INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
1. The Problem<\/p>\n
Scholarly research devoted to the comprehensive study of Johannine pneumatology has been meager in recent years. This in spite of a surging interest in John that has led to numerous investigations into aspects of the Gospel, such as its Christology and literary content. A tendency to focus on the historical situation of John and its community and how that situation affected the development and content of the Gospel characterizes many of these studies. Still, questions about the development and content of John\u2019s spirit-language have largely gone unasked. Perhaps the predominantly historical interest in the Gospel of John reflects an effort on the part of Johannine scholars to avert attention away from its ancient designation as the \u2018spiritual Gospel\u2019. The antipathy for this label, which manages to make John seem insipid and ahistorical, may have caused scholars to neglect the import of John\u2019s pneumatology for an understanding of the Gospel and its socio-cultural context. John is indeed a very \u2018spirit-ual\u2019 Gospel; spirit figures prominently in John. A grasp of what spirit means within John can enhance our knowledge not only of the Gospel itself but of its context, since, as we will find, John\u2019s spirit-passages hint at the experiences of the author and his community. On the other hand, understanding the socio-cultural context of John is what allows us accurately to interpret John\u2019s use of \u2018spirit\u2019.
\nThe few major studies on John\u2019s comprehensive pneumatology in the past few decades have devoted scant attention to the socio-cultural context in which John\u2019s notions of spirit developed and functioned meaningfully. Since spirit identifies those who are of God and likely played an integral role in the identity of the author and his community, and since spirit is central to the Gospel\u2019s polemics at such key points as Jesus\u2019 dialogue with Nicodemus, this is surprising. So too is the general lack of consideration paid to the development in pneumatology between John and 1 John, and what that development might suggest about the social setting of the Johannine community. Spirit features in the message and polemic of 1 John, as in John, though the function of spirit in 1 John contrasts markedly with that of the Gospel.
\nDespite the neglect of these issues, one aspect of John\u2019s pneumatology receives much notice. We are referring to the figure of the Paraclete, the \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019, confined to the chapters of John known as the Farewell Discourses. Indeed, most scholars approaching the subject of John\u2019s pneumatology become so fixed on this enchanting figure that relatively little issues about \u2018spirit\u2019 in the remainder of the Gospel. This is understandable since the Paraclete raises so many questions for the researcher that the topic can easily become all-consuming. Simply discerning the meaning of the Greek word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 presents a significant challenge.
\nOne reason the Paraclete commands such attention is its uniqueness. This feature of John\u2019s pneumatology differs from anything else in the New Testament. Yet even without the Paraclete, the pneumatology of John is distinctive. For this reason studies of John\u2019s spirit-language are of great importance. Not to understand spirit in John in its unique Johannine sense is to risk interpreting John\u2019s spirit passages according to, say, Pauline or Lukan categories. And though their various uses of spirit may concur in certain aspects, such a method of interpretation is clearly flawed. Unlike Paul, the Fourth Evangelist does not conceive of the Spirit as that which enables believers to fulfill \u2018the just requirement of the law\u2019 (Rom. 8:4), the essence of the law that is love for one\u2019s neighbor (Gal. 5:14), thus freeing believers from the law (Gal. 5:18). He does not emphasize the ethical implications of the spirit, although Paul perseverates on them. Furthermore, the \u2018ecstatic\u2019 element of Paul\u2019s conception of the spirit (see Esler 1992) lacks mention in John. Similarly, Luke\u2019s fundamental emphasis on the spirit as that which possesses believers, giving them the ability to do miracles, to heal, preach and prophesy (Isaacs 1976: 88\u201389), comports ill with John\u2019s pneumatology.
\nFinally, pneumatology in John links so inextricably to all the major facets of John\u2019s theology that our understanding of it will inevitably enhance our understanding of various other elements of the Fourth Gospel. For example, in terms of broad theological categories, spirit merges with Christology, eschatology, ecclesiology and soteriology in John. Consequently, in The Anointed Community (Burge 1987), Burge interprets spirit in John in relation to just such theological categories. The importance of spirit in the interpretation of these categories in the Fourth Gospel can hardly be overstated. As Burge finds, the Evangelist\u2019s pneumatology substantially impacts and shapes his theology.
\nA question concerning us in this study will be, Why was spirit important to this author? Our inquiry aims to discern how spirit functioned for the Fourth Evangelist and his community, or what their particular conception of spirit meant for them in their cultural milieu. Why was it helpful to the Evangelist and his group to conceive of spirit in the unique ways they did? What distinguishes this approach from a theological approach is the assumption that ideas, be they theological or otherwise, are shaped by socio-cultural environment. Consequently, to understand the ideas or theology of an author as fully as possible, we suggest one must grasp the socio-cultural context underlying their ideas. Granted, this is not always possible. However, treating theological ideas as if they were spontaneous or as if they were the product of an individual theologian\u2019s intellectual musings and spiritual insights proves inadequate, although this happens often in Johannine studies. John\u2019s language often occasions abstract interpretations, leading one scholar to opine:<\/p>\n
The significance of John is felt almost as a matter of course to lie in its system of thought, its theology. The abstract language of the Fourth Gospel easily leads the interpreter to deal with it as an exercise in abstraction and to seek out the basic principles around which the system of abstractions behind it may be organized (Rensberger 1988: 17).<\/p>\n
Instead of, at least, attempting to understand the socio-cultural context influencing John\u2019s ideas and attempting to explain them, many Johannine scholars content themselves with merely describing those ideas. As often as possible, we will strive to offer explanations in addition to descriptions.
