, John, 2:618), probably in Septuagintal idiom.
E.g., Berg, «Pneumatology,» 105, following Bultmann, John, 599.
So also, e.g., Bernard, John, 2:531; Michaels, John, 252.
E.g., 1 En. 92(«Do not let your spirit be troubled from the times»).
Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 1.113 (θάρρει).
Glasson, Moses, 75. Given the Hebrew penchant for parallelism, the idiom is frequent, especially with the Chronicler (1 Chr 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chr 20:15,17; 32:7) and the later prophets (Jer 46:27; Ezek 2:6; 3:9; cf. Ps 6:10; 83:17; Isa 37:27; Jer 17:18), but the Pentateuch would provide the most obvious foundational text.
Carson, Discourse, 18.
Mek. Bes. 7.124–130 on Exod 14emphasizes a qal vaomer here; how much more they believed in the Lord whose servant Moses was (see Smith, Parallels, 154). This link also became part of the Samaritan liturgy (MacDonald, Samaritans, 51, 180–81).
With Glasson, Moses, 78.
As in Berg, «Pneumatology,» 113, who rightly doubts polemic against the unbelieving synagogue (Segovia) and especially against future eschatology (Becker).
For «letters of consolation,» see, e.g., Plutarch Conso1. passim, Mor. 608B-612B; Apoll, passim, Mor. 101F-122A; Theon Progymn. 8.53; 1 Thess 4:13–18; P.Oxy. 1874.12–21; Stowers, Letter Writing, 142–46; Lewis, Life, 80–81.
Hunter, John, 141.
Smith, Parallels, 158–59, citing Sipre Deut. 32:4.
Holwerda, Spirit, 20 n. 52; also Calvin, John, 2(on John 14:2), though denying the «degrees» interpretation prevalent in his day. Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 60, appeals to Philo to make this a symbol of the Logos.
Pass, Glory, 66–68; MacGregor, John, 305 (as a metaphor for «God's immediate presence»); cf. Sanders, John, 321 (a king's palace). Michaels, John, 252, thinks the allusion is to the temple but that it is used as a metaphor for heaven.
Kangus, «Father's House,» applies the image here to Christ's body, the church.
T. Zebah. 13:6. Cf. t. Sukkah 4:3/b. Sukkah 53b, attributed to Hillel, in which God says to Israel, «If you come to My house, I come to your house» (Urbach, Sages, 1:577; Sandmel, Judaism, 240). Cf. also Buchanan, Hebrews, 161.
Blomberg, Reliability, 198, following esp. McCaffrey, House.
Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 68.2.1; he suggested that God's people and kingdom is even now being built (68.2.2).
Flight 76; in 77, it is «eternal life» to take refuge with him, but death to flee from him.
Plutarch Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780CD.
Porphyry Marc. 11.191–193,196–198; 19.318–319 (νεώς is Attic for ναός); cf. also his neoplatonist alternative in which either the divine or an evil δαιμόνιον dwell in (ένοικέω) the soul ι Marc. 21.333–336; cf. 19.321–322; 21.331–332, 336–339).
Epictetus Diatr. 1.25.20–21.
Epictetus Diatr. 1.14.13–14 (LCL 1:104–5).
Epictetus Diatr. 2.8.10–11 (LCL 1:260–61).
Epictetus Diatr. 2.8.14. The Loeb translator (1:262–63) translates temporally, «when» he is present, but the participle can as easily be taken as «since.» One could beseech Mithras to «dwell» in onés ψυχή (PCM 4.709–710), an entreaty that might have erotic overtones (so Betz, Papyri, 52) or мая even reflect Christian influence. Cf. 1 John 3:9.
Seneca Ep. Luci1. 73.16 (after arguing that good people are divine, 73.12–16). In a different vein, Ovid Fasti6.5–6 claimed that a god was in mortals, leaving them seeds (semina) of inspiration; cf. divinizing intimacy and union in Iamblichus V.P 33.240.
If Aune, Prophecy, 33–34, is correct that pre-Christian Greek literature has barely any real examples associating Pythian prophecy with possession, the OT background мая be prominent here.
OTP 2:341; Latin, p. 195.
OTP 1(Greek: ed. Charles, 136).
OTP 1(ed. Charles, 196). In 10:3, where God dwells, God will rescue the person and exalt him.
Cf. Sylvia Mary, Mysticism, 72.
Wis 7:27; see also Wis 1:4; 10:16; thus the righteous would also abide with wisdom (Wis 7:28, συνοικοΰντα) and with God (3:9, προσμενοΰσιν), and wisdom would live with them (8:9,16).
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 109.
M. Sukkah 2:9; cf. p. Sukkah 2:10, §1.
CIJ 1:264–65, §337; 1:384, §523; 1:387, §527; cf. 2:68, §820 (קברא תה ב [ת] עלמא, «Ce tombeau, demeure éternelle»); the first of these references is also cited by Leon, Jews, 127.
Cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 196; Epictetus Diatr. 1.25.21. Cf. the «dwellings of Hades» in Euripides Alc. 25, 73,436–437.
Cf. 2 En. 61:2–3 (both A and J).
Heraclitus Ep. 5, to Amphidamas (Cyn. Ep. 194–95). Philo regarded air, the lowest of heavens, as the οίκος of bodiless souls (Dreams 1.135).
This is late, as мая be the «rooms» of God's heavenly palaces in the Merkabah traditions, cited by P. Alexander on 3 En. 1(OTP 1:247).
Texts Β and C, followed by Knibb, ed., 219, against A, which E. Isaac, trans., 73, renders «great things.» Edersheim, Life, 570, cites rabbinic support for eschatological abodes assigned by rank.
In 7.15–16B, Abraham's soul was in heaven, but his body would μένει (rendering as if it were μενεί) on earth till the resurrection of all flesh.
Hanson, Gospel, 177.
Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 2:3. The tradition attributed to R. Akiba in Mek. Pisha 14.15–21; Bes. 1.173–177 on Exod 12:37; 13(in Bonsirven, Judaism, 204; Daube, Judaism, 30) мая imply future sukkoth in the new exodus (cf. Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 78). The Temple Scroll implies that ideally booths were erected in the temple itself during Sukkoth (Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 90), an image that might fit well the temple as the Father's house of 14:2; but most erected them elsewhere (e.g., atop other houses, Neh 8:16).
Lev. Rab. 27:1.
Β. B. Bat. 75a; Ruth Rab. 3:4; Pesiq. Rab. 31:6. Bernard, John, 2:531, cites 2 En. 62and 1 En. 39as saying something like this; McNamara, Judaism, 239, also cites 2 En. 62and 1 En. 41:2; but Barrett, John, 457, is probably correct that these passages are not relevant to the interpretation of John 14:2. Cf. the source attempts of Bacon, «House.»
Lightfoot, Commentary, 275.
Davies, Land, 324–25. For uses of the term, see 1:32, 33, 38–39; 3:36; 4:40; 5:38; 6:56; 7:9; 8:31, 35; 9:41; 10(cf. v. 38); (11:10); 11:54; 12:24,46; (14:10, 11 [εν]); 14:17, (20 [έν]), 23, 25; (15[έν]); 15:4, 5,6, 7, 9,10,16; (17:21,23,26 [έν]); 21:22, 23. The idea of the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:24–28) and OT imagery for God's indwelling (though, more commonly, his resting upon) are probably also relevant; for a complete discussion, see Malatesta, Inferiority, 42–77.
The shift between God being their dwelling place and them being his is not particularly significant, since both communicate the idea of presence and relationship (though cf. also Pesiq. Rab. 21:10).
B. Sank. 22a, attributed to Simon the Pious, says that this is the proper attitude for prayer (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 345, §907). See Abelson, Immanence, 377–79, for connections between the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah in rabbinic literature.
2 Bar. 4:3.
McNamara, «Resting-Place»; cf. idem, Targum, 142–43. Glasson, Moses, 75, comments reservedly on the view that a paschal tradition is in view (Exod 23has a «place prepared,» but Oesterley's connections to the paschal liturgy are not particularly convincing); but the woman in the «place prepared» in Rev 12 evokes more of the imagery of Sukkoth.
Cf. the common use of makom, «place,» as a divine title in later rabbinic circles, signifying God's omnipresence (3 En. 18:24; m. 'Abot 2:9,13; 3:14; Sipra VDDen. pq. 18.104.22.168; 22.214.171.124; Sipra Sav M.Dpar. 98.7.7; Sh. M.D. 99.1.4, 5, 7; 99.2.2, 3; 99.3.9, 11; 99.5.13; Sipra Qed. par. 126.96.36.199; pq. 188.8.131.52; Sipra Emorpq. 184.108.40.206; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; Sipre Deut. 1.8.3; 1.9.2; 1.10.4; 2.1.1; 11.1.1; 21.1.1; 24.3.1; 26.4.1; 28.1.1; 32.3.2; 32.5.8; 33.1.1; 37.1.1, 3; 38.1.1, 3; Keener, Marries, 150 n. 27). Patte, Hermeneutic, 25, points out that Torah is a «place» of God's dwelling, a surrogate for God's presence in the temple; but this view мая have arisen only gradually after 70 C.E. and is less common than the more common use as a title for God.
For the localization of inspiration (albeit not the Spirit; see Keener, Spirit, 7–8) in Greek sanctuaries, see Aune, Prophecy, 31.
For the Spirit indwelling the covenant community in the Scrolls, see 11QT 51.7–8; Bruce, «Spirit,» 54; idem, Corinthians, 45; the Shekinah is inseparably connected with the community in b. Sanh. 58b; B. Qam. 83a; Yebam. 64a; cf. Gen. Rab. 86:6. For bibliography, see esp. Malatesta, Inferiority, 345–48.
For the connection with Rev 12:6, see also Beale, Revelation, 649 (interpreting John 14:2–3 as I do).
E.g., Michaels, John, 252 (but the cm can be explained either way–cf. Smith, John , 267).
MacGregor, John, 305.
Irenaeus Haer. 5.36.2. «Mansions» enters the AV and RV from Tyndalés use of the Vulgate and Old Latin, «where the word bears its proper meaning, 'places where a traveller halts and rests upon his journey'» (Swete, Discourse, 6; cf. also Whitacre, John, 348).
E.g., Ellis, Genius, 220; Whitacre, John, 348. Cf. Luther, Sermon on John 14, contrasting the abodes with the earthly homes Christ's followers surrender for him (Matt 19:29).
Holwerda, Spirit, 84.
Ibid., 67. Akiba could say a generation was left fatherless when R. Eliezer died, since rabbis could be called «father» ('Abot R. Nat. 25 A).
Ridderbos, John, 490–91.
Bürge, Community, 145.
Gundry, «House,» 69–70; cf. idem, Tribidation, 154–55. Cf. Légasse, «Retour.»
Dodd, Interpretation, 395.
Bultmann, Theology, 2:57.
