Revelation of Jesus. 16:5–33

ALTHOUGH A GRADUAL SHIFT takes place from the emphasis on persecution in 16:1–4, there is no decisive break here with the preceding context. When Jesus was with the disciples, they did not need warning about future sufferings (16:5), presumably because he would protect them (18:8–9). But now that he was going and their hearts were burdened with sorrow (16:6), he had to assure them that the Paraclete would continue to reveal him to them and through them (16:7–15). He had warned them of coming sufferings (15:18–16:4), but they could not bear further revelation of such matters now (16:12); when the Paraclete would come, however, he would prepare them for the rest, telling them more things to come (16:13), presumably including events such as those narrated in the book of Revelation (if, as we have argued, John and Revelation reflect the same community).

The coming of the Paraclete would enable the disciples to go on the offensive (15:26–27) because through him Jesus would remain among them (16:13–15). In him they would have victory over the world, despite their tribulation (16:33).

In the context of the disciples» discouragement due to the world's hostility (16:1–6), the Paraclete would come to prosecute the world (16:8–11). The disciples could be strong in the face of persecution, despite Jesus» absence, because the Paraclete would be with them (v. 7); this suggests that the Paracletés prosecution of the world is on their behalf and through their testimony.⁹¹⁹¹ They grieved that Jesus was «going» (16:5–6), but resurrection joy would soon swallow their grief concerning the cross (16:22; cf. 1Pet 1:6).⁹¹⁹² Jesus» return would provide them the Spirit, who would continue Jesus» presence with them.

Because of their grief (16:6), Jesus assures them emphatically («I tell you the truth»)⁹¹⁹³ that they will be better off with him departing to send them the other advocate he has mentioned (14:16).⁹¹⁹⁴ The Paraclete is better for them than Jesus in the flesh would have been (16:7) because he re-presents Jesus dynamically to the world in each hostile situation. Jesus had also challenged the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and the prophetic Spirit, proclaiming the same Jesus through his community, would continue the challenge.⁹¹⁹⁵ This continuity between the two should not be understood as identity, as in the docetic reading of John,⁹¹⁹⁶ nor even to imply that the Spirit cannot bring new teachings;⁹¹⁹⁷ the Spirit will say some new things (16:12–13) but in continuity with Jesus» revelation.⁹¹⁹⁸ But it does mean that Jesus himself is present in the Spirit, though only those in his community recognize his presence.⁹¹⁹⁹

In view of 16(«send him to you»), it appears clear that the Spirit's work in 16:8–11 is through the disciples.⁹²⁰⁰ Jesus sends the Spirit to the disciples (16:7), but through the disciples the Spirit-Paraclete continues Jesus» ministry to the world (16:8–11). Thus, as Jesus prosecuted the world (3:20; cf. 8:46), the Paraclete continues to prosecute the world (16:8–11) through the apostolic preaching of Jesus (cf. 16:7). The image of a speaker in court might follow naturally the context of Jesus» friends (15:13–15) and enemies (15:18–25): at least in Hellenistic Greek practice, one who spoke for another in a court might claim that he acted on behalf of friendship (φιλίαν) with one party or enmity (εχθραν) with the other.⁹²⁰¹ The introductory statement of 16is explicated by a specification of the charges in 16:9–11; the outlining of headings that would then be expanded was a common rhetorical technique.⁹²⁰²

The verb έλέγξει can simply mean to reprove⁹²⁰³ or to prove,⁹²⁰⁴ whether by onés conscience,⁹²⁰⁵ by the behavior of the righteous,⁹²⁰⁶ by the Lord,⁹²⁰⁷ or from other sources.⁹²⁰⁸ Thus it is natural that some scholars should think a juridical significance too limiting here.⁹²⁰⁹ But given the forensic context–a Paracletés witness and defense in the context of synagogue trials (16:2)–the frequent forensic significance of the term⁹²¹⁰ is probably to be preferred here.⁹²¹¹ Anyone could bring a charge, but under law a Roman governor could not try a case and convict someone without an accuser offering a charge.⁹²¹² Barrett suggests that the Paracletés act of ελέγξει «is the activity of a judge and a prosecuting counsel in one.»⁹²¹³ Although roles such as prosecutor and advocate were not to be confused,⁹²¹⁴ witnesses «against» functioned as prosecutors (albeit sometimes very skilled rhetoricians),⁹²¹⁵ and God was free to assume all the roles of advocate, prosecutor, and judge.⁹²¹⁶ If the Synoptic promises of the Spirit's help when one is on trial⁹²¹⁷ stand behind or are related to this passage, «John has characteristically (cf. chs. 9, 18f.) pressed home this idea so that the Spirit, not content with defending the believers, takes the offensive against the world.»⁹²¹⁸

Thus part of the Paracletés defense of the disciples is to turn the tables, bringing charges against their accusers,⁹²¹⁹ just as Jesus usually managed to turn the tables on his accusers in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 5:16, 45–47; 8:46; 9:39–41).⁹²²⁰ (It was standard judicial rhetorical practice to invert opponents» claims about right and wrong, wisdom and folly.)⁹²²¹ In ancient courts, a persuasive accuser could generally demolish defendants of lower status; a persuasive patronal advocate with ties to the judge would also be difficult to defeat. In fact, in many ancient judicial proceedings, social inferiors could not even bring suit against social superiors;⁹²²² before God's court, the Christians» accusers would have no case.) As Jesus proclaims God and refutes his adversaries» charges in the Fourth Gospel, so the Paraclete equips the Johannine community for witness and apologetic in the setting of conflict.⁹²²³ Likewise, as Jesus is the intercessor before God's throne, the Spirit is «another advocate» aiding the disciples before an earthly tribuna1.⁹²²⁴ Whereas the «world» personified in the community's opponents trusts in Moses, Moses will accuse them (5:45; cf. έλέγχω in Jas 2:9); the Spirit who inspired the law of Moses and continues the work of Jesus will continue the prosecuting work of each.