\nI contend that the abstract language of John can be adequately explained only when approached as the product of a socio-cultural context that has given rise to it. Usually we do not have enough information about the social or historical experiences underlying John. Sometimes we are given clues within the text itself to certain experiences presupposed by it, for example the experience of expulsion from the synagogue. Knowledge of this experience helps us to explain John\u2019s theology, for synagogue expulsion is not merely a situation that John\u2019s theology aims to address, but one that influenced and shaped its content. Still, there is a great deal more that we do not know about the specific experiences of the Johannine Christians than that we do know. How can we ever explain the ideas of John when we know so little about the experiences that have occasioned those ideas? I assert that, while we may know precious little about the social and historical experiences of the Johannine Christians, much can be known of the broader cultural context of John, the culture of the Circum-Mediterranean, and this knowledge can enable us better to understand John\u2019s theology and begin to explain it. The cultural context of John would have shaped and informed his theology just as specific experiences would have. But information about the cultural context of John is more accessible to us. On an abstract level we are able to learn about the cultural undercurrents of the Mediterranean world that enable us to make abstract assumptions about societies in that area. It is at this abstract level that we will attempt to understand the cultural context of John. Only with such an understanding can we begin to explain the ideas of John. My goal is not to develop a detailed social history or social description of the Fourth Gospel in order to explain its pneumatology, for as I already avowed, we are lacking the relevant information that would allow us to do so. Instead, I will offer an explanation of the pneumatology of John based on what we can know about the socio-cultural world of the Gospel. This study will admittedly reside on a higher plane of abstraction than that of social history, which seeks to situate certain biblical authors and audiences in concrete social-historical situations. The focus will be more broad except where information from the text allows us specificity.
\nThe approach just described permits us to consider the socio-cultural context of a text as an influence in the development of the ideas within a text in order to better explain those ideas. This is pivotal, for when we interpret the ideology of a text as if it were a system of abstractions and not the reflection of a specific cultural context, we risk interjecting our own cultural contexts into our interpretations of its ideas. In an effort to avoid doing this we will employ a methodology that aims, to whatever degree possible, to interpret texts according to their own cultural contexts: social-scientific criticism.<\/p>\n
2. The Method<\/p>\n
a. Social-scientific Criticism<\/p>\n
Social-scientific biblical criticism is a method of biblical interpretation that utilizes the findings, concepts and methods of the social sciences, including sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology and economics, in an effort to discern the meanings of biblical texts within their own social and cultural contexts. It focuses intentionally on the social and cultural dimensions of a text in acknowledgment of the fundamental importance of those dimensions to our understanding of its meaning. This presupposition is under-girded by the view from the sociology of knowledge, aptly elucidated by Berger and Luckmann, that knowledge is socially constructed, or in other words, that social realities relate dialectically to ideas and language (see Berger and Luckmann 1966). Symbols or language acquire meaning from their socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, a text only makes proper \u2018sense\u2019 in light of its context. Due to these assumptions, social-scientific critics distrust interpretations that neglect to consider the socio-cultural context of a text. Nonetheless, social-scientific biblical criticism is a method of historical exegesis and works in conjunction with other methods of exegesis that focus on equally important elements of a text, such as literary or theological elements. Therefore, social-scientific criticism should not be viewed as a monistic approach that seeks to reduce the value of a text to that of a social script. Furthermore, the focal point of social-scientific exegesis is first and foremost the text. Models and theories should be adopted for the purpose of clarifying and making a text more accessible.<\/p>\n
b. Models<\/p>\n
The deliberate use of specific analytical models borrowed from the social sciences distinguishes social-scientific biblical criticism. Such models can help us to analyze texts according to their own social and cultural contexts. Because an interpreter\u2019s view of reality reflects his or her own context, and because the socio-cultural contexts of many interpreters of the New Testament are remarkably different from those of the New Testament authors, many interpreters tend to see things differently than the New Testament authors would have seen them. Misinterpretation often results from such a predicament. Cultural anthropologists and sociologists develop models of specific socio-cultural phenomena to assist people, as much as possible, in interpreting social and cultural situations very different from their own.
\nA model has been defined as \u2018an abstract, simplified representation of some real world object, event, or interaction constructed for the purpose of understanding, control, or prediction \u2026 a scheme or pattern that derives from the process of abstracting similarities from a range of instances in order to comprehend\u2019 (Malina 1982: 231). Models are developed by observation of, and generalization, at varying levels of abstraction, about regularities in human behaviors or systems (Elliot 1995: 42). In analyzing a social phenomenon an interpreter will choose a model thought to share certain properties with his or her subject. The model then serves as a heuristic tool, allowing the interpreter comparatively to analyze his or her subject in relation to the model. The model facilitates understanding of the subject, raises questions about the subject, controls possible conclusions and allows for a range of prediction.
\nIn reality, all investigations involve the use of models, since our minds require objects of comparison by which we can make sense of whatever we are investigating. These objects of comparison are indeed a sort of model, though such models are often used subconsciously. The choice of specific analytical models allows us to discriminate between models, and in the end to decide on the models most useful in analyzing our topic, for example, models that \u2018fit\u2019 the socio-cultural and historical data we are studying. Therefore, models chosen for the purposes of biblical interpretation are generally \u2018those constructed on the basis of research and data pertaining to the geographical, social, and cultural region inhabited by the biblical communities, that is, the area of the Circum-Mediterranean and ancient Near East\u2019 (Elliot 1995: 49). The deliberate choice and use of a model permits one to disclose to others the model being used, so that it can be scrutinized and discarded if it proves unuseful.