As Berg, «Pneumatology,» 144, points out, following other scholars, there is no inherent contradiction between referring this to the resurrection appearances and referring it to the Paracletés coming, «which is associated with and yet distinct from those appearances.»
Cf. Bartlett, «Coming,» 73 (John 14–16 points toward ch. 20, since John identifies Easter and Pentecost). This need not exclude future eschatology as foreign to John's thought, as Dodd, Bultmann, and Robinson, Coming, 176, мая believe; but it does suggest that it is not here in view. It need not be a response to the delay of the Parousia (against Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 96).
Barrett, John, 457; Carson, Discourse, 24 (although Carson reads the passage as referring to the end of the age).
So also Brown, John, 2:620, although he speaks of it as «a place in heaven.» 79Holwerda, Spirit, 84; Blomberg, Reliability, 198, and Talbert, John, 204 (comparing being
With the Lord» in 1 Thess 4:17, which admittedly does reflect traditional language). Traditional dispensational writers, among others, often hold this view; cf. Strombeck, Rapture, 24. Others мая see a reference to Christ's coming for the believer at death, e.g., Strachan, Gospel, 194; Boettner, «Postmillenialism,» 206; Payne, Appearing, 74, which at least could appeal to some contextual support (13:36–38), unlike the futuristic Parousia interpretation.
Although such language had broad religious associations (Sir 6:22; Wis 1:2; Let. Aris. 264; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.100–101; Posterity 16), this мая reflect the Sinai motif in John, in which the disciples function as a new Moses (e.g., 1:14, cf. 2Cor 3; Bernard, John, 2:540).
Thus the artificial similarity of the three questions (14:5,8, 22) need not require pure invention, which might not well explain the citation of the obscure Judas (Brown, John, 2:641).
Those who deny this acceptance (e.g., Bultmann) must employ a standard of consistency not applicable to other ancient sources, then impose their exegesis of some texts on the whole of John's theology by resorting to excising as interpolations passages for the removal of which there is no evidence.
Segovia, «Structure,» 482–84, followed by Berg, «Pneumatology,» 111, suggest three elements in 14:4–14: (1) an opening christological statement (14:4, 7, 10); (2) the state of the disciples' belief 14:5, 8, 11); and (3) expansion of the opening christological statement (14:6, 9, 12–14), climaxing in 14:12–14.
For the misunderstanding motif here and elsewhere, see, e.g., Jonge, Jesus, 16.
Recognized, e.g., by Carson, Discourse, 26, though he believes that 14refers to a future coming.
E.g., Gundry, «House,» 70.
Swete, Discourse, 14–15.
Xenophon Cyr. 1.4.1; cf. Apol1. Κ. Tyre 17.
DeConick, Mystics, 69–73 (citing Philo Migration 168–175, plus the later Odes of Solomon and Hermetica); cf. also Porphyry Marc. 6.105; 8.136. She also suggests that the way's localization in Jesus is meant to counter the Gospel of Thomas (the traditions of which are echoed in Thomas's ignorance in 14:5).
Keener, Background Commentary, 299; Bell, I Am, 259.
See, e.g., ÓDay, «John,» 742.
One мая compare over seventy references to «ways» as behavior (e.g., the ways of righteousness or wickedness) in Proverbs LXX alone.
E.g., Tob 1:3; Jub. 20:2; 23:20–21; 4Q400 frg. 1, co1. 1 line 14; Sib. Or. 3.233. Cf. the use of «way» in Islamic Arabic (Bishop, Apostles, 107–8); and various pedagogic approaches in Iamblichus V.P. 19 (on which see Dillon and Hershbell, «Introduction,» 28).
Cf. also behavioral «walking» in 1 En. 91:19; 94:1; Jub. 21:2; 25:10; 1QS 3.9, 18; 4.6, 12; 5.10; 6.2; 9.8, 19; CD 2.15–16; 7.4, 6–7; 8.9; 1Cor 7:17; Gal 5:16, 25; 6:16; Phil 3:17–18; Col 1:10; 2:6; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:1.
Philo Confusion 95–96; τόπον here invites some comparison with the later rabbinic use of mokom for God's omnipresence (for Torah as a surrogate for God's presence, cf. Patte, Hermeneutic, 25). The Logos is God's house in Philo Migration 5–6.
Philo Flight 203.
E.g., Lev. Rab. 29(fifth century C.E., citing Prov 3:18; 15:24); Exod. Rab. 30:12; Dodd, «Background,» 335, cites a late midrash on Ps 25:10. Rabbis also spoke of a gate of right behavior leading to hfe (Lev. Rab. 30:2); see also comment on the two ways in Keener, Matthew, 250–51, on Matt 7:13–14.
Cf. also Pryke, «Eschatology,» 49. The Qumran sect's depiction of themselves as the «way» 1QS 9.17) probably also stems from Isa 40 (1QS 8.14; note also the allusion in 1QS 9.19–20).
Older commentators cited the literal path through which mystery initiates discovered esoteric lore (Ramsay, Teaching, 302).
Plato Philebus 16BC.
Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.29.
Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.31.
Marcus Aurelius 6.22.
Bell, I Am, 273.
For the parallel with Torah in an early rabbinic parable ('Abot R. Nat. 24A), see comments in Keener, Matthew, 255; Gundry, Matthew, 135. Others also cite various Synoptic sayings (e.g., Matt 10:32–33) in which onés public confession of Jesus determines onés status before God at the judgment (McKnight, «Jesus,» 67).
E.g., Kazui Yagi, «Theology,» followed (or entertained) by Culpepper, «Culture,» 122–23. White, «No One Comes,» thinks that the text does not limit genuine spiritual experience to Jesus' followers, but does claim that such experiences of the divine are mediated by Christ alone.
Charlesworth, «Exclusivism,» 510. As we have noted, however, distinguishing redaction from tradition is not easy in John; further, different communities would differ on which elements are authoritative (e.g., some would reject even tradition and others accept even redaction), a question beyond the pale of exegesis per se.
Although it is true that John also speaks from the perspective of a minority religious community concerned with self-definition and might therefore have articulated his views differently in a different context (ÓDay, «John,» 744–45; cf. also Charlesworth, «Exclusivism,» comparing Qumran), it does not follow that he would have therefore abandoned his exclusivism, which seems entrenched in the essentially sectarian apostolic preaching of early Christianity; but beyond this observation this question is, in any case, a hermeneutical and pastoral rather than historical one and hence should not detain us extensively in a commentary focused on social-historical questions.
Cf. Bell, I Am, 273.
E.g., Falk, Jesus, 86.
See introduction, pp. 214–28. Cf. Bell, I Am, 273–74, 282–83.
Boccaccini, Judaism, 265.
Cf. 4QpNah 4.3. Other Jews also could acknowledge some of their compatriots as apostate (1Macc 1:51–53) or even expect apostasy of most in the end time (T. Iss. 6:1), but the Essenes were more sectarian, usually identifying their own community with the true remnant of Israel (Flusser, Judaism, 49).
On the «way» in the Scrolls, cf., e.g., McCasland, «Way»; Zon, «Droga»; Fitzmyer, «Christianiny» 240. «Ways» (דרכי) is common in an ethical and communal sense in the Scrolls (e.g., CD 1.13; 2.3; 4Q405 frg. 23, co1. 1.11; 4Q185 frg. 1–2, co1. 2.1–2; 4Q400 frg. 1, co1. 1.14; 4Q473 frg. 1); cf. also «paths» of righteousness (נחיבוח, CD 1.16; cf. Matt 21:32; Charles, Jubilees, lxxxiv, мая be right to suppose Jab. 23:20–21 relevant).
Some associate «door» with the tabernacle (see comment on the fold in John 10), and «way» also makes sense here (Heb 9:8) but both are too specific a usage to be likely without other clues supporting them.
See Smith, John (1999), 269.
Brown, John, 2:621; Leal, «Via»; cf. the grammar of 1Cor 1:30. The first και «may be epexegetical or explanatory» (Brown, John, 2:621, following Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 228).
E.g., p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Gen. Rab. 81:2. See further Marmorstein, Names, 73,179–81; Urbach, Sages, 1; cf. the «God of truth» in 4Q416 frg. 1, line 14 (with a moral emphasis). The personification of «truth» in occasional Greek texts (Maximus of Tyre Or. 10.1; Philostratus Hrk. 33.37) appears to be no more than a rhetorical device, though polytheism would have allowed for more.
See PGM 5.145–147 (referring to Israel's God in 5.98–99; cf. Deissmann, Light, 142). This мая, however, reflect a pagan pattern; Thoth appears as the master and embodiment of truth in PDM61.74–75.
B. cAbod. Zar. 4b, citing Prov 23:23. Painter, John, 46, believes that John plays on the Jewish idea of Torah as truth; cf. also Longenecker, Christology, 40.
Potterie, «Truth,» 63–64.
Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 104, citing Tanhuma, ed. Buber, 2.115; for Cleanthes as the very «image» of his teacher Zeno, see Seneca Ep. 6. In 1397, Profiat Duran (Isaac ben Moses Halevi) claimed that this verse in John indicated intimacy with God but not divinity (Lapide, Hebrew, 40).
Cf. Wis 7:24–27; Philo Confusion 97,147; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Drunkenness 133; Eternity 15; Flight 101; Heir 230; Planting 18; Spec. Laws 1.81; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; see further comment on the prologue.
Interestingly, in one strand of extant passion material, Jesus announced with such language that the world would see his glory at the Parousia (Matt 26:64; Luke 22:69; omitted in Mark 14:62); this illustrates John's emphasis on realized eschatology (cf. Rev 14:13) and the disciples.
Jub. 11:14–15; Liv. Pro. 19 (Joad) (§30 in Schermann's Greek text); Josephus Ant. 8.231; L.A.B. 40:1. This мая be the implication of Plutarch Alex. 20.4–5.
Xenophon Anab. 4.1.18. Similarly he recalls the name of a hoplite who defended him (4.2.21) and a soldier who opposed him (3.4.47–49).
E.g., Bernard, John, 2:540; Hanson, Gospel, 179. The eight uses of δείκνυμι in Revelation are apocalyptic, but many of the seven uses in John are visible to the eye (5:20; 10:32; 20:20), suggesting a request for a visible theophany (Boice, Witness, 33–34). Cf. pagan petitions for the invisible supreme deity to make himself manifest (Plutarch Isis 9, Mor. 354D).
In Philo Spec. Laws 1.41 and Posterity 16, Moses' request becomes, εμφάνισαν μοι σαυτόν; Philo мая have also viewed Moses' prophetic ecstasy as milder than Abraham's or Balaam's (Levison, «Prophecy in Philo»). For Israel's desire to see God at the giving of the law, see, e.g., Exod. Rab. 41:3.
For Philo, one could see God only if God manifested himself (Abraham 80; cf. Posterity 16); cf. Wis 1(God εμφανίζεται himself to those who do not disbelieve him).