The Paraclete here is thus both intercessor and prosecutor of those who bring a charge against God's servants. The idea of God pleading the case of the afflicted against their adversaries appears in an eschatological context⁹²²⁵ in Jer 50:34; 51(RSV):

Their Redeemer is strong; the LORD of hosts is his name. He will surely plead their cause, that he may give rest to the earth, but unrest to the inhabitants of Babylon.

Therefore thus says the LORD:

«Behold, I will plead your cause and take vengeance for you ...

and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins ...»

The work of prosecution, or accusation, was regarded as primarily the work of Satan if directed against God's people.⁹²²⁶ Satan,⁹²²⁷ or Mastema,⁹²²⁸ regularly appears as Israel's accuser in early Jewish texts; by the Amoraic period, he accuses Israel continually except on Yom Kippur⁹²²⁹ (cf. Rev 12:10; see further the note on John 14:16). But God himself was perfectly able to prosecute his people or the nations for breach of covenant faithfulness (e.g., Ps. 50:8–21); later teachers could envision the law accusing God's people when they disobeyed it.⁹²³⁰ More to the point in the context of this Gospel, it was really the accusers who were on trial in the accusations and trial of Jesus (3:19–20). As Schnackenburg observes:

Having been counsel for the disciples» defence in human lawsuits, the Paraclete now becomes the plaintiff in God's judgment against the world. This is a function that was not originally present in the concept of a Paraclete–in Judaism, the parqlit (= s'negor) is simply the counterpart to the plaintiff or accuser (kategor). In the Johannine thinking about the «crisis,» however, this interchange between the two functions is already established and given a firm foundation in that the accused is really accuser in Jesus» tria1.⁹²³¹

Such an image would have been grasped easily enough by Greco-Roman readers, whether or not they would have all taken natural comfort in the idea; for example, Cicero presented evidence for Verres» guilt so thoroughly that he declared it was really the jury that was on trial before the rest of the world.⁹²³² Later writers also charged that (before the bar of history) it was not Socrates but his supposed judges, the people of Athens, who were on tria1.⁹²³³ One may likewise compare Epictetus's friend Heracleitus, who

had an unimportant lawsuit about a small piece of land in Rhodes; after he had pointed out the justice of his claim he went on to the peroration in which he said, «But neither will I entreat you, nor do I care what your decision is going to be, and it is you who are on trial rather than I. And so he ruined his case.

He should rather have either made no entreaties at all, Epictetus concludes, or not provoked his judges before the appropriate time (unlike Socrates, who waited for the proper time).⁹²³⁴ Yet Epictetus accepted this kind of thinking if the issue and timing warranted it: «You imply, then, that Socrates did not fare badly?–He did not; it was his judges [ol δικασταί] and accusers [οί κατήγοροι] who fared badly.»⁹²³⁵

This prosecution is part of the forensic activity of the biblical prophets, who were Israel's accusers perhaps more often than her intercessors.⁹²³⁶ To miss this function of the prophets is to read them (from the standpoint of Greco-Roman categories) as only deliberative rather than also judicial rhetoric,⁹²³⁷ but this is far too narrow. The rib, or covenant lawsuit, is a standard Israelite prophetic form,⁹²³⁸ undoubtedly rooted in the picture of Yah-weh's divine (angelic) assembly as a court.⁹²³⁹

It was still imitated in the early Christian period,⁹²⁴⁰ probably including the most explicit examples we have of the Johannine community's prophetism, the letters of Rev 2–3,⁹²⁴¹ in which the term έλέγχω appears in Rev 3:19; the term also describes other early Christian prophecies (1Cor 14:24; cf. Luke 3:19).

If έλέγχω means here «to prosecute,» then the three parallel περί clauses represent the charges leveled against the opponents of the community. As Holwerda notes, «In a judicial process it would seem proper that when conviction occurs the grounds for conviction would also be presented.»⁹²⁴²

The cm clauses probably explain the shorter, single-word charges; Carson's objection to the on explicative is predicated on his improbable view that v. 10 refers to the world's (pseudo-)righteousness.⁹²⁴³ The conclusion of my exegetical analysis is virtually the same as that of W.H.P. Hatch:

First, that it has sinned because it has not believed in Christ; second, that believers are justified or acquitted because Christ has gone to the Father to act as their advocate (παράκλητος); and third, that evil has been condemned because the ruler of this world (the devil) has been condemned. The whole context is forensic.⁹²⁴⁴

The Paraclete would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment:⁹²⁴⁵ the sin is⁹²⁴⁶ the world's unbelief in the Son, the one provision for salvation (v. 8; cf. 1:29, 8:24);⁹²⁴⁷ the righteousness is that of God and his people, established by the vindicated, exalted Jesus as heavenly advocate against all the accusations of the world (v. 9; cf. 8:46);⁹²⁴⁸ the judgment (condemnation) is that the ruler of the world, the accuser of God's true people, has been judged in Jesus» glorification and shown to be wrong (v. 11; cf. comment on 12:31–32,14:30–31).