\nThere are those who criticize the use of analytical models for a variety of reasons. Some biblical critics argue that employing models developed by modern-day anthropologists entails imposing alien frameworks on texts from a first-century context for which they might not be appropriate. Yet, as we stated above, every biblical critic uses models for analysis. Those who do not select analytical models relevant to the data under investigation often subconsciously employ models from their own modern-day contexts, such models as \u2018class\u2019, \u2018politics\u2019 or \u2018personality\u2019, which may prove a poor fit for analyzing ancient Mediterranean societies in which social hierarchies and personhood are conceptualized very differently than in, say, modern American societies. Social-scientific models are developed to facilitate comprehension of data that may not otherwise be accessible to the analyst; therefore the models must \u2018speak the language\u2019 of the analyst, using modern assumptions and social-scientific categories that can be understood by the analyst. Philip Esler points out that this is essential \u2018if we are to address cultural experience different from our own in terms we can comprehend\u2019 (Esler 1995: 7).
\nStill, some critics recommend an \u2018interpretive\u2019 approach to social-scientific analysis over a model-centered approach (see, e.g., Susan Garrett 1992: 92). To summarize this position in an admittedly terse fashion: those who espouse the interpretive approach stress the particularity of each socio-cultural situation and the need to analyze each situation on its own terms. The interpretive approach favors \u2018ethnographic\u2019 analysis, which focuses on the natives\u2019 point of view and seeks to interpret data on their terms, rather than cross-cultural analysis that employs modern social-scientific models and categories to translate and interpret socio-cultural situations in such a way as to make them comprehensible to the analyst (Esler 1995: 5\u20136). A key problem with the interpretive approach is how it limits the capacity of any given culture to communicate with another. The approach is essentially relativistic, for it insinuates that one can only know and understand a given socio-cultural situation according to its own terms, making most cultures unknowable to \u2018outsiders\u2019. Those of the model-centered approach, on the other hand, contend that cross-cultural communication and understanding is possible, and that models can assist in translating \u2018foreign\u2019 data into terms that can be understood by outsiders, without distorting that data. A further criticism of the interpretive approach to social-scientific analysis of New Testament texts recognizes its impracticality. Total immersion in the socio-cultural situation under investigation allows the observer to execute the interpretive approach successfully (Garrett 1992: 92), yet this level of first-hand observation of an alien context is not possible with respect to the socio-cultural situations behind the New Testament texts. Models developed by anthropologists of the Circum-Mediterranean, based on their observation of people groups in that region, on the other hand, make it possible for us to acknowledge our subjectivity as interpreters of those texts and to attempt to place it in check. The abstract nature of those models enables interpreters to know and understand the general features of Mediterranean culture, and to allow that knowledge to inform their interpretations of the New Testament texts that came out of that culture. Though it could be argued that the culture of the modern-day Circum-Mediterranean on which our anthropological models are based cannot be assumed to be an exact representation of the culture of Mediterranean societies 2,000 years ago, it is certainly much closer to the culture of the New Testament world than are American or western European cultures.
\nFinally, it may be the case that in using a general anthropological model one finds that the model must be adapted to reflect specific ethnic-cultural features distinctive to the group\/situation under examination, or refined to reflect known features of a specific period in history. I attempt to do this with regard to my primary model, patron-client relations, in a section where I explore to what extent patronage was a factor throughout the Early Roman Empire, as well as what shape it took in various contexts.<\/p>\n
c. Social-scientific Questions Regarding Johannine Pneumatology<\/p>\n
One of the advantages of the social-scientific approach to exegesis is that it poses many questions for which the exegete can pursue answers. This proves to be the case in the study of John and 1 John, which are laden with cues to the socio-cultural contexts of the writings, cues that can inspire many questions about that context if only the exegete is willing to ask them. Some of the socio-cultural questions one might ask of John and 1 John are:<\/p>\n
\u2022 What social and cultural system constitutes the larger context of John\/1 John?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What are its dominant institutions, and what do the texts reveal about the relationship of the Johannine Christians to these institutions?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What do the texts reveal about the immediate social situation of the Johannine Christians?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Who are the insiders and who are the outsiders in the texts?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What do the texts reveal about how group boundaries and social identity are maintained by the Johannine Christians?<\/p>\n
\u2022 How are relationships within the group conceptualized?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What do the texts indicate about social issues or problems that the Johannine Christians might be grappling with?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What is the author\u2019s strategy for dealing with these issues or problems?<\/p>\n
\u2022 How does the author\u2019s pneumatology figure in his strategy?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What response does the author seek from his readers?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Do the texts suggest that the author\u2019s pneumatology serves a legitimating purpose for the Johannine Christians?<\/p>\n
\u2022 What are the self-interests or group interests that occasioned the writing?<\/p>\n
These, and similar, related questions, will guide us as we strive for greater insight into the relationship between the texts and socio-cultural situations underlying John and 1 John. It is believed that such insight will facilitate a fuller understanding of the notions of spirit in those texts.<\/p>\n
3. Preliminary Matters<\/p>\n
a. John\u2019s Audience<\/p>\n
Recently, attention has been devoted to the question of the Gospels\u2019 audiences. To whom were the Gospels written? Prominent among such endeavors is a collection of essays edited by Richard Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians (1998), which challenges the prevalent view that the Gospels were primarily directed at the Evangelists\u2019 own communities. Richard Bauckham, in particular, is to be commended for his initiative in challenging a largely unexamined consensus, and opening debate on this subject, a debate which will, no doubt, refine our understanding of the Gospels. His challenge begs a response here, for it is an assumption of this study that the Fourth Evangelist communicates initially to his immediate in-group, whether they be called the \u2018Johannine community\u2019, \u2018Johannine Christians\u2019 or some other name. Nonetheless, John\u2019s audience does not play a central role in this study. The focus will be on the context that shaped the ideas of the Evangelist, why he wrote what he wrote, and what his ideas mean. Of less interest to us is defining the audience to whom he articulates his ideas. However, what has been stated above would imply that ideas born out and articulated out of a particular context will make the most sense to those who share that context, in the case of the Fourth Evangelist, his immediate in-group, the Johannine Christians. Nevertheless, an author can address a writing to a broad audience even if such an audience may not understand the author\u2019s ideas as readily as those closest to him or her. Is this what the Fourth Evangelist has done? I think not.