Philo Abraham 77.
Philo Spec. Laws 1.41,45.
Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.100–101.
For the Son acting only at the Father's will, see further comment on 5:19, 30. «The words I speak to you» reflects consistent Johannine idiom (6:63).
Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 68–70.
E.g., R. Huna, on study of Torah (p. Hag. 1:7, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5).
E.g., Aristotle Rhet. 2.20.4,1393b; see further Anderson, Glossary, 110–11, and sources there (esp. Quintilian 9.2.100–101).
Jeremias, Promise, 38.
Richardson, Theology, 360.
See, e.g., Kydd, Gifts; Irvin and Sunquist, Movement, 145–47; Shogren, «Prophecy»; sources in Schatzmann, Theology, 82 n. 40.
Swete, Discourse, 29.
With Hays, Vision, 143.
Some texts provide a bridge from miraculous to ethical works (6:28–29).
Cf. Swete, Discourse, 29.
Carson, Discourse, 42; cf. Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 72.3.2.
Dietzfelbinger, «Werke.» On Jesus' activity as a broker or mediator, see more extended comment on 15:15.
Ancients might attribute miracles to disciples of miracle workers, though usually somewhat less dramatically (Iamblichus V.P. 28.135; p. Tacan. 3:8, §2).
Cf. Gabriel praying in God's name (1 En. 40:6).
PGM 1.160–161,167,216–217; 12.316; Lucan C.W. 6.732–734; Apuleius Metam. 2.28; 3.29. Pulleyn, «Names,» however, doubts that Greek religion attached magical efficacy to name invocation of its gods.
For the sacred name of Israel's God, Incant. Text 20.11–12; 69.6–7; CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168; Γ. So1. 18:15–16; Pr. Jos. 9; b. Git. 68ab; Num. Rab. 16:24; also revelatory texts in Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. For Jewish support of, and opposition to, magic, see sources in Keener, Spirit, 29–30 n. 21.
PGM 1.168–172. Contrast the emphasis on obedience in John's context.
Though in a later period, Christian magical syncretism also appeared (see, e.g., Gitler, «Amulets»).
Some were against petitionary prayer (Van der Horst, «Maximus»), but this was surely the exception.
E.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38,451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:7; Apoc. Ab. 17:8, 13. Garland, Matthew, 79 notes that after Catullus piles up titles of Diana, he concludes, «whatever name you prefer» (Poems 34).
Burkert, Religion, 74.
Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 129; cf. also Plutarch Cor. 25.3; Camillus 5.7 (concerning Roman rituals); Jeffers, World, 90; Aune, «Religion,» 919–20,923; in the rabbis, cf. p. Her. 1:5, §5.
E.g., Homer II. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62, 66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778; cf. also Maximus of Tyre, who reports the first Iliad example (Or. 5.2) but rejects its literal plausibility (5.3). When sacrifices did not achieve their effect, people might complain they were in vain (Alciphron Farmers 33 [Thalliscus to Petraeus], 3.35, par. 1); Zeus was too busy elsewhere (par. 2).
See comments on John 8:33–39; for the efficacy of Abraham's intercessory prayer, see T. Ab. 14:8; 18:10–11A; lQapGen 20:16,28–29, though many religious figures shared this power (Harrington, «Abraham Traditions,» 171).
E.g., Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 80; Dowd, «Theology,» 333, because believers are «in the Father and the Son.» Compare «in the name» with being «in» Jesus (Westcott, John, 204, citing 6:56; 14:20; 15:4–7; 16:33; 1 John 5:20).
See Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 235 (on 15:12–17); DeSilva, Honor, 97–98, 137.
Xenophon Cyr. 1.4.1; cf. Apol1. Κ. Tyre 17; a member of the household normally had special access (John 8:35). Alexander reportedly encouraged people to ask boldly, depending on his generosity (Plutarch Alex. 39.3–4; cf. Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.21; 3.6). Objects of such favor were always selective; e.g., people might grant any special requests to heroes (Hermogenes Issues 81.5–23; Libanius Declamation 36.13); one ruler invited his teacher to request whatever he wished (Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.28–29).
1 En. 6(if Semyaza means «he sees the Name»); perhaps 1 Chr 13LXX; Jeremias, Theology, 10; Longenecker, Christology, 43; Bietenhard, «όνομα,» 268–69. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7, cites m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8.
Sanders, John, 324, comparing also Acts 3:6,16; 4:10; 16:18; also Schnackenburg, John, 3:73; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 247–48.
Whitacre, John, 355, citing Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 73.3. Augustine also notes that one receives what one asks only if one does not ask wrongly (Tr. Ev. Jo. 73.1.1, citing Jas 4:3).
To speak «in God's name» could, however, simply mean to speak as one loyal to him (Jos. Asen. 9in light of ch. 8; cf. Acts 4:17).
Dowd, «Theology,» 334.
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 152. By contrast, Lee, Thought, 256, suggests that «in the name» represents a Hebraism for prayer addressed to Jesus; but the texts themselves also speak of prayer to the Father in Jesus' name (16:23, 26).
Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5 passim (e.g., 5.1, Midas's prayers); Diogenes Laertius 2.136; 6.2.42; Sent. Sext. 88.
Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.8. For Maximus's similarity to (though stronger rejection of petition than) the Neoplatonists in 5.9, see Trapp, Maximus, 41.
Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.3.
Contrast Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.9; Iamblichus V.P. 28.145 (though supporting prayer, see VP 28.137; Myst. 1.12,15; 5.26); also Seneca Nat. 4.6.2–3; 4.7.1; asking simply for «good things» generally in Xenophon Mem. 1.3.2; but cf. Rom 8:26.
E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.44–102; 3.287–298, 308–309; 11.100–105; 14.129–153; Apollodorus 3.4.3; cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.2, who cites as a familiar saying, «Do not ask for what you will wish you had not gotten.»
E.g., Lei. Ans. 18.
Goodenough, Symbols, 2:160.
E.g., Lev. Rab. 16:9. One guarantee of answered prayer apparently rests on its timing (T. Adam 1:10, probably redacted third century C.E.).
Echoes of such promises abound into second-century tradition, though sometimes offering explanations for delays (e.g., Herrn. Mand. 9, echoing Jas 1:6–8).
Cf. Porphyry Marc. 13.226–227 (cf. 13.227–229) on asking for God himself, and 12.209–218, on asking only for what is eternal and divine. One with secret knowledge assures his guest that he мая ask whatever information he wants (Philostratus Hrk. 6.1) concerning the secrets of Protesilaos (5.5–6). The request here could be revelatory, but see John 14:8–9.
See Lewis, Life, 98. Despite some perceived decline in oracular interest (Plutarch Obso1. passim; Parke, Oracle, 381), they were still widely consulted (see Collins, Oracles, 5; Nilsson, Piety, 166; Aune, Prophecy, 51).
See Moule, «Individualism.»
Cf., e.g., Fee, Spirit, 95.
Segovia, «Structure,» 485, followed for the most part by Berg, «Pneumatology,» 117–18
See Trapp, Maximus, 237 (though sometimes repetition stems from treating a topic under various headings; cf. Dillon and Hershbell, «Introduction,» 3). On the rhetorical prominence of John's repetitions in this discourse, see Kennedy, Interpretation, 85.
Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 4, thinks 14:15–17 and 14are doublets and that the condition in 14may represent the same saying as in 15:10. Such observations are possible, though impossible to prove or disprove at our remove.
E.g., J En. 108:1; see our comments on pp. 358–59.
Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 75. Some Jewish farewell discourses (e.g., Jub. 36) included exhortations to obey the law (see Bürge, Community, 26, summarizing U. B. Müller). On keeping the commandments, see further Pancaro, Law, 431–51.
Also Sir 3:15–17. Love is the highest motivation for obedience (Sipre Deut. 32.1.1). Cf. also «lover of the law» (φιλόνομος) or «of the commandment» (φιλέντολος) in CIJ 1:78, §111; 1:92, §132; 1:372, §509; cf. 1:372, §508.
M. Sotah 9:15; Mek. Beš. 7.135–137; Sipre Deut. 173.1.3; 'Abot R. Nat. 11, §28; b. Sukkah 28a, bar.; p. cAbod '. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sotah 9:16, §2; Exod. Rab. 5:20; Lev. Rab. 35:7; Song Rab. 1:1, §9; 8:9, §3; other references in Davies, «Mekilta,» 98; idem, Paul, 207. For the Spirit or wisdom as a gift, see, e.g., Wis 8:21; 9:17; Sir 1:10; Rom 5:5; Gal 3:2; perhaps Sib. Or. 4.46.
Josephus Ant. 3.192; b. Sank 39b; see also L.A.B. 42(God's message); Sipre Deut. 176.1.1 (prophets); t. Sanh. 4(gift of Torah).
E.g., 3 En. 2:4; 'Abot R. Nat. 14A; 28, §57B; b. B. Bat. 10a; Sotah 48b; Num. Rab. 12:21; Deut. Rab. 6:14.
Cf. also the Greek principle that the gods listen to whoever obeys (Homer II. 1.218).
God first loved his people (Deut 7:6–8) and would keep covenant with them if they obeyed (7:9–10); thus, they should obey him (7:11). For a broader Mediterranean perspective, cf. also patrons' free gifts to clients, the continuance of which depended on clients' displays of gratitude (DeSilva, Honor, 148).
Jesus speaks of keeping his commandments, but John's verb often appears in conjunction with observing God's commandments (Brown, John, 2:638).
The primary function of the Paraclete promise is to stress Jesus' continuing presence (Berg, 'Pneumatology,» 123).
For the Spirit as Jesus' gift in John, see Büchsei, Geist, 490–98. For links between 14and 14:16, see Becker, Evangelium, 2:464.
Smith, Parallels, 153.
As Berg, «Pneumatology,» 72, points out, scholars have increasingly «recognized that the understanding of the paraclete must be centered upon the presentation in G [John] itself.»
Noted, e.g., by Becker, Evangelium, 2:471.
Pace Michaelis, «Herkunft,» 147 (contrasting the Gospel and 1 John). Grayston, Epistles, 13–14, thinks John 13–17 was written in response to issues raised by 1 John; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 61–67, finds stylistic parallels with 1 John, and (pp. 75–78) thinks that 1 John мая have been drawn upon in the Gospel's composition.
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 100.
Mussner, «Parakletsprüche,» 56–59. This does not mean that they cannot derive from sources; they мая even have roots in the Synoptic tradition (Dodd and Brown, in Bürge, Community, 205–6; Sasse, «Paraklet,» 276). But all extant evidence suggests that they were part of the final, circulated edition of the Fourth Gospe1.
This essentially follows the line of ante-Nicene interpretation, in which the Paraclete establishes the true Catholic faith; see Casurella, Paraclete, 3–26.
Mussner, «Parakletsprüche,» 64–70.
Brown, Community, 28–29. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 123–25, critiques Brown's reconstruction of the Sitz (uneasiness caused by the eyewitnesses' deaths and the delay of the Parousia).
Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 123.
ÓDay, «John,» 747, thinks John probably draws on all meanings, including comforter, helper, and «one who makes appeal on onés behalf.»
This view was proposed by W. Bauer and argued particularly by Bultmann, but even Bultmann later backed off somewhat from his identification with the Mandean «helper» Yawar; see the summary in Bürge, Community, 10–11.
Michaelis, «Herkunft,» 150–62, followed by Holwerda, Spirit, 30–32; Barrett, «Spirit in Gospel,» 11; Shafaat, «Geber,» 268–69. The Jawar of Mandean myth мая actually have been modeled on the Johannine Paraclete (Sanders, John, 330).
Bammel, «Paraklet,» 214, pointing out that John was actually attempting to limit the meaning by this specific term.
Brown, John, 2:1137–39; see, e.g., Leaney, «Paraclete.»
On the sense this makes in the context of a farewell discourse, see Müller, «Parakletenvorstellung,» 61–62.
Casurella, Paraclete, 3–4, noting that Origen is the first extant witness to this interpretation. Cf. «comfort [or encouragement] of the Spirit» in Acts 9:31.
Scott, Spirit, 199–200; Riesenfeld, «Paraclete,» 273. Cf. the occasional use of «Comforter» for the Messiah in Amoraic texts (Num. Rab. 13:5; Lam. Rab. 1:16, §51), probably related to the restorationist comfort language of Second Isaiah (Isa 40:1; 51:3; 61:2; 66:13; cf. Isa 12:1; 22:4; similarly Luke 2:25).
Davies, «Parakleitos,» 35–38, esp. 37.
As noted by Sanders, John, 327.
Stevens, Theology, 190.
Snaith, «Paraclete,» 50.
Barrett, «Spirit in Gospel,» 14. Franck, Revelation, 30–36, argues for this as a part of the sense;
Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 136. All of this would support the contention of Schnackenburg, «Gemeinde,» that the Gospel's final form advocates a function of the Spirit fitting the whole framework of early Christianity, not a theologically marginal ecstatic experience.
Cf. also Holwerda, Spirit, 35–36; Shafaat, «Geber,» 267.
Shafaat, «Geber,» 263–69, on 1QH 3:8–10; 1QS 4:20–23. One мая note how this interpretation would sound in an Islamic context (Shafaat authored this article from Saudi Arabia).
Franck, Revelation, 132–44.
Grayston, «ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΤΟΣ,» argues that the term only means «sponsor» or «patron» and that this was sometimes used in legal contexts; cf. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 120, who advocates the translation «representative» because of its semantic breadth. Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 618, also says that the technical meaning of «lawyer» or «attorney» is much rarer than «mediator, intercessor, or helper»; but this мая simply mean that a legal image was naturally applied to other forms of intercession. Patristic literature often uses the term for the Holy Spirit, but also simply as «advocate, intercessor, spokesman on someonés behalf» (Lampe, Lexicon, 1018–19). Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 1313, gives for the classical period first the forensic and then the intercessory sense. But the line between the two senses is not easily drawn once one allows metaphorical extensions, and Holwerda, Spirit, 27, naturally says that Paraclete nearly «always bears the forensic meaning of advocate or intercessor»; cf. similarly Quispel, «Qumran,» 146; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 25, 29; Le Déaut, «L'intercession,» 48–49.
With, e.g., Wotherspoon, «Paraclete»; Sanders, John, 327; Strachan, Gospel, 185; Swete, Discourse, 38; MacGregor, John, 293; Hunter, John, 145–46; Ladd, Theology, 293–94; Carson, Discourse, 51; Potterie, «Paraklet,» 85; Trites, Witness, 117; cf. Kobelski, «Melchizedek,» 184–211; Bacon, «Comforter,» 275; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 25, 29. In the papyri, e.g., a second-century mime in Deissmann, Light, 336 n. 5; in Philo, Joseph 239; cf. other, often nonforensic uses by Philo in Bernard, John, 2:496; Hoskyns, Gospel, 466; for the Logos as Paraclete in Philo, see Philo Heir 205; Howard, Gospel, 161 (with no reference); Hadidian, «Philonism,» 219 n. 9.
Mowinckel, «Geist,» 129.
Ibid., 101–2; Glasson, Moses, 104–5 (citing John 5:45); Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 15 (following Billerbeck); Manns, «Paraclet,» 127–31; cf. Bernard, John, 2(following Wetstein); Lee, Thought, 214 (following Schlatter); Westcott, John, 212; Sandmel, Beginnings, 384; in Greek texts, e.g., Aeschines Ctesiphon 37 (taking the laws figuratively as advocates).
Reportedly the Egyptians, lest rhetoric sway judges from the laws' severity (Diodorus Siculus 1.76.1–2). For examples of forensic rhetoric, cf. Cicerós famous defenses or the trial speeches of Isaeus, Lysias, Aeschines, or Demosthenes.
E.g., P.Thead. 15.3, 19 (280–281 C.E.); Chariton 3.4.15; Nin. Rom. frg. 1.A.4; Plutarch Flatterer 20, Mor. 61D; Publicola 2.1 (συνηγορίας); Cicero 5.2 (συνηγορεΐν); 39.5 (βοηθοϋντος); CPJ 2:84, §157; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.27.15; cf. also σύμβουλος (Plutarch Mor. 61D; 4 Macc 15:25; cf. Moses in 4 Macc 9:2, contrasted with Antiochus in 9:3; Mattathias's successor Simeon as a military άνήρ βουλής in 1Macc 2:65). In Philostratus's Heroikos a deceased hero can become a σύμβουλος, or advisor, counselor, to his mortal clients (4.7; 14.4; 23.18; 35.1; cf. 16.2; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxix); in Porphyry Marc. 10.189 it is (figuratively) his teachings.
E.g., Isaeus Estate of Nicostratus 1.
Mowinckel, «Geist,» passim.
Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 99–100,120.
Ladd, Theology, 293; Leaney, «Paraclete,» 61. Cf. the qualifications of Ross, «Lament,» 45–46.
Forestell, «Paraclete,» 182–83.
Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51.
Exod. Rab. 15:29; Num. Rab. 10:4; Ruth Rab. proem 1; Blinzler, Trial, 135.
Pancaro, Law, 254.
A loanword in rabbinic texts, and appearing in some papyri (Deissmann, Light, 93); cf. 2Macc 4:5.
5. Hag. 13b; p. Roš Haš. 3:2, §6; Lev. Rab. 5:6; 21:10; 30:6. Although none of these references has an attribution before the third century, this мая parallel the Greco-Roman dependence on private rather than public prosecutors (Chariton 5.4.9; CPJ 2:64–65, §155; Josephus War 1.637–638; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34; for a relevant social depiction of second-century B.C.E. Roman prosecution, see David, «Eloquentia»).–
5. Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. Apoc. Sedr. 14:1; in 2 En. 33(rec. A), Michael will be an intercessor» for Enoch (in rec. J, a «mediator»). He мая also be «the Prince of the World» (contrast John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), who defends the world before the Holy One (3 En. 30:2), and the angel who intercedes for Israel (T. Levi 5:6; he struggled with Jacob in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 32:25). Cf. Betz, Paraklet, 149–58, for one study on Michael as intercessor.
From his role in Daniel, it was clear that he was among the chief angels (1 En. 9:1; 54:6; 3 En. 17:1–3; 3 Bar. 11:2; 1QM 8.15–16; Sib. Or. 2:214–220; Gen. Rab. 78:1; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8; Pesiq. Rab. 46:3; cf. 1 En. 40:9; b. B. Mesía 86b; Deut. Rab. 5:12; Song Rab. 2:4, §1; 6:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:9; Coptic charm in Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88), sometimes the chief angel (2 En. 22:6; 33:10; probably T. Ab. 1:13A, 2:1, 13–14 and passim A; 4:6; 14:7B), perhaps even the angel of the Lord (Exod. Rab. 2:5; Pesiq. Rab. 40:6; cf. L.A.E. 25:2), and in some texts he was Israel's guardian angel (3 En. 44:10; 1QM 17.6–7 [see further Delcor, «Guerre,» 374]; cf. 1 En. 20[ed. Knibb, 107; but contrast Isaac, trans., 24]).
Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. T. So1. 1:7; Michael vs. the wicked prince in 1QM 17.6; Michael vs. Sammáel on Moses' death, Deut. Rab. 11:10; Jude 9 (against Philo Sacrifices 8; b. Sotah 13b, etc.). In the Similitudes of Enoch (J En. 40:7, 9), it is Phanuel who drives away the satans (plural). In 3 En. 14:2, it is Enoch who is the exalted one appointed against Sammáel, the Prince of the Accusers greater than all the heavenly princes; in Esth. Rab. 7(in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 98–99), Moses in heaven and Mordecai on earth interceded for Israel against Satan the accuser; in Exod. Rab. 43:1, Moses and Satan oppose one another before God's court; in 2Macc 15:12–14 Onias the deceased high priest and Jeremiah the prophet intercede for the people. God could also appear as an accuser (Marmorstein, Names, 78), but not of Israe1.
Angelic intercession appears in Tob 12:12,15; 1 En. 9:2–11; 40:6,9; 99:3; 104:1; Rev 5:8; 8:3; 3 Bar. 14:2; Apoc. Mos. 33:5; T. Levi 5:6; Dan 6(if not interpolation); cf. 1 En. 15:2; T. Ab. 9:3, 7A; Russell, Apocalyptic, 242; Montefiore, Hebrews, 39–40. Montefiore, «Judaism,» 47, thinks they rarely functioned as mediators in rabbinic Judaism (cf. Midr. Pss. 4, §3), and Moore, «Life,» 249, shows how this contrasted with Platonic Hellenism; but less «orthodox» texts show the popularity of angelic invocations (Smith, «Note»; Deissmann, Light, 455–57; Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88; 0/2:90–91 [sixth century C.E.]; 2:91, §850 [no date]; 2:109, §876; 2:373–374, §1448 [amulet, late third century]; cf. JE 1:588, 595); the divergent data is balanced well in Longenecker, Christology, 29–30; Bonsirven, Judaism, 37.
E.g.,p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §28; Qidd. 1:9, §2 (Tannaitic attribution); Exod. Rab. 31:14; Pesiq. Rab. 10(«according to our Masters»); see Moore, Judaism, 1:406–7. Cf. 3 En. 28:8–9; for accusing angels opposing the wicked, t. Sabb. 17:3; c Abod. Zar. 1(attributed to the same rabbi); Apoc. Zeph. 3:8; 6:17. These could be the same as the ministering angels, as in 3 En. passim; b. Ber. 20b; p. Sanh. 10:2, §7; Gen. Rab. 55:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11. In 3 En. 4:6–7, three accusing angels come against Enoch, but in 4:8–10 Enoch is exalted over them by God's favor. Later Jewish Christianity portrayed the Paraclete in an angelic role; see Daniélou, Theology, 130.