The Paraclete continues Jesus» ministry of exposing the world's sin (3:20; 7:7; 15:22). Christ's own δικαιοσύνη–justification, or vindication–is established by the Father's witness in enthroning him;⁹²⁴⁹ the disciples» δικαιοσύνη is established because they are bound together with him in the Spirit and his exaltation is their vindication as well (cf. 1 John 2:1).⁹²⁵⁰ But just as the believers are justified with Christ, so also is the world condemned⁹²⁵¹ in its ruler (16:11).⁹²⁵²

It is not difficult to see how the Paraclete, acting as their defender, would encourage the Johannine community in their conflict with the synagogue.⁹²⁵³ As in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 13:9–11), even when the disciples would be brought before synagogue tribunals and other literal courts, their testimony was only a necessary prelude to the world's judgment, and their own vindication was soon at hand. Like the prophets of old, the disciples were to concern themselves more with laying God's charges against the disobedient than with any persecution they might face for doing so; and against the backdrop of early Jewish pneumatology, these Spirit-moved disciples would most readily be understood as prophets.

Since the world could not be confronted with its sin apart from the Paracletés work in the disciples (16:7), it is quite natural for John to turn next to the illumination of the disciples.⁹²⁵⁴ The Spirit's primary task here is christological, revealing the message of Jesus.⁹²⁵⁵

As in v. 6, the weakness of the disciples in the face of what is to come calls for Jesus» reassuring response: they could not bear⁹²⁵⁶ any more of his predictions of future hardship (cf. 14:28–29) now, but the Paraclete would continue to show them what they needed to know in the face of the world's hostility (16:12–13). This is not to say that the revelation was wholly new, Bultmann is at least partly right in saying that it would simply be newly understood.⁹²⁵⁷ But the same Jesus could clearly continue to speak new strategies to new situations, whether or not they had been directly addressed in any manual of his teachings.

Those who have thus regarded 16:13–15 as a promise addressed only to the apostles⁹²⁵⁸ are thus wide of the mark.⁹²⁵⁹ The analogy with 1 John 2:20,27, addressed to the community during a crisis of epistemological authority, supports a direct application to the community, which probably identified more with the beloved disciple than with the apostles led by Peter anyway.⁹²⁶⁰

The Paraclete here όδηγήσει, leads or guides, the community with regard to the truth. Όδηγέω is often used literally for leading, for example, the blind,⁹²⁶¹ but it has a variety of metaphorical extensions. Greco-Roman philosophers and moralists could speak of God⁹²⁶² or reason⁹²⁶³ as a guide (όδηγός or ήγεμών); scholars have pointed to a Philonic pas-sage in which the Spirit guided Moses» mind to truth.⁹²⁶⁴ In Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom could lead (οδηγήσει) the righteous;⁹²⁶⁵ God as the «way of wisdom» leads the wise to wis-dorn.⁹²⁶⁶ (Qumran scrolls also could speak of knowing God's «ways» because of the gift of his Spirit.)⁹²⁶⁷ In Diaspora Jewish texts, the term could be used negatively, as when wine «leads [οδηγεί] the eyes into the path of error [lust]» in T. Jud. 14:1,⁹²⁶⁸ or positively, as when «the angel of peace guides» the life of the righteous in T. Benj. 6:1.⁹²⁶⁹ In CD 1.11, God «raised up for them a teacher of righteousness [or a righteous teacher] to lead [way-make] them in the way of his heart [להדריכם בדרך לבו]»; and in Pss. So1. 17:40–41, Messiah will shepherd God's flock and lead (θίξει) them in his way (in John's circle of early Christianity, cf. the similar όδηγήσει in Rev 7:17).⁹²⁷⁰ Here the guiding in(to) truth probably relates to Jesus being the truth in 14:6.⁹²⁷¹

It is possible that this is the language of a new exodus; in the first exodus, God or Moses όδεύσει the Israelites.⁹²⁷² In the context of other new-exodus language, Paul de-scribes the believers in Jesus as being led (άγονται) by God's Spirit (Rom. 8:14; cf. also Ga1. 5:18), and this could imply a broader early Christian tradition in which the community of the new exodus was led by the Spirit in the present time.

But while new-exodus language may be in the background of this passage, it is probably not in the foreground.⁹²⁷³ More to the point are passages in which the psalmist prays for God to guide his ways «in truth,»⁹²⁷⁴ that is, in accordance with his covenant faithfulness. Dodd cites the most obvious text, Ps. 24(25):5, but argues,

Here אמת is that fundamental trustworthiness or rectitude which is an attribute of God, and to which by his help his servants may attain. This however is clearly not the sense of άin John xvi.13. The context speaks of things to be spoken, announced, and heard.... The content of these words is concisely summed up in the word άλήθεια, which is therefore not אמת, «faithfulness,» but «truth.»⁹²⁷⁵