\nRichard Bauckham, who contributes three essays to The Gospels for All Christians, states the thesis of the book: \u2018[T]he Gospels were written for general circulation around the churches and so envisaged a very general Christian audience. Their implied readership is not specific but indefinite: any and every Christian community in the late-first-century Roman Empire.\u2019 If any one of the Gospels constitutes an \u2018Achilles\u2019 heel\u2019 of this thesis, it is the Gospel of John.
\nThe Fourth Gospel implies a context of acute struggle with the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, and particularly the synagogue. The references to \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in Jn 9:22, 12:42 and 16:2 likely reflect a situation where Christians, no doubt Christians close to the Evangelist, have been expelled from the synagogue, and the passages around these verses (not to mention other Johannine passages), likely have something to say directly to those who are dealing with this crisis. Now Bauckham contends that if expulsion from the synagogue happened, it must have happened in diaspora cities all over the Roman Empire where Christians were still attending synagogue in the late first century (Bauckham 1998: 23), and, therefore, evidence that the Evangelist addresses a group recently expelled from the synagogue does not hamper his thesis. According to Bauckham, this group could have included Christians from any and every Christian community. However, evidence to suggest that expulsion from the synagogue happened to Christians everywhere is non-existent.
\nThe least one can gather from John is that the Fourth Evangelist had been deeply affected by the conflict with the synagogue, indicating that the synagogue he attended had participated in the expulsion of Christians. Therefore, he and the other Christians who shared this experience with him, found themselves exiles. Even if the Fourth Evangelist envisaged \u2018the general Christian movement\u2019 as an in-group, the group of believers closest to him, who experienced synagogue expulsion along with him, would constitute his immediate in-group. Considering the intense group-orientation of Mediterranean people, it seems unlikely that a Mediterranean author whose immediate in-group faced serious social crisis, and who were at risk of theological floundering, would have bypassed the opportunity to address the needs of that group directly, in favor of addressing the very general needs of the broad Christian audience. Would such a group-oriented person have tailored his story of Jesus to speak to the \u2018least common denominator\u2019 among Christians instead of molding a message that would offer hope, stability and explanation to his initial group? Probably not. Even if the Fourth Evangelist felt a connection to Christians everywhere, he would have felt a much closer affinity to those in his immediate group with whom he ate, shared goods, learned and taught, and to whom he felt a strong loyalty.
\nThis is not to say that the Johannine community was necessarily \u2018isolated\u2019 from other Christian groups, or that the Johannine community was a sect vis-\u00e0-vis other Christian groups, or that the Johannine community consisted of just one church in one location. It is conceivable that the Fourth Evangelist traveled and had a connection to Christian groups in more than one city. And it is likely he was aware of some Christian writings (such as Mark) circulating widely among Christian groups. Perhaps when he wrote his Gospel he was aware that it could be similarly circulated. However, it is one thing to suggest that he was cognizant of (and may have even welcomed) the fact that his writing would be disseminated broadly, and quite another to postulate that his main intention was to address any and every possible Christian the Gospel might eventually reach. The Gospels for All Christians seems to propose a false dichotomy: either the Gospels were written \u2018purely for one\u2019s own community\u2019 (Bauckham 1998: 30), a view the authors find untenable, or they were written to any and every Christian. A more moderate alternative can be envisioned. It is likely that an intensely group-oriented Mediterranean person would have addressed the concerns of his immediate in-group initially, even if he envisaged his message having broader impact. This is my view, a view incongruent with the view that the Fourth Evangelist wrote only for a specific audience (which Bauckham calls the \u2018consensus\u2019), and incongruent with the view of The Gospel for All Christians that the Fourth Evangelist wrote only for an indefinite audience. As he wrote his Gospel, the Fourth Evangelist likely had in view his immediate in-group with their trials and questions, and addressed those concerns. However, because he was aware that, like Mark, his Gospel might reach a broad audience, he was, at the same time, saying something about Jesus to an indefinite audience. One imagines that many of us who do the work of writing know this is possible, since one often articulates one\u2019s ideas with a particular interlocutor in mind, say a friend, colleague or opponent, while knowing one\u2019s potential audience is far more broad.<\/p>\n
b. The Nature of the Johannine Community<\/p>\n
It is not the intention of this study to attempt to get at the community behind the Gospel and to paint a detailed picture of the Johannine Christians and their history. However, since I assume the social context of the Fourth Evangelist shaped his ideas and how he expressed them, and since I assume he wrote with a view to addressing the specific concerns of his in-group, the Johannine Christians, I also believe the Fourth Gospel infers something of the social setting of this group. Here I shall engage the work of certain scholars who, based on such inferences, have attempted to develop an idea of the kind of group the Johannine community was, and shall end with a word on my own basic ideas about John\u2019s group.
\nBruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh offer an intriguing picture of the Johannine community in their Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998). Drawing on the insights of sociolinguistics, and particularly the work of Michael Halliday on \u2018antilanguages\u2019, Malina and Rohrbaugh characterize Johannine language as antilanguage, and argue that the Johannine Christians constitute an antisociety, \u2018a society that is set up within another society as a conscious alternative to it. It is a mode of resistance, resistance which may take the form either of passive symbiosis or of active hostility and even destruction\u2019 (Halliday 1978: 164). Central features of antilanguages include: (1) Relexicalization: \u2018using new words for some reality that is not ordinarily referred to with those words\u2019 (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 4). Relexicalization occurs only in certain areas, \u2018typically those that are central to the activities of the subculture and that set it off most sharply from the established society\u2019 (Halliday 1978: 165). (2) Overlexicalization: using many different words to refer to areas of utmost concern (Halliday 1978: 165\u201366). (3) A metaphorical quality that is central to antilanguage. Metaphor is used commonly in language, yet the metaphorical origins of everyday language are often forgotten. In antilanguages, metaphor is used with intentionality (Halliday 1978: 175\u201377). (4) Orientation toward the textual and interpersonal modes of communication over the ideational mode. The textual mode refers to how something is said; the interpersonal mode to the relationship between the addresser and the addressee; and the ideational mode to what is being said. In antilanguages, \u2018ideas\u2019 receive less attention than textual and interpersonal concerns.
\nAll of these features of antilanguages are strikingly present in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Evangelist does indeed relexicalize, using new phrases to refer to known realities, and specifically those of central importance to the author. For example, being \u2018born of God\u2019, \u2018believing into him\u2019, \u2018abiding in him\u2019, \u2018knowing him\u2019, \u2018keeping his word\u2019, \u2018receiving him\u2019 and \u2018having him\u2019 are all used to express the reality of accepting, or putting faith in Jesus. Overlexicalization is evident in the number of terms used to express this reality, as well as in other areas of significance. The realm of God, for example, is referenced using several different words, such as light, truth, from above, life, freedom, love, and spirit. The metaphorical quality of John\u2019s language becomes most apparent in the \u2018I AM\u2019 sayings. Finally, the frequent use of word-plays, double meanings and irony, as well as redundancy and metaphor, in John bespeaks a heightened attentiveness to the textual component of language, to how things are said. And the use of personal conversation as the key mode of revelation in John, along with the many ways of expressing relationship to Jesus, evidences a keen interest in the interpersonal mode of communication. Less emphasis is placed on the ideational mode, on what is being said, in John. The Fourth Gospel seems to have relatively little to say, but many ways of saying it.
\nThe illumination of these antilanguage features of John by Malina and Rohrbaugh, which would not have been possible without the help of Halliday\u2019s model, demands that scholars take seriously the possibility that the Johannine Christians constituted an \u2018antisociety\u2019, a society set up within another society as a conscious alternative to it. This thesis would lend considerable weight to the basic view that the Johannine community was an especially alienated group whose group-consciousness was fueled by their opposition to \u2018another society\u2019, specifically that of the synagogue, and would confirm the conception of the Johannine Christians as a \u2018sectarian\u2019 group recently divorced from the parent entity of the Israelite religion. The function of antilanguages is, in the words of Halliday, \u2018to create alternative reality\u2019 (Halliday 1978: 179). He also states: \u2018Antilanguages are usually used for contest and display \u2026 the speakers of an antilanguage are constantly striving to maintain a counter-reality that is under pressure from the established world\u2019 (Halliday 1978: 180). Thus it is probable that the Johannine group developed their unique way of communicating as a deliberate attempt to create and maintain, in lieu of expulsion from the synagogue, their alternative, Christian view of God and their relationships to God.
\nA question evoked by Malina and Rohrbaugh\u2019s thesis is, Was the Johannine community really set up within the society of the Israelite religion? Or were they no longer in that society at all? Much in John suggests that the author was engaged in a sort of one-sided \u2018conversation\u2019 with the Israelite religion. His models for conceptualizing theology, even Christology, were Hebraic in character, and he structures his entire Gospel around Israelite festivals. This author was clearly legitimating, meaning explaining and justifying, his alternate view of reality using the paradigms of the Israelite faith. He even summons testimony to Jesus from Israel\u2019s greatest heroes, Moses and Abraham (5:46; 8:56), while at the same time challenging their significance in light of Jesus (6:32\u201333; 8:58). All this, along with the Fourth Evangelist\u2019s dualistic alignment of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 with the world, the realm of darkness, suggests he did indeed envision himself and his group as still \u2018within\u2019 the world of Israelite religion. From their standpoint within that world, the Johannine Christians were actively conceptualizing a new reality \u2018as a conscious alternative\u2019 to it. Though they may not have been in the synagogue any longer, they believed they were \u2018the true Israel\u2019 in the midst of those who only called themselves by that name.
\nJohannine dualism must factor prominently in one\u2019s assessment of the kind of group the Johannine Christians constituted. The Fourth Evangelist conceives of reality in terms of binary opposites: light and dark, truth and falsehood, spirit and flesh, above and below. In his view, the world above is fundamentally incompatible with the world below, and only those who become \u2018born from above\u2019 are saved. This intensely dualistic worldview proves unique within the Israelite and Christian traditions, though parallels have often been noted between Johannine dualism and that of the Community Rule (1QS) of the Dead Sea scrolls. What does the dualistic world-view of these documents suggest about the social setting of the authors and their in-groups? What kind of groups tend to divide reality into two incompatible realms?