Gen. Rab. 38:7; 84:2; Lev. Rab. 21:10; Ecc1. Rab. 3:2, §2. In b. Sukkah 52b, the evil yetzer tempts in this world, and in the world to come testifies against those he has seduced.
Jub. 48:15–16. He appears as Beliar in Jub. 1:20; cf. Driver, Scrolls, 488, for parallels in the Scrolls. Prince Mastema in Jub. 17:15–18 acts just like Satan in Job.
B. Yoma 20a; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Num. Rab. 18:21; Pesiq. Rab. 45:2; 47:4. This is predicated particularly on the numerical value of ha-Satan: 364.
Cf., e.g., Trites, Witness, 171; Kelly, Peter, 209; Selwyn, Peter, 236; Ladd, Theology, 49 n. 15.
3 En. 26:12, OTP 1:281. The nations prosecute Israel in Ruth Rab. proem 1.
Caird, Revelation, 154; Ford, Revelation, 206.
Exod. Rab. (Yithro) 29:4–5; 31:2.
E.g., b. Meg. 15b; cf. Lev. Rab. 23:2; Pesiq. Rab. 15:17; it is frequently opposed to the Attribute of Mercy, both of which regularly argue their case before the Throne (b. cAbod. Zar. 3b; Gen. Rab. 39:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; 19:3; cf. Sipra VDDeho. par. 220.127.116.11; Sipre Num. 8.8.2; Sipre Deut. 26.5.1; 323.4.1; b. Ber. 7a; p. TaQan. 2:1, §1 (Tannaitic attribution); Gen. Rab. 12:15; 21:7; 26:6; 33:3; 73:3; 78:8; Exod. Rab. 3:7; 6:1,3; 45:6; Lev. Rab. 29:4; Num. Rab. 9:18; 19:4; Deut. Rab. 4:3; Ecc1. Rab. 4:1, §1; 8:1, §1; Song Rab. 2:17, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 25:2; Pesiq. Rab. 39:1; 40:2; 3 En. 31:1). The case of Dahl and Segal, «Name,» that Philós reversal of the rabbinic connection of divine names with judgment and mercy is earlier than the rabbis, would also suggest that the tradition of two such attributes is earlier.
B. Meg. 15b; Lam. Rab. proem 24; cf. Exod. Rab. 31(via angels).
Lev. Rab. 29:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:7; 25:4. Cf. Le Déaut, «L'intercession,» 49–50. This image is of course natural, given the prominence of patriarchal merit in these texts.
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:6.
E.g., Boke, Witness, 154, who cites it as 4:13.
Also in 'Abot R. Nat. 35, §80.
Elsewhere God bears witness on behalf of the righteous (4 Ezra 7:94). Cf. the common image of God also as «helper» (βοηθός) more generally, e.g., Jdt 9:11.
Trites, Witness, 118, points out that in Isa 40–55 and Job the same person could function as both witness and advocate.
See esp. Hanson, Gospel, 177.
Exod. Rab. 15:29, with citations from Isaianic texts that suggest that such a combination would have been perfectly natural in the biblical period as wel1. Cf. also R. Johanan (early third century) in Ruth Rab. proem 1.
Deut. Rab. 3:11. The Holy Spirit appears as a «helper» in the sense of one that upholds (samak) the righteous in the Qumran hymns (Bruce, «Spirit,» 52), but this is a much broader usage than we are considering here. Johansson, Parakletoi, 84–95, seeks evidence for the Spirit as intercessor in early Judaism, but his evidence is less than impressive here, and we мая wonder whether early Christianity did not develop its Spirit intercession (e.g., Rom 8:26) from its image of Christ intercession (Rom 8:34) and its experience of the Spirit.
Song Rab. 8:9, §3.
Men of God and prophets, Johansson, Parakletoi, 3–21; angels (in Job and Zechariah), 22–40; the intercessor as witness, way-leader, and mediator (Mittler), 41–48; concept of intercessor and the servant of YHWH as a leader, 49–62.
In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha excluding 1 Enoch, Johansson, Parakletoi, 65–95; in 1 Enoch, 96–119; in 3 Enoch, Midrash, and Talmud, 120–78. Le Déaut, «L'intercession,» 38–45, shows how the group of intercessors was enlarged, with divergences in kind; this includes prophets, 41ff, esp. 43–44; cf. also Bamberger, «Prophet,» 305.
Holwerda, Spirit, 32–35.
See Betz, Paraklet, 36–116; for the identification, esp. 114.
See Dion, «Paraclet,» 148 (review of Betz). For the breadth of the figures, besides Johansson, see Le Déaut, «L'intercession,» 35–57. It is also true, as Brown notes («Paraclete,» 126), that «there is not the slightest evidence in John's picture of the Paraclete that these remote angelic origins have remained influentia1.»
Betz, Paraklet, 152.
This image also occurs elsewhere in early Christian literature; cf. Longenecker, Christol-ogy, 26ff.
See Cross, Library, 214–15.
Cf. Katzoff, "Suffragium;' 235–40.
Harvey, «Torah,» 1239 (citing Exod. Rab. 29:4). For the Logos, cf. Philo Heir 205.
Johnston, Parables, 592. In Amoraic texts, see, e.g., Deut. Rab. 3:11; in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, see Hafemann, «Moses.»
See Pancaro, Law, 256–57.
Bürge, Community, 141.
Holwerda, Spirit, i, 64; Price, «Light,» 23; Hasitschka, «Parakletworte»; Turner, Spirit, 85–87; cf. Porsch, Wort, 324 (the revelation is «in einer forensischen Situation»).
E.g., Forestell, «Paraclete,» 155.
Franck, Revelation, 9–10, who argues (17–21) that the macrostructure context is what provides the forensic meaning.
Shafaat, «Geber,» 267. Isaacs, Spirit, 95, sees the Paraclete not as an advocate before God but as a helper to the disciples.
Pancaro, Law, 257–58.
Harris, Prologue, 38, especially dealing with the Pleroma of sapiential traditions, though he does not develop it sufficiently in pre-Christian texts.
Isaacs, Spirit, 20–21, 52–53, 136–37.
Riesenfeld, «Paraclete,» 272. Franck, Revelation, 130–31, accepts it as part of the background, but not the whole.
Bürge, Community, 103.
Scott, Spirit, 194; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 122–23.
See Büchsei, Geist, 503–1 (on the Spirit as God's nature, 504–6).
Bürge, Community, 142; Quispel, «Qumran,» 147; Barrett, John, 91; so also Crane, Spirit. Berg, «Pneumatology,» 214, thinks that the masculine in 16may presume that the fourth Paraclete saying originally immediately preceded the fifth; but this assumes an editorial ineptness not characteristic of John's relatively consistent style. For εκείνος as «he» in John, even when referred back to an immediate antecedent, see Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 239.
In Gnosticism, see Irenaeus Haer. 1.2.5; Gospel of Philip 70–71 (NHL 136); Wilson, «Spirit,» 352; Pagels, Gospels, 52–53; Daniélou, Theology, 81. In Mandean texts, Wilson, «Spirit,» 355; in Elkesite tradition, see Hippolytus Haer. 9.8; Daniélou, Theology, 140 (despite the gnostic formulation in Hippolytus, however, a feminine interpretation of the Spirit is natural from a Hebrew reading).
On a female divinity in some gnostic texts, see Kraemer, Maenads, 371–85.
There are some indications of feminine imagery for God already in the biblical tradition (De Boer, Fatherhood, passim), developed further in the second-century Christian text Odes So1. 19:1–7, and Jesus could be portrayed in feminine terms in Odes So1. 8(though cf. similarly 1Cor 3for Paul; Homer I1. 8.271–272; Od. 20.14–16), and perhaps less self-consciously in Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34. A late Amora observes that «the Holy Spirit ... is sometimes used as masculine and sometimes as feminine» (Ecc1. Rab. 7:27, §1).
Some cite Qumran angelology (Kobelski, Melchizedek, 184–211; cf. Betz, Paraklet, 114: «Geistige Kräfte,» spiritual powers, came to be treated as «himmlischer Personen,» such as Belial and Michael); or, as a literary device, in rabbinic literature (Abelson, Immanence, 199–200, 207, 224–37; cf. 377–79). Other scholars derive the personality from nonpneumatic (or not necessarily pneumatic) images, whether the mythical intercessor (cf. Johansson, Parakletoi, 305) or the Word (Forestell, «Paraclete,» 194).
On the weakness of this evidence, cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 14; the Spirit is God in Josephus and Philo (p. 25; cf. 56–57). See Hawthorne, Presence, 14–15, 21–22, for the Spirit as God working actively in the OT.
Hahn, «Verständnis,» 144; Malatesta, «Spirit/Paraclete,» 540 (though not all his references demonstrate his position); Stählin, «Πνεύμα,» 242–45.
Schlier, «Begriff,» 265; cf. 265–68.
God's Word and Spirit could coalesce in their hypostatic functions; in Jdt 16:14, God created by speaking, and by his πνεύμα (cf. similarly Word and Wisdom in Wis 9:1–3).
Harris, Prologue, 38. For the Spirit's relation to Wisdom, see also Witherington, Sage, 99–103; in the DSS, see Menzies, Pneumatology, 84–87; Isaacs, Spirit, 136–37.
Isaacs, Spirit, 136.
Forestell, «Paraclete,» 186–87; for connections, see 186–92.
Isaacs, Spirit, 54–55
E.g.,Berg, «Pneumatology,» 70–71; Franck, Revelation, 38,83–84; Bürge, Community, 30,49, 142. This was also my conclusion from the primary sources before locating this view in the secondary literature.
Harner, Analysis, 31–43, esp. 43.
See, e.g., 2Cor 13:14; Matt 28:19; Fee, Presence, 839–42; for the Trinity in this Gospel, see, e.g., Gruenler, Trinity.
Curiously, the temple pericope omits the robbers in the temple of the Jesus tradition. Perhaps the tradition was not available to John, though this is improbable; but Judas provides another model of «thief.»
Dodd, Interpretation, 414, also sees 9:35–41 as an example of Christ «prosecuting» the world as the Advocate will, although he does not develop it.
«Prophetic» force or inspired speech in a forensic context need not imply the usual early Christian prophetic form, attributing direct speech to the Spirit (Acts 21:11; Rev 2:7). Some members of the audience мая have known that among classical Greek aristocrats (as opposed to Romans), speechwriters often provided speeches written for the plaintiff or defendant to deliver in the first person (e.g., Demosthenes or Isaeus passim).