Dodd thus maintains his view that the Johannine conception of «truth» is essentially the Hellenistic meaning, «reality.»⁹²⁷⁶ It is true that άλήθεια can mean intellectual truth,⁹²⁷⁷ for example, about the gods⁹²⁷⁸ or about the nature of reality,⁹²⁷⁹ but a Greek-speaking or any other Diaspora Jewish reader could understand moral truth,⁹²⁸⁰ as in the law.⁹²⁸¹ And in John 14:6, «truth» presumably has more to do with the character of God in his faithfulness to his people, his covenant integrity,⁹²⁸² and this is certainly the sense in 1:14.⁹²⁸³ Although it must be admitted that the first readers would have found other nuances of the Greek term even in its LXX occurrences, it did not lose its covenantal flavor: in Wis 15:1, God is χρηστός (kind) and άληθής (true), long-suffering and merciful; Exod 34:6, which is probably adapted in John 1(as is widely noted, despite the departure from LXX language),⁹²⁸⁴ continued to be read as stressing God's mercy.⁹²⁸⁵ Roughly 90 percent of the uses of άλήθεια in the LXX have  or cognates behind them.⁹²⁸⁶

If «truth» here retains some of its Semitic flavoring, it is also quite possible that the reading «in truth» should be preferred to the reading «into truth.» The latter could have easily arisen through a scribe who did not grasp the LXX construction but, preferring the more idiomatic Greek, thought to do John a favor by polishing his rhetoric. Έν has wider geographical distribution, and the patristic support for εις may be due to dogmatic reasons. As Metzger observes, the εις and the accusative may «have been introduced by copyists who regarded it as more idiomatic after όδηγήσει than the construction of εν and the dative.»⁹²⁸⁷ Έν matches some LXX constructions after which these words are modeled. The idea is thus more «the whole truth,»⁹²⁸⁸ the full revelation of God's character in Christ (14:6), than «all possible knowledge on any subject.»⁹²⁸⁹

The Paraclete, like Jesus (e.g., 5:19, 30; see comment on 5:19), will not speak «from himself,» or on his own (16:13);⁹²⁹⁰ rather, again like Jesus with regard to the Father (15:15), the Paraclete speaks whatever he hears (16:13). As surely as the community can trust that Jesus speaks for the Father, they can trust that the Spirit Jesus sent speaks for Jesus.⁹²⁹¹ This would imply that disciples of later generations could experience the same relationship with Jesus his first disciples did, an intimacy modeled by Jesus in his relationship with the Father (1:2, 18; 10:14–15). This band of continuity may serve the same function as the tying of the true Spirit to the historical Jesus, the Jesus who came in flesh and was known by the witness who stands behind the Fourth Gospel, in 1 John: John may be showing that the true Spirit is the one who represents Jesus in accordance with the Johannine tradition, as opposed to any spirit that conflicts with this tradition.⁹²⁹² Some think this may respond «to a belief that the Spirit is the mediator of the experience of God independent of Jesus,»⁹²⁹³ but while this is certainly possible,⁹²⁹⁴ it is more easily argued that the schismatics simply felt free to create new constructs about Jesus and his teaching that the rest of the community felt departed from the Jesus tradition as they had received it.

Such a proposal makes good sense in light of 1 John, but the Gospel context suggests a different emphasis. Since Jesus as the agent of the Father is wholly to be trusted and to repudiate Jesus is to repudiate the one who sent him, to repudiate the Spirit's representation of Jesus is to repudiate Jesus himself. In other words, the Spirit is viewed as the agent of lesus active in and through the community; if the synagogue or false prophets reject the message of Jesus through his community (a message preserved for us particularly in the Fourth Gospel), they are rejecting Jesus and thus God.

It also suggests a kind of charismatic intimacy that characterizes the true community, perhaps comparable to the Pauline «Abba» cry experience (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). Jesus» disciples while he was in the world heard from him whatever he had heard from the Father and so were his friends (15:15); since the Spirit enables the believers in John's day to hear whatever Jesus was still saying, the relationship should be as intimate as it had been when Jesus was in the world, and true disciples should learn to hear his voice just as accurately.⁹²⁹⁵ lesus» disciples know his voice (10:3–4) and indeed know him–in terms of an established, complete covenant relationship–as intimately as he knew his Father (10:14–15). This must include the continuing sense of his presence and intimate communication through the Spirit in the community. Such an experience would certainly mark off the Johannine community from the synagogue and could arguably serve as evidence that the eschatological, messianic reign had been initiated in the true community, identifying which group was really in communion with God.

Just as Jesus announces (άναγγελεΐ) everything regarding true worship of God in the Spirit («when he [the Messiah] comes,» 4:25; cf. the other Paraclete in 16:8, 13) and announces the Father himself (16:25), so the Spirit will announce what is to come (16:8,13, all the matters of Jesus (16:14–15).⁹²⁹⁶ This may lead to the question whether «the things to come» (v. 13) are equivalent in content to the «things of Jesus» (w. 14–15) or refer to something else.⁹²⁹⁷

There are various interpretations of τά έρχόμενα. Some apply the phrase τά ερχόμενα to the present, which may suit John's realized eschatology. Some of these scholars, reading it as parallel with «my things» in w. 14–15, take it as an eschatological interpretation of the passion events⁹²⁹⁸ or the new order inaugurated in Jesus.⁹²⁹⁹ As in Pauline theology (Rom 8:23; 1Cor 2:9–10; 2Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13–14), the Spirit provides a foretaste of the future era.⁹³⁰⁰ Bultmann, who holds this view, believes that it is the old word of Jesus unfolded in ever new power.⁹³⁰¹ Other scholars, who also take a nonfuturistic interpretation of the phrase, see it as a promise that the Spirit will superintend doctrinal developments in the later community⁹³⁰² or that the Paraclete will help them to address their new situations in light of Jesus.⁹³⁰³ These two very different interpretations stress a nonfuturistic reading of τά ερχόμενα, which could be consistent with John's frequently realized eschatology.