\nPhilip Esler, in a study of the Fourth Gospel and the Community Rule, concludes that those documents are the product of introverted, sectarian communities (Esler 1994). Toward the aim of explaining the responses to the world evident in the two documents, Esler puts to use the sectarian typology developed by sociologist Bryan Wilson in his book Magic and the Millennium (Wilson 1975). Wilson distinguishes seven types of sectarian movements, each of which is characterized by a unique response to the world. Of those types, the \u2018introversionist\u2019 type seems best to characterize the stance vis-\u00e0-vis the world that is assumed in the Fourth Gospel and 1QS. Since I am unable to present a detailed summary either of Wilson\u2019s typology or Esler\u2019s analysis, I will simply highlight the broad features of introversionist groups, features that Esler argues convincingly are resonant in the two documents under investigation, and point readers to Esler\u2019s study (Esler 1994: 70\u201391). Introversionist movements tend to<\/p>\n
\u2022 view the world as irredeemably evil;
\n\u2022 view salvation as attainable solely by withdrawal from the world;
\n\u2022 believe salvation is experienced in the present, even if a future realization is envisioned;
\n\u2022 view their movement as the source and seat of salvation (Wilson 1975: 23\u201324).<\/p>\n
The uniqueness of Johannine dualism compels scholars to seek analogies with other similar documents in order better to understand the meaning and context of John\u2019s dualistic language. Understandably, 1QS has presented scholars with an apt analogy. However, in contrast to scholars who posit a direct relationship between John and Qumran (e.g. Charlesworth 1990: 76\u2013106; Ashton 1991: 237), Esler asserts the similar ideology and symbolism manifested by the two documents is born out of a similar social context, one in which a group finds itself profoundly alienated from the outside world and set against it. \u2018In such a context\u2019, writes Esler, \u2018dualism comes naturally\u2019 (Esler 1994: 91). The utility of the analogy between the dualism of 1QS and the Fourth Gospel lies not in some indication of direct contact between the communities, but in what it suggests about the types of communities they were. Bryan Wilson\u2019s typology of sectarian movements suggests that both groups exhibited introversionist tendencies.
\nEsler\u2019s social-scientific analysis confirms the views of such scholars as Wayne Meeks (1972) and David Rensberger (1989), who earlier argued that the Johannine community was of a \u2018sectarian\u2019 nature. Their sectarian stance was vis-\u00e0-vis the world, understood specifically as the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, not against the broader Christian movement. However, the Fourth Evangelist and his group were unique among Christian groups. The Johannine Christians conceived of themselves as separated from this world in a very pronounced way, as no longer associated with the earthly realm, because of their new status as God\u2019s children. They were of the realm of God.
\nThe following study is not a study either of antilanguage in John, or of the Johannine community as \u2018sect\u2019. Yet much of the exegesis corroborates both Malina and Rohrbaugh\u2019s view of the group as an \u2018antisociety\u2019, as well as Esler\u2019s view of the group as an \u2018introversionist sect\u2019. Though I do not venture to offer a detailed definition of the Johannine community, this examination of spirit in John provides further evidence in support of the view that the Fourth Evangelist and his in-group, to whom his Gospel is initially addressed, were creating an alternative reality. The Fourth Evangelist went much further than any other New Testament author in articulating his Christian view of reality as an alternative to the Israelite religion, as well as in incorporating a stark dualism into his Christian ideology. The competitive, dualistic context of the Johannine spirit sayings will become apparent as this study unfolds. Nonetheless, I am not suggesting that the Johannine Christians viewed spirit merely as a feature of antilanguage, or an ideological construct used to effect group differentiation between themselves and the world. On the contrary, the account of the breathing of the spirit into the disciples by Jesus in Jn 20:22, with its likely allusions to the creation of Adam in Gen. 2:7, conveys something of the reality and vitality of spiritual birth to the Johannine group.<\/p>\n
4. Preview of Contents<\/p>\n
a. Main Model<\/p>\n
The main social-scientific model used in this study is the model of patron-client relations. This model is especially fitting and useful for an analysis of pneumatology in John, and its usefulness will be explored and tested as it is employed here. The first chapter of this study will offer a definition of the patron-client model, an explanation of its variations, a detailed discussion of the applicability of the model to the socio-cultural world of the Johannine writings, an explanation of why the model lends itself to an interpretation of John\u2019s pneumatology, and finally a brief analysis of John\u2019s Christology using the model of patronage. I intend to use the model of patron-client relations in conjunction with other methods of biblical interpretation, drawing on the insights of Johannine studies while viewing the text against the background of patronage, using the model as an analogical tool.<\/p>\n
b. Structure of Study<\/p>\n
Chapter 2 presents a summary, along with some analysis, of four scholars\u2019 approaches to Johannine pneumatology. The remaining chapters of the study are devoted to the exegesis of the references to \u2018spirit\u2019 in John and 1 John. The use of spirit in the chapters of John other than the Farewell Discourses occupies our interest in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 focuses on the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth in the Farewell Discourses. And Chapter 5 deals with the references to spirit in 1 John and the variations in pneumatology between 1 John and the Fourth Gospel. In the Conclusion, I assess the use of the patron-client model and its usefulness in our exegesis of the spirit-references in the Johannine writings.<\/p>\n
c. The Relationship between John and 1 John<\/p>\n
An assumption of this study is that John and 1 John are related texts. The identity of the author or authors of the two writings is not of profound importance to our investigation, so I do not plan to rehash the debate over that identity. Neither do I find it crucial that we decide whether or not they were written by the same author. What matters is whether John and 1 John are in some way related and reflect related social contexts. Most scholars concede they do. The striking similarities between the two texts point us to that conclusion as well.