Particularly Brown, summarized by Kysar, Evangelist, 128; Müller, «Parakletenvorstellung,» 57–60, both citing such relationships as Moses-Joshua (cf. also Glasson, Moses, 85); Woll, Conflict, 48, 79–80; Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 5. For the continuance of Jesus' work here, cf., e.g., Carson, Discourse, 50; Holwerda, Spirit, 26–27; Mielgo, «Presencia»; Gryglewicz, «Geist»; Martyn, History, 148; Bornkamm, «Paraklet,» 12; Isaacs, «Spirit,» 402–4; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 21. The presence of two paracletes in 14is difficult to miss and is generally recognized (e.g., Becker, Evangelium, 2:471); and Bacon, «Comforter,» 277 (cf. Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 22), remarks that the doctrine of heavenly and earthly paracletes is also found in Rom 8.
Müller, «Parakletenvorstellung,» 55.
The classical example was Alexander (e.g., Arrian Alex. 7.26.3).
Mek. Pisha 1.150–153; cf. 'Abot R. Nat. 1 A; 'Abot R. Nat. 1, §2 B; the baratta in Pesiq. Rab. 51:2. Joshua appears as Moses'successor also in Sir 46(διάδοχος); T.Mos. 1:7; 10:15; and Elisha as Elijah's apparently in Sir 48:12. Some late sources imply diminution of authority (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:18).
Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Evidence,» 182; Ehrhardt, Acts, 12–13; Goulder, Acts, 54, 61–62; cf. Gibert, «L'invention.» Tannehill, Luke, and idem, Acts, points out abundant connections between and within the works. Cf. similarly the martyrdom accounts of Acts 7 and Luke 23, and Mart. Po1. 6–8, 19, with Jesus' triumphal entry and execution.
Brawley, Jews, 43; he cites a German work from 1841 that had already noted many of these parallels.
E.g., Pericles and Fabius Maximus, Nicias and Crassus, Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Caesar, etc. On his use of sources and compositional methods, see Pelling, «Plutarch's Method.» Kee, Miracle, 190, also compares Lukés historiography to Greco-Roman practice on this point; cf. Aune, Environment, 119.
Plutarch Sertorius 1.1. Greco-Roman historians examined parallels in history as signs of a divine plan (e.g., Appian R.H. 7.8.53; Plutarch Demosthenes 3.2); see further comments on 13:23–24.
Plutarch Theseus 1.2. The essay Greek and Roman Parallel Stories (Mor. 305A-316B), мая not be genuinely from Plutarch's hand but at least demonstrates that attention was given to his method.
Theon Progymn. 2.86–88, remarking on this in Demosthenes (cf., e.g., Plato Sophist 221D); on comparison (σύγκρισις) of characters, Theon Progymn. 10.3–4; subjects, because they can compare characters on the basis of their deeds, can be compared in the same way (10.4–7). See further comment on 13:23.
E.g., Quintilian 10.1.85, comparing the Greek Homer with the Roman Virgil; Appian C.W. 2.21.149, comparing Julius Caesar with Alexander.
Jacobson, «Visions,» though contrasting Greek historiography. Examples abound in the biblical tradition, e.g., Daniel's use of Joseph motifs, and the parallel of Jeremiah's reticence at his call to Moses'.
Boring, Sayings, 85–86, suggests that the lack of enthusiastic frenzy мая characterize Johannine prophetism; cf. also Isaacs, «Spirit,» 406. Berg, «Pneumatology,» 142, could be right that this is mainly a modern distinction, but Herrn. Mand. 11.2–9 (in Boring, Sayings, 85–86) suggests that it was at least considered in the early second century, and the Montanists (Aune, Prophecy, 313) were certainly ready to lay claim to the Fourth Gospe1.
As noted above, see most fully Fee, Presence, 839–42.
Bürge, Community, 107–10.
Büchsei, Geist, 489–90.
Boring, «Prophecy,» 120.
Bürge, Community, 39.
Betz, Paraklet, 128–30, argues for the Spirit's function as prophet in John and early Judaism (as the teacher, 130–33; the witness, 133–34; and protector of righteousness, 134–36); see also Bornkamm, «Paraklet,» 18–20; Hill, Prophecy, 150; Boring, «Prophecy»; Isaacs, «Spirit,» 392–99; Vawter, «Ezekiel,» 455–58. Prophets' intercessory role in early Judaism (Glatzer, «Prophecy,» 133–35) мая also fit the Paracletés activity.
Comparing Jesus' and the Spirit's prophetic functions in John, see Isaacs, «Spirit,» 399–402; cf. Vawter, «Ezekiel,» 455–58. Compare even the hostility toward Jesus in John 7:20; 8with Josephus War 6.303.
See further, e.g., Gryglewicz, «Geist.»
So Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 350–51.
Menander Rhetor 2.14,426.23–24.
See, e.g., Livy 5.49.7; Lucan C.W. 9.15–18; Suetonius Titus 7.
For Rev 13, see, e.g., Kraybill, Cult, 161–65; Bauckham, Climax, 423–31; Keener, Revelation, 337–39, 355–56,409–10; for Rev 11, see ibid., 290–93.
One Ethiopian MS has «holy spirit.»
For the two spirits in the Scrolls, see Brown, Essays, 147–49 (for the struggle between them, 149–50).
This too has probable early Christian parallels; cf., e.g., Eph 1:17; Gal 5:22–6:1; see also the Spirit of (or related to) wisdom in 1QS2.3; 1 En. 49:3; 4 Ezra 5:22; Jos. Asen. 19(some MSS); LXX Exod 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; Deut 34:9; Isa 11:2.
Cf. Bampfylde, «Prince» (rejecting the identification with Michael). Brown, «Paraclete,» 126, thinks that the spirit of truth is angelic in the Scrolls but that there is no evidence «that these remote angelic origins have remained influential» in the Fourth Gospe1. See our discussion of the views on an angelic background in section 2, above.
English, OTP 1(Greek: ed. Charles, 96).
Herrn. Mand. 3.4 (ANF2:21).
McNamara, Targum, 105, thinks that most light/darkness texts in John bear more affinities to the developing Jewish liturgy than to the Qumran texts, but that is not possible here. Hahn, «Verständnis,» 134, is more to the point in thinking that some OT ideas were developed according to the dualistic, exclusivistic outlook of Qumran; John either draws on such ideas current in the milieu or develops them in a manner parallel to the Qumran community.
OTP 1(Greek: ed. Charles, 95). T. Jud. 20says that the conscience is between these two. This parallel with NT language (1 John 4:6) was noted before Qumran (cf. Mowinckel, «Vorstellung,» 98–99).
OTP 1(Greek: ed. Charles, 18).
Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 418. Sanders, John, 354, thinks the parallels in the Testaments are closer, but Grayston, Epistles, 119, notes that the two spirits of T. Jud. 20are equivalent to the two inclinations (T.Ash. 1:5) whereas the Scrolls use the spirits to divide humanity into two groups. Other commentators have also pointed out the parallels between 1QS, and/or T. Jud. 20:1, and John, e.g., Houlden, Epistles, 106; Albright, «Discoveries,» 168.
Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 121–22. On p. 118 he suggests that John omits the name Michael through polemical intention; the Paraclete is not like the warrior Michael of the Apocalypse.
A critique offered by Kysar, Evangelist, 239, and others.
This is attested not only in magical papyri but in biblical tradition (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:20–23; 2 Chr 18:18–22), although in the latter it is not the primary form of prophecy by any means. For this as an issue of contention, see Gal 1and Col 2:18; 1Cor 12may mean it in the generic sense of judging prophets (14:29) and thus мая be read however one reads 1 John 4; 1Cor 14in context must refer to the human spirit (14:2, 14–16), against some interpreters (Ellis, «Christ and Spirit,» 275; Bruce, Corinthians, 134–35).
E.g., Berg, «Pneumatology,» 135; Barrett, «Spirit,» 8.
Forestell, «Paraclete,» 157, doubts that the Paraclete saying is an interpolation, but believes that 14:12–17 as a whole interrupts the context.
Metzger, Commentary, 245; Berg, «Pneumatology,» 131; Morgan-Wynne, «Note.» Michaels, John, 253, and Hunter, John, 146, take the second verb as present but read both verbs in a future sense.
Michaels, John, 253; contrast Johnstone, «Paraclete.»
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 140.
This is acknowledged even by most who emphasize futurist eschatology in the Gospel (e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 65, 76).
Cicero Fam. 12.30.4 speaks of the Senate «bereft of relatives» (orbus) by the loss of its consuls (whom Cicero would have regarded as «fathers» to the state); murdering onés benefactor could be seen as parricide (Valerius Maximus 1.5.7; 1.6.13; 1.7.2; 1.8.8).
E.g., Isa 47LXX; 1 Thess 2:17; perhaps Pss. So1. 4:10; cf. Bernard, John, 2:546. Achilles' mere absence from his (living) parents is described as όρφανιζομένω in Pindar Pyth. 6.22–23. No one else could fully replace a deceased father (Homer I1. 22.490–505); nevertheless, the Kjv's «comfortless» is untenable (Bernard, John, 2:547).
Jos. Asen. 11:3,13; 12:5/7, 12–13; she claims she is an orphan because of her sin in 11:16.
R. Akiba for R. Eliezer in 'Abot R. Nat. 25A. Commentators frequently follow Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2here (e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 41–42; ÓDay, «John,» 748); Brown, John, 2also cites Plato Phaedo 116A.
Also, e.g., Brown, John, 2:640; Ellis, Genius, 222.
Some texts compare Israel with an orphan suffering among the nations (Philo Spec. Laws 4.179) or adopted by God (Deut. Rab. 3:4; Vellanickal, Sonship, 33, cites 1QH 9.35–36; cf. Hos 11:1–4; 14:3).
Holwerda, Spirit, 38–45. In later tradition «orphan» could be mildly derogatory (b. Hu1. 111b), perhaps alluding to a father's death as punishment (e.g., allegedly Ben Azzai in p. Meg. 1:9, §19), but it was not necessarily a figure of shame (Tob 1:8). As children they remained legally defenseless (p. Ketub. 3:1, §4), although only as minors (p. Ter. 1:1).
On the connection between the impartation of the Spirit and the resurrection, see also Schlier, «Begriff,» 265.
E.g., Isa 2:11, 17, 20; 3:18; 4:2; 24:21; Zech 14:4–13. Such prophecies were not always eschatological, however (e.g., 1Sam 3:12; 8:18; Isa 22:20; 23:15).
Holwerda, Spirit, 71.
Also noted in DeSilva, «Wisdom of Solomon,» 1275. On «keeping the word» in the Fourth Gospel, see Pancaro, Law, 403–30.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 25; cf. Wis 2:22; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; see Keener, Matthew, 378–79. Gnostics мая have developed their «secret tradition» to explain their lack of earlier attestation; but some authentic traditions actually were probably initially «secret.»
Similarly, God reveals himself (επιφάνεια γίνεται) to the royal counselors (συμβούλοις) who are worthy (Let. Arts. 264). For angelic revelation (έμφανισθήναι), cf., e.g., T. Ab. 4:10B.