Other scholars read this as predictive prophecy, given to the disciples to enable them to endure what would come (cf. 13:19, 14:28; Isa. 48:5).⁹³⁰⁴ One could also think of God's good promises for his people (see Isa 45LXX). In favor of the future interpretation is the clear indication of the context that the disciples will share Jesus» «hour» of suffering but they could not bear further details until the coming of the Paraclete (v. 12). This also fits Jesus» foreknowledge of «things coming» to him (τά ερχόμενα, 18:4). It could prove intelligible to a Jewish sectarian audience; the Qumran community believed they had some advance knowledge of future things coming on the world.⁹³⁰⁵ In this interpretation, the book of Revelation (in which Jesus» voice is also the central voice of prophecy in the book)⁹³⁰⁶ could almost be read as a sequel work of the Paraclete in the Johannine community.⁹³⁰⁷

Both the nonfuturistic and the futuristic interpretations can derive some plausibility from the context. The Spirit will reveal the difficult situations that the community will confront, or the Spirit will reveal the solution to those situations. But if John's eschatology may include futuristic elements–and there is evidence that it does, provided one does not edit out these passages as inconsistent redaction–the futurist interpretation seems more probable. Some might even see in it authorization for John's application of his Jesus traditions to the situation of his community in conflict with the synagogues. A Johannine άποκάλυψις of Jesus Christ can include specific details about what the community must suffer, details not included in the Johannine reports of Jesus» teachings. As Jesus warned of the impending events of his passion in advance (13:19; 14:29; cf. 14:2), so the Spirit would continue to prepare Jesus» followers for testing in coming times (cf. Amos 3:7) or for their future inheritance. Whether futuristic or exhortative prophecy is in view, the association of the Spirit of God and announcing may suggest the prophetic function of the Spirit.⁹³⁰⁸

But w. 14–15 tie the Spirit as inseparably to Jesus as the rest of the Fourth Gospel ties Jesus to the Father. For John, not all the Spirit's words will have been reported in the Fourth Gospel, but all of them will be consistent with it (cf. 1 John 4:1–3), just as all Jesus» words in the Fourth Gospel are consistent with the Jesus of history known to the witness behind the Johannine tradition.

The glorification of Jesus by the Spirit (16:14) may relate to a continuing exposition of his character,⁹³⁰⁹ as suggested in 1:14. John 1:14–18 alludes to Exod 33–34, as argued earlier, where God's glory, revealed to Moses, includes an exposition of God's gracious and faithful character; throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus» signs reveal his identity,⁹³¹⁰ but the ultimate revelation/glorification comes in the cross and exaltation of Jesus (see esp. 12:23–24; 17:1–5).⁹³¹¹ The disciples could not understand Jesus until after Jesus» glorification (2:22, 12:16,13:7) because only then was the Spirit given (7:39) to continue to confront the community with the reality of Jesus. Their fresh revelation of Jesus stands in continuity with, rather than of being of a quality inferior to, the disciples» experience of Jesus during his earthly ministry.⁹³¹²

This passage indicates that as Jesus passed on the Father's message, so the Spirit would continue to mediate Jesus» message (16:14–15). The idea of intermediary passing on of revelation is familiar enough in Jewish circles, whether regarding apocalypses through angelic mediators⁹³¹³ or regarding the Torah through Moses⁹³¹⁴ or angels.⁹³¹⁵ Of course, the whole Jewish concept of pneumatic inspiration is seen as intermediary if one views the Spirit personally or hypostatically.

What is passed on? The phrase «my things» means «my possessions» or «whatever belongs to me,» the specific delimiting factor being only context.⁹³¹⁶ The logic of shared resources, or here of shared truth, may reflect the Greek communal ideal espoused by Diogenes the Cynic and others:

He used also to reason thus: «All things belong to the gods. The wise are friends of the gods, and friends hold things in common. Therefore all things belong to the wise.»⁹³¹⁷

(See further the comment on 15:15.) Such sharing of all resources also can reflect members of a family (Luke 15:31), an illustration appropriate for the relationship between Father, Son, and other children. As Athanasius later articulated more explicitly, the Spirit joins believers in Jesus to the divine communion of the Father and the Son.⁹³¹⁸ This sharing of resources, implied in the first line of 16:15, appears to be central to the case; «for this reason I said» (διά τοΰτο έείπον) later in 16probably signifies clarification of an earlier statement, as elsewhere in the Gospel (6:65; 9:23; 13:11).⁹³¹⁹ The question of particular items shared is unclear from the vocabulary itself; thus an oracle of Orpheus told Cyrus, «What is mine [τά έμά] is yours [σά]"–which sounded positive but turned out to mean that Cyrus would die the same way Orpheus had.⁹³²⁰ But context clarifies, and here as in 15:15, the shared resources are especially the words of the Father. Jesus received «all things,» particularly in terms of revelation of the Father (5:20; 17:7), and passed them on to his followers (4:25; 15:15); the Spirit would continue this work.⁹³²¹

In this passage, the prophetic Spirit enables the Johannine community to continue the first disciples» experience with Jesus and so provides them with an epistemological framework not available to their opponents. This affirmation, as much as the Spirit's prosecution of their opponents, serves the agendas of Johannine polemic.