\nJohn and 1 John share a close resemblance in vocabulary, style and thought. Both employ a small vocabulary and a repetitive style. Words frequently used in both texts include such characteristically Johannine terms as \u2018life\u2019, \u2018truth\u2019, \u2018light\u2019, \u2018Son\u2019, \u2018world\u2019, \u2018flesh\u2019, \u2018abide\u2019 and \u2018know\u2019. Even more notable is the occurrence of particular unique phrases in both the Gospel and Epistle. These include \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019, \u2018do the truth\u2019, \u2018born of God\u2019, \u2018children of God\u2019, \u2018walk in darkness\u2019, \u2018have sin\u2019, \u2018overcome the world\u2019, \u2018take away sin\u2019 and \u2018Savior of the world\u2019, as well as the word \u2018Paraclete\u2019 (Caird 1962: 950). The writing styles of John and 1 John also share a good deal in common. Distinctive to both is the frequent use of parataxis, asyndeton and parallelism\/antithesis (Dodd 1937: 130). Furthermore, prominent themes from the Gospel appear in the Epistle. Both teach union with God, made possible through Jesus, and both virtually equate obedience or ethics with love (Caird 1962: 950).
\nStill, certain aspects of John and 1 John give one pause before attributing them to the same pen. Thirty of the most characteristic words from the Gospel fail to appear in the Epistle, including the critical word \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1. In addition, certain words totally foreign to John feature prominently in 1 John, for example, \u2018antichrists\u2019 (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), \u2018anointing\u2019 (\u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) and \u2018expiation\u2019 (\u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) (Caird 1962: 950). Perhaps most striking, however, are the theological differences between John and 1 John. In 1 John one finds an expiation model of salvation (1:7; 2:2; 4:10) that is rare in John, an understanding of the spirit as the spirit of prophecy, a notion more consonant with primitive pneumatology than with that of John, and 1 John emphasizes the imminence of the parousia (2:18; 4:17), while John emphasizes the present experience of Jesus among believers. Finally, it also must be noted that the Epistle pales in comparison to the Gospel\u2019s literary finesse (Grayston 1984: 9). These differences cause one reluctance in attributing the authorship of John and 1 John to the same person. Nevertheless, despite the disparity between the works, the similarities shared by the two suggest a close relationship or influence. The traits in common between the two are all traits that could have been picked up by two writers sharing some sort of association with one another. This is especially true if one of those writers was purposely attempting to mimic the style of the other, as might have been the case with the author of 1 John (Dodd 1937: 156). Though I cannot offer decisive proof of either common or different authorship of John and 1 John, I believe the case is strong that the two texts must be related. Still, the nature of the relationship between John and 1 John is unclear and will have to be deduced from our exegesis of the texts. I hope to explore the relationship between the Gospel and Epistle through this study of their spirit passages and through that study to come to a better understanding of how the two fit together.
\nThis will inevitably raise the question of which text might have been earlier, and which later. Aligning the two writings chronologically proves difficult since many Johannine scholars now believe the Gospel to have been written over a substantial period of time and in several stages. I agree with this basic conclusion, though I choose not to adopt any of the baroque theories about how and why the Gospel saw such development, or to construct my own detailed theory of its development. Thus, in regard to the relationship between John and 1 John, the focus will not be on the chronological alignment of the two. In exploring the two writings in terms of their pneumatology I plan to demonstrate where there is difference of thought and where there is continuity. Only after I have determined this will I venture to ask what the similarities and differences in pneumatology might suggest about their chronological relationship.<\/p>\n
5. Hypothesis<\/p>\n
John\u2019s spirit sayings are integral to an understanding of Johannine theology, most importantly to the Christology of the Gospel. This thesis will demonstrate how spirit is used by the Evangelist in the Gospel proper to designate that which is of the realm of God. It serves as a sign of Jesus\u2019 origins \u2018from above\u2019 and thus legitimates Jesus as the only one capable of providing access to the realm of God, or eternal life. New birth in spirit is a benefit proffered by Jesus to those who accept him, making them children of God and thus opening up to them all of the benefits of God\u2019s patronage. In John, spirit functions to set Jesus apart from all earthly means of gaining access to God.
\nIn the Farewell Discourses, the contours of John\u2019s pneumatology are altered in that here the spirit comes to be characterized as the Paraclete who makes possible continued access to Jesus after Jesus has departed. This characterization of the spirit addresses a concern within the community over how Jesus can continue to provide access to God when he is no longer around. In the Discourses, Jesus\u2019 exclusive ability to provide a way to the Father is strongly reasserted, and the Paraclete is depicted as providing believers with continual access to Jesus.
\nNot only is a study of John\u2019s overall pneumatology warranted by the fact that relatively few scholars have extensively studied all of John\u2019s spirit passages together, but it will also fill a gap in Johannine scholarship by describing the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete more precisely than other scholars have. The patron-client model proves useful for explaining their relationship. Furthermore, by drawing on the findings of anthropological studies of Mediterranean culture, we will also be better equipped to understand what the spirit passages outside of the Farewell Discourses meant to the author and his audience.<\/p>\n
Chapter 1<\/p>\n
PATRON-CLIENT RELATIONS AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN<\/p>\n
The pneumatology of John\u2019s Gospel stands out within the New Testament. This comes as no surprise to those familiar with John\u2019s distinctiveness. But one has to wonder how John\u2019s unique pneumatology came to be. What context nurtured its gestation? Furthermore, the exegete must ask what the Evangelist\u2019s use of spirit means within the Gospel. How does the spirit function for the author? What did the Evangelist mean when he wrote, \u2018no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit\u2019 (3:5)? How does one understand the Paraclete?