Glasson, Moses, 77; cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 259. In contrast to 14:8, however, 14does not echo the language of the LXX here. Likewise, an appeal to the occasional selective vision of Greek deities (Homer IX 1.194–200) would miss culturally nearer Jewish parallels (1Sam 16:7; Ezek 1:1; cf. Acts 9:7), and parallels in magical papyri (PGM 1.186–187) are too distant from John's focus; he certainly does not desire to present Jesus as a magician (7:20; 8:48–49).
E.g., P.Oxy. 494.32; 1273.3,49; CP/2:143, §261; 2:145, §§269–270; 2:146, §274; 2:147, §275; 2:147, §276; 2:151, §298; 2:153, §304; 2:154, §311; 2:156, §321; 3:9, §453; CI] 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879; Acts 1:23; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39; Leon, Jews, 107–13. On the history of the Roman practice, see Appian R.H. pref.13.
E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.81; Xenophon Hel1. 1.2.13; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dinarchus 1; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.483; 2.20.600; cf. Horace Sat. 2.3.11; Plutarch Themistocles 32.1, 5. Sometimes the distinctions do, however, represent improbable harmonizations of widely divergent legendary sources (e.g., Arrian Alex. 2.16.1–4; 4.28.2; 5.13; Appian R.H. 6.1.2).
E.g., CI] 1:15, §12; 1:26, §33; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:270–71, §345; 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:272, §348; 1:273, §349; 1:274, §350; 1:274–75, §351; 1:455, §636; 1:479, §668; 2:46, §791 (from Spain, Cilicia, but especially Rome).
For rabbinic development of this theme (מעון («abode,» as a divine name), see Marmorstein, Names, 91.
For the Shekinah here, see Kugelman, «Pentecost,» 261. On the Shekinah, see esp. comment on 1:14. Cf. later Greek portraits of deities «being with» or spending time with initiates (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 2.8; 4.10; 5.1; 7.1, 3; 9.7).
See Sanders, Judaism, 55–69; Josephus War 5.184–227; Cornfeld, Josephus, 346–61. It was renowned for its beauty (Josephus War 6.267; 'Abot R. Nat. 28A; 48, §132B) and known throughout the Roman world (2 Mace 2:22; Let. Arts. 84–91; CI] 1:378, §515).
God was also the «Place,» the omnipresent one who fills the universe; see m. 'Abot 2:9,13; 3:14; t. Péah 1:4; 3:8; Sabb. 7:22,25; 13:5; Roš Haš. 1:18; Tacan. 2:13; B. Qam. 7:7; Sank 1:2; 13:1,6; 14:3,10; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; 11.3.1; 42.1.2; 42.2.3; 76.2.2; 78.1.1; 78.5.1; 80.1.1; 82.3.1; 84.1.1; 84.5.1; 85.3.1; 85.4.1; 85.5.1. But his presence could dwell among his people in a special way (see comment on 1:14).
Smalley, «Relationship,» 98. Some of the senses мая be more instrumental than locative (e.g., John 4:23–24) or corporate than personal (e.g., Col 1:27; but cf. Col 1:29), but the basic correctness of Smalley's proposal stands.
See, e.g., Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 6 (hence the Spirit can complete as well as recall Jesus' teaching); Sanders, John, 333; cf. Turner, Spirit, 83.
See esp. Bruce, «Spirit,» 51–52. The Spirit could teach through the prophets (4Q381 frg. 69, Une 4) and also empowered members morally and to seek God (4Q444 frg. 1,1.1; 4Q509,5.15–16).
The clearest references for viewing revealed knowledge as a sort of prophecy in Grudem, Prophecy, 38–39 are mainly Amoraic, but a perusal of our material in Keener, Spirit, 12–13, will also show the difficulty of drawing a clear distinction between the two in the teachings of the sages.
Keener, Spirit, 10–13; idem, «Pneumatology,» 69–77.
1 use this term advisedly, in a generic sense; the earlier expansions of biblical narratives do not easily fit the later rabbinic categories from which the standard terms derive; see Harrington, «Bible,» 242.1 refer to such expansions as Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (which only rarely adds entire stories, though it often adds details); Jubilees and parts of 1 Enoch; 4QAmram (see Kobelski, «Melchizedek,» 46–72); material in Gen 49 (Yadin, «Commentaries,» 66–68); Genesis Apocryphon; History of Joseph; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, and Life of Adam and Eve (very expansive, even novelistic). Although the genre (Harrington, «Bible,» 242–43, argues that they do not comprise a distinct genre, but this appraisal depends on a narrower definition of «genre» than necessary) is common in the Scrolls, it is not limited to them (Milik, «Ecrits»). Midrash could exercise a creative function (Goulder, Midrash, 30), but the use of exegetical and haggadic traditions in these texts should not be underestimated (Harrington, «Bible,» 245–46; Fallon, «Theodotus,» 786).
Both expansion (cf., e.g., Theon Progym. 1.172–175; 2.115–123; 3.224–240) and abridgement (2Macc 2:24–28) were standard practices; see our comments on pp. 18–19, 27–28. Post-Easter embellishment becomes far more common in the apocryphal gospels than in the Synoptics (see Carmignac, «Pré-pascal»); Hill, Prophecy, 169, thus is right to observe that the Johannine discourses «may indeed be homilies composed around sayings of Jesus,» without being from Christian prophets.
Many scholars emphasize the centrality of the Word and the Jesus tradition here; see Bürge, Community, 213; Dietzfelbinger, «Paraklet,» 395–402; for the reason for this emphasis, Dietzfel-binger, «Paraklet,» 402–8. Cf. the importance of authentic memory of the right Teacher in the Scrolls (Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 13; cf. Roloff, «Lieblingsjünger,» whom he cites).
Contrast the (possibly protognosticizing?) opponents in 1 John whose prophecies мая not have emphasized the tradition of the historical Jesus (at least to 1 John's satisfaction), although they employed traditions of the Johannine community (cf. 1 John 4:1–3; 5:6; 2 John 7).
Against Forestell, «Paraclete,» 164, and others.
The priesthood had been engaged to teach the commandments in earlier Wisdom literature (Sir 46:17), but in later times this job fell to the rabbinic successors of those the Synoptics called scribes.
Cf. also Wis 9:17–18; Gal 4for the Spirit being sent. T. Ab. 18:1ΙΑ (απέστειλε) probably does not refer to the divine Spirit; the πνεύμα ζωής here probably alludes to Gen 2:7.
Isaacs, «Prophetic Spirit,» 393; cf. Witherington, Wisdom, 251.
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 149–50. This is likely however one interprets the phrase. On acting in onés name, see discussion at 14:13.
Franck, Revelation, 44, points out that in Philo it is normally God or his Word or Moses who «teaches.» Wegenast, «Teach,» 760, observes that the term is normally used in the LXX for instruction in how to live the Torah, not for prophetic preaching.
E.g., m. 'Abot 3:8; Met Pisha 1:135–136; Sipre Deut. 4.2.1; 48.1.1,4; 306.19.1–3; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; cf. Let. Aris. 154 (Hadas, Aristeas, 161, also compares Philo Spec. Laws 4.106ff). See comments on memory in our introduction; cf. in pre-Christian sapiential testaments, such as Tob 4(perhaps Tob 1:11–12).
Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.16.28; Plutarch Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.31; 10.1.12; Theon Progym. 2.5–8; Quintilian 1.3.1; 2.4.15; 11.2.1–51; probably Seneca Dia1. 7.10.3; Culpepper, School, 50, 106, 193; Anderson, Glossary, 126–27; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98; Gerhardsson, Memory, 124–25. Understanding and remembering profitable sayings were both vital (Isocrates Demon. 18, Or. 1), and reminder was common enough in moral exhortation (Isocrates Demon. 21, Or. 1; Epictetus Diatr. 4.4.29; Phil 3:1; 2Pet 1:12; cf. Cicero Amic. 22.85; Rom 15:15). Note taking was, of course, practiced; cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.48; Epictetus Diatr. 1.pref; Quintilian 1.pref.7–8; introduction to Plutarch Stoic Cont. 13:369–603, in LCL 398–99.
Homer Od. 12.38 (though cf. 12.226–227).
In Jub. 32:25–26, Jacob receives divine help to «remember» an inspired dream (Charles, Jubilees, lxxxiii, also notes the parallel); PGM 4.726–731 likewise promises Mithras's help to recall a lengthy revelation.
This can be argued on analogy with Matt 28:19, which probably invites the disciple makers to use the teaching blocs in Matthew catechetically.
This is often argued; e.g., Dietzfelbinger, «Paraklet,» 389–408. Franck, Revelation, 96, suggests that the connection between Paraclete and beloved disciple guarantees that disciple as an inspired transmitter of tradition. See introduction, ch. 3, esp. pp. 111–22.
Sasse, «Paraklet,» 260–77; Culpepper, School, 266–69; Boring, Sayings, 49; Kragerund, Lieblingsjünger, 113–29 and passim. Boismard, «Review,» critiques Kragerund's identification of the beloved disciple with the Paraclete instead of with an idealized disciple figure. Much more cautious is Wilckens, «Paraclete,» 203; they are not identical, but the beloved disciple represents the community that the Paraclete has founded.
Cf. Hill, Prophecy, 151, against Sasse; cf. Bürge, Community, 211.
Smith, Johannine Christianity, 30. This view is shared by Aune, Eschatology, 101; Boring, Sayings, 8 (on Dibelius), 49 (with a list of other scholars), 76,85,106–7,127; Hays, Vision, 151. Boring sees this as something of a charismatic exegesis of Jesus as well as of the OT (p. 102).
Oracle collections did indeed exist in antiquity, e.g., the Sibylline Oracles. See Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 6–7; Aune, Prophecy, 44. An oracle (χρησμός) was sometimes circulated (e.g., Achilles Tatius 2.14.1) by itself, although the scantiness of the evidence for this suggests that it was not a common practice.
Even though skillful writers knew how to join sayings with narrative (Theon Progym. 5.388–425; cf. 4.73–79; 5.427–441) and both premeditation (Quintilian 10.6.1–2, 5) and a rough draft (Aune, Environment, 128) would permit the writer to prepare and relate material carefully. Arrian seems to impose more of his own grid on the Epictetus material in his more highly organized Enchiridion than in his Diatribai, but writers had a greater degree of freedom then than we would normally permit in biography today (Theon Progym. 1.93–171), as attested by tradition variants (cf. the tortures in 2 and 4 Macc [OTP2:555; but probably 4 Maccabees diverged more from its antecedents]; Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.23–25 vs. Plato Apo1. 29C, 28E), although some of these could have arisen from conflation of similar sayings or events (e.g., p. B. Qam. 2:6, §3).
Against some of the source critics, such as Bultmann and Fortna.
Grant, Gods, 38–39, on an inscription from Delos ca. 200 B.C.E.; Hill, Prophecy, 27, and Braun, «Prophet,» on Josephus; for histories in general, see Hall, Revealed Histories. On didactic oracles, see Aune, Prophecy, 63.