Given this context about the coming of the Spirit, the passage into which 16:13–15 flows speaks of Jesus» historical departure and his presence by the Spirit from the point of his final historical encounter with the disciples (16:16–24).⁹³²² Although it is reasonable to begin a new paragraph with 16:16,⁹³²³ it refers to the same event in 20:19–23 as provides the disciples with the experience of the Spirit in 16:13–15. Jesus would return to them after the resurrection, and they would «see» him (16:16; 20:20);⁹³²⁴ the physical sight of 20would give way to permanent spiritual sight on the part of disciples (17:24).⁹³²⁵ This experience and the new relationship with the Father that it entailed would bring them «joy» (16:20, 22, 24; 20:20). In the context of John 16:16, this eschatological foretaste of the resurrection becomes a continuing experience of Jesus» presence in the community through the Spirit (16:13–15; 20:22).⁹³²⁶

As with most other paragraphs in John's discourse sections, particularly those in the final discourse, the boundaries of this paragraph are fluid. Because Jesus imparts his permanent presence through the Spirit at the same time that he «returns» to them (20:19–23), the Spirit revealing Jesus (16:13–15) essentially enables disciples to experience afresh the encounter of 16:16–24, including generations subsequent to the first, such as John's own. More important, the travail (16:21–22) gives way immediately to requests to the Father on the day Jesus returns (16:24–28); but one could break that paragraph just as easily by starting a new paragraph with Jesus announcing that he no longer speaks figuratively (16:25; cf. 16:29).

The Gospel repeatedly uses the familiar⁹³²⁷ phrase «a little while» for the remaining days before Jesus» hour of glorification, which begins with the cross (7:33; 12:35). In 16:16, the first «a little while» (μικρόν) refers to the hours remaining before the crucifixion (13:33); the second «a little while» refers to the brief interval between the crucifixion and the resurrection appearances (14:19; 16:19–20).⁹³²⁸

Within the story world, however, the disciples understand his meaning no more than they understood the passion predictions in the Synoptic Gospels. They wished to ask him the meaning of his words (16:17–18) but did not, presumably because their previous inquiries had merely exposed their ignorance (13:36–38; 14:5–7, 8–9; cf. perhaps 14:22–23).⁹³²⁹ Although disciples of teachers were supposed to learn partly by asking questions,⁹³³⁰ novices were supposed to learn quietly.⁹³³¹ John portrays the disciples as a foil for Jesus, hence novices in his presence (cf. comment on 3:4). Jesus knows what they want to ask him about, fitting John's portrayal of Jesus» divine knowledge in this Gospel (see comment on 2:23–25).

Jesus» «hour» of death (2:4) would finally come (16:21), though it would also become an hour of revelation to his followers (16:25). Although tears were appropriate to farewells in general (e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.194; Acts 20:37–38), «weeping» (16:20) appears in this Gospel only in conjunction with death, whether that of Lazarus (11:31,33) or that of Jesus (20:11, 13, 15); the death of the latter is specifically in view here. The term λύπη in 16:20–22 probably includes another wordplay: it can include «sorrow,» as in 16:6, or «pain,» as in childbirth.⁹³³²

Just as grief was particularly appropriate at the time of a loved onés death, the transformation of sorrow into joy (16:20,22) fits the image of eschatological joy at the resurrection of the righteous (cf. 20:20).⁹³³³ In early Christian belief, Jesus» resurrection was the first installment of the resurrection of the righteous (1Cor 15:23; Phil 3:21); in John's theology, it introduces the believers immediately into the experience of resurrection life (14:19; cf. 3:16). In one Jewish work of uncertain date, God tells Adam that though those who lured Adam into sin are rejoicing, God would turn their joy into sorrow (χαράν ... λύπην) and Adam's sorrow into joy;⁹³³⁴ it is possible, however, that this work here reflects the language of the Fourth Gospe1.

The comparison between their anguish and that of a birthing mother (16:21) is not incidenta1.⁹³³⁵ Some considered any mother's labor in birth as bringing her close to death.⁹³³⁶ Even on the Sabbath, Jewish pietists expected midwives and others to proceed to whatever lengths possible to insure a mother's comfort during childbirth.⁹³³⁷ Nevertheless, ancient childbearing lacked the benefits of modern means to reduce pain, and a mother's pain became proverbial for great travai1.⁹³³⁸ Although joy following birth pangs was expected,⁹³³⁹ this did not reduce the intensity of the pain involved; the epitome of ignorance, in fact, might be a fool who publicly asked his mother how her pangs were at his birth and then lectured her that nobody can have pleasure without having some pain mixed in as wel1.⁹³⁴⁰ Some had compared the unspeakable grief of losing those close to oneself,⁹³⁴¹ or the experience of being violently repressed for onés piety,⁹³⁴² with birth pangs. Such birth pangs were said to strengthen the mother's sympathy and love for her children (4 Macc 15:7).

The common eschatological associations of this image are critical here, as commentators often recognize.⁹³⁴³ The biblical prophets employed birth pangs as an image of extreme anguish.⁹³⁴⁴ In Jewish literature, these birth pangs came to illustrate the period of intense suffering immediately preceding the end,⁹³⁴⁵ as the final sufferings giving birth to a new world.⁹³⁴⁶ Here, too, the birth pangs are eschatological, except that they relate to the realized eschatology inaugurated among believers through Jesus» resurrection.