Artemidorus Onir. 4.pref. (δαίμονα). Further, written prophecy (e.g., Baruch read Jeremiah's scrolls) could be analogous to written prayers (cf. Tob 13:1, εγραψεν).
Collins, Oracles, 5. Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 87–88, on the redaction of some OT oracles to fit narratives.
Aune, Prophecy, 296, demonstrates this.
Smith, John (1999), 299. On ancient inspiration, see also Forbes, Prophecy.
E.g., Chariton 1.12.2–4 (though cf. 8.4.6; 8.8.4–6); Achilles Tatius 6.17; 1Macc 6:10–13; 2Macc 3:37–39. This often functions ironically with the characters, as in John; e.g., Tob 5:16. On narrative asides, see Stanton, Jesus, 122; for digressions in Greco-Roman literature, Aune, Environment, 93–95. In earlier Jewish tradition, prophecy sometimes was implied as the source of the narration, e.g., 2 Kgs 6:12.
Cf. pictorial myths functioning as narrative omens, e.g., Achilles Tatius 5.3.
Hill, Prophecy, 149. Cf. p. 151: «That the author of the Gospel, or parts of it, was himself a Christian prophet, must remain very hypothetica1.»
Franck, Revelation, 99–124, ch. 5. This is similar to the position of Brown, «Paraclete,» 129, who compares biblical άνάμνησις, a reenactment or re-presentation in a living manner; but Franck has developed this case in considerably more detai1.
Kugelman, «Pentecost,» 268. Naturally, such a position has led to a variety of interpretations and responses, both Catholic and Protestant (see, e.g., Toon, Doctrine), but the point is that the Spirit's application of truth would remain faithful to apostolic tradition, not that any given community would perpetually remain the normative arbiter of that tradition.
On internal referents in the fulfillment of many Johannine prophecies, see Reinhartz, «Prophet.»
Isocrates Peace, Or. 8; Cicero Phi1. 1.1.1; Sib. Or. 3:751–755. Cf. especially the use in Roman political propaganda (see Sherk, Empire, 40; Grummond, «Pax Augusta»; also Bowley, «Pax Romana,» 774, who contrasts 14with the Roman political system).
T. Sanh. 1:2; 'Abot R. Nat. 40A; usually in Paul (with fellow believers, Rom 14:19; Eph 2:14–15; 4:3; Col 3:15; 1 Thess 5:13; with outsiders, Rom 12:18; 1Cor 7:15; perhaps 2 Thess 3:16; with God, Rom 5:1; Eph 6:15).
Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.9–11; probably Let. Arts. 273; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.2.3; Seneca Dia1. 7.8.6.
Tob 13:14; 1 En. 1:6–8; 5:7–10; 71:17; 105(contrast 98:11, 15; 99:13; 101:3; 103for the wicked); Jub. 1:15; 23:29–30; 31:20; 1QM 1.9; 12.3 (after the battle); Sib. Or. 2.29; 3.367–380,751–755, 780–782; 5.384–385; T. Jud. 22:2; Lev. Rab. 9:9, bar.; Christian material in Γ. Dan 5:11. Ford, «Shalom,» compares the quietistic pacifism/Divine Warrior picture of Revelation with the Gospel's picture of Jesus submitting to suffering, in defining Johannine «peace» (cf. 16:33; 20:19,21,26).
This wing of Pharisaism was probably a minority in the first century; see, e.g., Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 86, 324.
Cf. the standard rabbinic «Great is peace, for ...» (Sipre Num. 42.2.3; Sipre Deut. 199.3.1; Gen. Rab. 38(Tannaitic attribution); 48:18; 100:8 (Tannaitic attribution); cf. Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.14). It is associated with keeping the commandments (Sipra VDDen. pq. 18.104.22.168,3) and is a fruit of righteousness (m. Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel). Cf. AbotR. Nat. 48, §134B; Num. Rab. 21:1.
The other expression, «give peace,» is more natural (Lev 26:6; Num 6:26; 25:12; Hag 2:9; Isa 26:12; Jer 14:13; Luke 12:51; 2 Thess 3:16). John 18(«gave Jesus a blow») might illustrate by contrast the world's «giving,» though the connection is weak and the term frequent.
This joy likewise characterizes the harvest of new believers (4:36; cf. Luke 15:6–7, 9–10, 23–24); cf. the realized eschatology in Abraham's foretaste of Jesus' day (8:56). In context, 15includes love toward one another.
E.g., Derrett, Audience, 35; Keener, «Family,» 357–58.
Many philosophers regarded perfection as superlative (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 66.8–12) and hence would have to regard Jesus' character, if true deity, as nonsubordinate; but perfection of identity can be easily confused with identity of all that is perfect. For some historic interpretations of 14:28, see, e.g., Whitacre, John, 366–68. For more ontological rankings among pagan philosophers, cf., e.g., Porphyry Marc. 16.269–270 (only God is greater than virtue)
On this theme in the Gospel, see, e.g., Barrett, Essays, 19–36; cf. Keener, «Subordination.»
Amos 3:7–8; Josephus Ant. 11.277–278; 4Q268 frg. 1, lines 3, 8. God's foreknowledge was a basic staple of Jewish teaching, e.g., Gen 15:13–14; 2 Bar. 21:8; earlier tradition in Deut. Rab. 2:22; see more fully references on predestination in comment on John 3:19–21.
Pagans also regarded fulfilments as confirmations, though they were sometimes deceptive (e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.9, depending on magic).
This princés «coming» (14:30) мая also contrast with his own «coming» back to them after the resurrection (14:3, 28); the antichrist figure of Revelation often parodies God's Messiah (Rev 13:3–4, 18; 17:8).
Ascen. Isa. 2(although this text, with much or all of Ascen. Isa. 1–3, мая be Christian material).
T. Jud. 19(in context, this ruler is the tempter). This figure «blinded» Simeon's mind in T. Sim. 2(perhaps borrowing language from 2Cor 4:4).
T. Dan 5(Satan as Dan's «prince»). Early Amoraim could also speak of a demon as «prince» over other spirits (Lev. Rab. 5:1). See much fuller documentation in comment on John 12:31; cf. commentaries on Eph 2:2; 2Cor 4:4; Mark 3:22.
E.g., Gen. Rab. 20(the Shekinah); 2Macc 7:9; cf. Michael in b. Yebam. 16b (Blau and Kohler, «Angelology,» 588) and an angel in Exod. Rab. 17:4. Applications of the title to Satan (e.g., in Hoskyns, Gospel, 426) appear exceptiona1.
3 En. 29:1; 30:1–2; Mek. Sir. 2.112–115; b. Ber. 16b-17a; Yoma 77a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Lev. Rab. 29:2; Ruth Rab. proem 1; Pesiq. Rab. 17:4. For their opposition to Israel, see 3 En. 26:12; Sipre Deut. 315.2.1; Gen. Rab. 77:3; Exod. Rab. 21:5; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Deut. Rab. 1:22–23; Song Rab. 2:1, §3; 8:8, §1; for their eschatological judgment, see 1QM 15.13–14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:9; 27:2; Song Rab. 8:14, §1.
Jub. 15:31–32; 35:17; 49:2–4; cf. 1QM 14.15–16; 15.13–14; 17.5–8; T. So1. 6:4; 8:10. This image probably develops the OT demythologization of national deities as angels in YHWH's court (in 11QMelch, see Kobelski, «Melchizedek,» 123); cf. a δαίμων or guardian spirit of a nation in pagan thought (Plutarch Fort. Rom. 11, Mor. 324B).
Fenton, John, 156; cf. Michaels, John, 254.
See notes above on angels of nations in early Jewish thought.
Cf. the language of Sammael dwelling in, and clinging to, Manasseh in Ascen. Isa. 2(of uncertain date); more relevant, no place remains for Satan in heaven (Rev 12:8).
Carson, Discourse, 83.
Glasson, Moses, 77–78, comparing Assumption of Moses with John 14:30. Ben Azzai also claimed that one who died while obeying a commandment, as opposed to being engaged in some more frivolous matter, would be rewarded CAbot R. Nat. 25A; cf. Akibás martyrdom in p. Sotah 5:5, §4).
The devil often appears as accuser before God's throne; see, e.g., Rev 12:10; Jub. 1:20; 48:15, 18; 3 En. 14:2; 26:12; Gen. Rab. 38:7; 84:2; Exod. Rab. 18:5; 31:2; lev. Rab. 21:2; Ecc1. Rab. 3:2, §2; with other angels 1 En. 40:17; 3 En. 4:8–10; Apoc. Zeph. 3:8; 6:17; and the very sense of «Satan» in Hebrew (cf. 1 Chr 21:1; Job 1:6–2:7; Zech 3:1–2). The exception, in later tradition, was the Day of Atonement (b. Yoma 20a; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Num. Rab. 18:21; Pesiq. Rab. 45:2; 47:4).
Carson, Discourse, 83.
Woll, Conflict, 9; Berg, «Pneumatology,» 103; Smith, «Learned,» 227; idem, John (1999), 28. Seams could stem from loose weaving of oral sources rather than redaction (Blomberg, Reliability, 45, citing Lindars, «Traditions»; Lindars, «Discourse and Tradition»); some even suggest that it represents a deliberate element of rhetorical obscurity (Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 620).
So Streeter, Gospels, 380–81.
Even if it did circulate among Christians particularly early in its history; see Ferguson, Backgrounds, 93–94.
E.g., Westcott, John, 211; Hunter, John, 146; Carson, Discourse, 86.
Dodd, Interpretation, 408.
Ibid., 406–7; Gundry, Matthew, 536.
Berg, «Pneumatology,» 103–4. We мая note in passing the rhetorical «come» or «go» in both Greek (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 5.3.34; Epictetus Diatr. 1.2.29; 1.7.10; Plutarch Mus. 2, Mor. 1131E; Athenaeus Deipn. 11.459–460; Sib. Or. 3.562) and Latin (Horace Sat. 1.10.51; 2.3.152; Cicero Tusc. 3.20.49; Virgil Georg. 4.149; Martial Epigr. 1.42); but the conjunction of «arise» with a first plural subjunctive of «go» demands more than a merely rhetorical use here.
Going «from here» (έντεύθεν) мая mean going «from the world» to the realm above (cf. 18:36).
We are taking ύπάγω and πορεύομαι as interchangeable in these texts, and in this case functionally interchangeable with άγω (14:31). It is possible that the invitation to join Jesus in «going» reflects a sacrificial Johannine application of Jesus' proclamation commission (20:17; Matt 10:7; 28:19); but more likely it simply reverses the «coming» of the incarnation (16:28), a sort of ascent (short of 20:17; perhaps 6:62) paralleling the descent (3:13).
Cf. Moses, who did «just as he had also been commanded» (καθώς αύτω καΐ προείρητο, Josephus Ant. 2.349).