The image may most directly reflect Isa 26:16–21, which uses «little while,» labor pains, and resurrection.⁹³⁴⁷ An equally valid or perhaps better candidate is Isa 66:8–14, in which Zion travails to bring forth the restored people of God (66:8), and when God's people «see» (όψεσθε), they become «glad» (χαρήσετοα, 66:14).⁹³⁴⁸ Revelation (which we argued in the introduction, pp. 126–39, derives from a Johannine community) employs this same image to mark Jesus» glorification (Rev 12:2) at the time that the dragon is «cast out» (Rev 12:8–10; John 12:31; cf. 16:11) and the beginning of the interim period of suffering and divine provision for the rest of the woman's seed (Rev 12:6,14–17). Revelation employs the image in a manner analogous with John; in contrast with the Synoptics, the messianic woes begin not after Jesus» death (Mark 13:8) but in it (John 16:20–22).⁹³⁴⁹ Thus the woman experiences «tribulation» (16:21), which the disciples also must anticipate (16:33; Rev 1:9; 7:14).⁹³⁵⁰

Though the birth pangs apply especially to Jesus, they apply also to the whole of the people of God (cf. Isa 66:8; Rev 12:17). Jesus» followers can be «born from above» (3:3–5) because of the birth pangs in the cross. Just as birth pangs are temporary and normally yield a longer joy, so here they receive a joy that no one can take from them (16:22; cf. 10:28).⁹³⁵¹ Their permanent joy (16:22) will include a new relationship with the Father, inaugurated by Jesus» continuing presence among them through the Spirit (16:13–16); whatever they would now ask in Jesus» name, God would provide (cf. 14:13–14; 15:7, 16).⁹³⁵²

The boundaries between paragraphs are ambiguous in this discourse and could be divided in various ways; the continuity of thought is more essential than specific divisions, and therefore if one holds too tightly to an outline, it can obscure the flow of thought rather than reveal it. The travail of 16:21–22 yields immediately to requests to the Father on the day Jesus returns (16:24–28). One could break up 16:24–28 by introducing a new paragraph with Jesus announcing that he no longer speaks figuratively (16:25; cf. 16:29).

By going to the Father and returning with the Spirit, Jesus would bring the disciples directly to God: the Father would give their requests directly if they asked as Jesus» representatives instead of depending on Jesus to ask for them. This «directness» does not imply lack of mediation in all senses; rather, disciples come to the Father through Jesus (14:6), but as long as they remain in Jesus (14:20, 21–24), they remain in the Father's presence, with direct access to him in prayer. When he returns with the Spirit, Jesus will no longer need to speak of heavenly matters in earthly parables (3:12; 15:1); Jesus will reveal the Father more directly to them (16:25).

«In that day» (16:23, 26) is frequently eschatological language, which would fit John's emphasis on realized eschatology: Jesus returns in the resurrection to impart eschatological life through the Spirit (cf. 14:20).⁹³⁵³ In classical usage and often in the first century, ερωτάω (16:23) means «ask a question.»⁹³⁵⁴ But by the first century, it could also mean «request» (e.g., Matt 15:23; Mark 7:26), as it commonly does for Paul (Phil 4:3; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:12; 2 Thess 2:1), Luke (Luke 4:38; 5:3; 7:3, 36; 8:37; 11:37; 14:18–19, 32; 16:27; Acts 3:3; 10:48; 16:39; 18:20; 23:18), and John (4:31, 40, 47; 12:21; 14:16; 17:9, 15, 20; 19:31, 38; cf. 1 John 5:16; 2 John 5).

The most immediate context suggests «request,» given the remainder of 16:23–24 and the typical usage in prayer (16:26; 17:9,15,20); but the context also speaks of asking questions (16:5, 19, 30). If it refers to asking questions,⁹³⁵⁵ perhaps Jesus is saying that the Paraclete will teach them all they need to know (16:12–13),⁹³⁵⁶ or that their lack of understanding of God's plan will be met by the fulfillment of that plan (16:19–20), or that God will guide them even before they need to ask (16:30). Perhaps he refers to the fulness of eschatological knowledge (Jer 31:34; 1Cor 13:12), which obviates the need for questions.⁹³⁵⁷ Probably he is telling the disciples that instead of depending on Jesus to request the Father for them, they can approach the Father immediately as Jesus» representatives (16:26–27), which nevertheless implies Jesus» continued mediation (14:6). Jesus» previous use of obscure speech (16:25; cf. 6:60) will give way to the open speech others had long wanted from him (16:25; 10:24; 11:14; see comment on 7:4).⁹³⁵⁸ Previously he had shown them the Father (14:7–9), but now he would explain openly about the Father (16:25; cf. 4:25), and the Spirit would continue this work (16:13–15). Perhaps, given the semantic range of ερωτάω, John and his first audience would have felt less concern to distinguish these nuances. John is, in any case, a master of double entendre.⁹³⁵⁹

The second part of 16:23, however, clearly concerns requesting in Jesus» name.⁹³⁶⁰ They can make their requests directly to the Father (16:26) because the Father loves them on Jesus» behalf (16:27; cf. 15:9–10; 17:23).⁹³⁶¹ We have discussed this motif more fully under 14:13–14; cf. 15:7, 16. This Gospel elsewhere stresses God's gracious benevolence (e.g., 1:12; 3:16; 4:10; 6:32), and even oblique requests may receive answers (2:3; 11:21) The fulness of joy (16:24) reflects not only Jesus» resurrection (16:20–22; 17:13) but its consequences for their continuing life with him (15:10–11; 16:24).

Jesus is from the Father and returning to the Father (16:28), and so can bring them direct access to, and relationship with, the Father in his name (14:6). Now Jesus, who had «come into the world» (cf. 1:9; 3:17; 18:37), was «leaving the world» (16:28), and the disciples finally understand what he means by «going» from them (13:33, 36; 14:2–4, 12, 28; 16:5, 7, 10); although still potentially ambiguous (cf. 1Cor 5:10), «leaving the world» was more explicit from their perspective than going to the Father.⁹³⁶²

Now that Jesus has finally answered his disciples» question and they understand that he is going to the Father and returning, they affirm their faith in him (16:29–30). But like signs-faith elsewhere in the Gospel, this initial profession of faith will prove inadequate to withstand the coming testing unless it proceeds to full discipleship–which it will do only later. As in 13:36–38, Jesus warns his disciples that they will indeed grow weak in faith and abandon him (16:31–32); yet Jesus is not totally abandoned, for, as the Fourth Gospel repeatedly emphasizes, he is inseparable from the Father's presence (16:33).

Jesus» power demonstrated his divine origin, recognized even by Nicodemus from the start (3:2); the recognition that he knew «all things» (16:30; 18:4; 21:17),⁹³⁶³ however, should have pointed the disciples not only to Jesus» origin but to his deity (see 1 John 3:20; comment on 2:23–25).

Jesus further demonstrates this superhuman knowledge by predicting their betrayals (16:31–32).⁹³⁶⁴ That an «hour was coming and already had come» may reflect Johannine language for realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25); the hour of suffering about to come upon them was of a piece with the eschatological tribulation they would suffer. They would be scattered; this was the usual fate of troops whose leader had fallen,⁹³⁶⁵ but in biblical tradition, it was especially the fate of sheep without a shepherd, the condition of Israel when lacking faithful shepherds (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ezek 34:5; Zech 11:16; 13:7; 1Macc 12:53) or scattered in the exile (Jer 31:10; Bar 2:13; 1 En. 89:75). (On scattering, see more fully the comment on 10:12.) The saying in this case probably reflects the saying from the passion tradition also cited in Mark 14:27–28, based on Zech 13:7.⁹³⁶⁶ Being abandoned, left «alone,» was normally viewed as a great hardship;⁹³⁶⁷ to be abandoned by onés disciples was a mark of great shame.⁹³⁶⁸ (Each returning «to his own home»⁹³⁶⁹ may recall biblical language for defeated soldiers fleeing the battle after losing their leader–1 Kgs 22:17.)

But Jewish piety recognized that God might help those who were otherwise alone,⁹³⁷⁰ and in this Gospel, Jesus has affirmed that he is not alone (8:16) because the Father is with him (8:29; 16:32).⁹³⁷¹ This affirmation might reflect the consistent portrayal of Jesus as triumphant in John's Passion Narrative, as opposed to the tradition in the Synoptics, or might even answer theological questions raised by Mark. Whereas, in Mark, Jesus» cries in anguish can be interpreted as a sign of the Father's temporary abandonment (Mark 15:34), here Jesus affirms that the Father is with him without interruption (John 16:32; cf. Luke 23:46).

Finally, Jesus encourages his followers with a summary: great hardship awaits them, but in going to the Father through his death and consequent resurrection, Jesus has overcome the world (16:33).⁹³⁷² In the context of John's Gospel and early Christian eschatology, this note of triumph is not merely the Stoic notion of being unconquered no matter what the suffering⁹³⁷³ but a promise that evil and suffering do not ultimately prevail for Christ's followers. Jesus had spoken to them the words of this final discourse (cf. «spoken these things» in 14:25; 15:11; 16:1,4,6; 17:1) to bring them encouragement. Even so, the «peace» he promises here (16:33; cf. 14:27) would become more fully theirs only at Jesus» resurrection appearances; this «peace» (16:33) would come through Jesus» defeat in the eyes of the world, through which God brings victory in the resurrection (20:19, 21, 26).⁹³⁷⁴ The summons to be of good courage, θαρσεΐτε, was a general exhortation and comfort,⁹³⁷⁵ appropriate, for instance, to wish-prayers,⁹³⁷⁶ exhortations before battle,⁹³⁷⁷ promises of God's faithfulness to his people,⁹³⁷⁸ and burial epitaphs.⁹³⁷⁹ The disciples would face tribulation in Jesus» death (16:21) and in sharing his sufferings afterwards (Rev 1:9), but this did not mean defeat.

In the theology of the canonical Johannine corpus, believers overcome the evil one and the world by faithful obedience (1 John 2:13–14; 4:4), trusting in the accomplished victory of Christ (1 John 5:4–5). Such overcoming also demands persevering (Rev 2:7,11, 17, 26; 3:5,12, 21; 21:7), especially achieved through martyrdom (Rev 5:5; 12:11; 15:2).⁹³⁸⁰ Ironically–quite in contrast with the world's view of victory⁹³⁸¹–it is accomplished even when the forces of the world «overcome» the saints in a worldly sense (Rev 11:7; 13:7), in view of Christ's future defeat of the world's forces (Rev 17:14).