\nDifferent methods of biblical exegesis approach such questions differently. All, however, begin by way of analogy. We propose that all exegetical investigations begin with prior concepts or categories that, in following Max Black, we will call \u2018archetypes\u2019. Archetypes allow the interpreter to order information meaningfully, for the mind needs preexisting concepts by which to analyze information comparatively. As M. Abrams puts it:<\/p>\n
Any area for investigation, so long as it lacks prior concepts to give it structure and an express terminology with which it can be managed, appears to the inquiring mind inchoate\u2014either a blank, or an elusive and tantalizing confusion (Abrams 1953: 31\u201332).<\/p>\n
Archetypes may be either implicit or explicit. A biblical exegete of the narrative critical persuasion might appeal to explicit literary categories, such as characterization and point of view in interpreting a document. A feminist critic might interpret a text via more implicit archetypes, like cultural assumptions about gender issues.
\nThe use of theoretical models constitutes a deliberate attempt to analyze information analogically. It goes a step beyond the use of archetypes in that a specific model, one deemed to share certain properties with the research subject, serves as a conceptual instrument of analysis (Elliot 1995: 41). The model and subject act like a metaphor in juxtaposing two frames of reference (Barbour 1974: 13) and inviting us to understand the lesser known by way of the familiar, the model being that which is more familiar. The comparison of model and subject presents new questions and alerts us to new possibilities. A model does not create data or evidence, but provides a lens through which to order and understand the subject at hand. It must therefore have correlative features in common with one\u2019s subject in order to be useful for analyzing that social phenomenon.
\nI find the social-scientific model of \u2018patron-client relations\u2019, particularly the variation of patron-client relations known as \u2018brokerage\u2019, to be a fitting and useful model for the study of Johannine pneumatology. The salient features of the patron-broker-client relationship at various points in John correspond to and illuminate the relationship between God, Jesus, the spirit and the believer. Moreover, an awareness of the reality of patron-client relations during the Early Roman Empire can be of assistance in answering the questions proposed at the start of this chapter. Patronage, as experienced during that period, provides a context for John\u2019s pneumatology. I assert it is the background against which it functioned meaningfully for the Evangelist and his readers. An understanding of patron-client relations not only assists one in interpreting John\u2019s spirit-language but is necessary for adequately comprehending the author\u2019s meaning and its import. Before expounding upon the choice of the patron-client model in relation to John, however, it is necessary to define and outline the model. It will be apparent that I do not follow one social-scientist\u2019s outline of that model, but incorporate features of the model as delineated in several different studies of patronage in the Mediterranean world.<\/p>\n
1. Patron-Client Relations: The Model<\/p>\n
a. Definition<\/p>\n
Patron-client relations or \u2018patronage\u2019 denotes a pattern of social behavior founded upon the reciprocal relationships of patrons and clients. A \u2018patron\u2019 uses his or her resources and influence to assist or protect another person, the \u2018client\u2019, who in return offers certain benefits or services to his or her patron (Saller 1982: 1). Patron-client relationships display the following features.
\n(1) They involve a simultaneous exchange of resources; they must be reciprocal and mutually beneficial. This should not imply they always involve a fair exchange, and rarely do they involve a one-for-one transaction. Patrons and clients generally do not exchange equivalent goods. Wolf characterizes the kinds of resources patrons and clients provide:<\/p>\n
The offerings of the patron are more immediately tangible. He provides economic aid and protection against both the legal and illegal exactions of authority. The client, in turn, pays back in more intangible assets. These are, first, demonstrations of esteem (Wolf 1966: 16).<\/p>\n
The resources provided by a patron can also be of an intangible nature. For example, a patron might write a recommendation for his or her client and, in so doing, confer honor and status upon the client. But since the patron often stands in the more economically advantaged position, he or she more likely provides resources of an economic kind. And, since clients are usually in a position to provide loyalty and \u2018a following\u2019 to patrons, these often constitute the resources they provide (see, e.g., Campbell 1968: 143; Peters 1968: 181). In so doing, they add to the name and fame of their patrons (Kenny 1960: 21; Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 90). A treatise written by Quintus Cicero for his brother Marcus, advising him on the best way to go about campaigning for the consulship, vividly demonstrates the usefulness of clients for this purpose. Q. Cicero repeatedly urges his brother to make visible in whatever way he can his large number of clients. He stresses that Marcus must remember every person who has reason to be obligated to him, and must make plain to them that the present election time is the premier opportunity to reciprocate. \u2018Take care\u2019, writes Quintus, \u2018that they understand that you have reserved the requital of all those obligations which you think that you are entitled to demand at their hands, to the present time.\u2019 Further, Q. Cicero advises Marcus to approach anyone who might desire his services, making them understand that this is the only opportunity they will have to lay him under their obligation. \u2018Seek out and discover men in every district, make acquaintance with them, solicit them, make them promises; take care that they canvass you in their neighbourhoods \u2026 They will wish to have you for a friend.\u2019 Q. Cicero\u2019s treatise provides a valuable picture of the reciprocal nature of patron-client relationships.
\n(2) They are asymmetrical. The inequality between the patron and client is fundamental to the relationship, for the power and resources available to the patron must not be at the disposal of the client, or the relationship would be unnecessary. The patron grants benefits to the client, who is most often the one thought to be indebted, even though the client reciprocates, returning favors to the patron. Though the client sometimes instigates the relationship by requesting assistance from the patron, the relationship is only perpetuated at the behest of the patron, who ultimately controls the partnership.
\n(3) Patron-client links are usually binding and extend over long periods of time. Since the \u2018favors\u2019 granted by a patron might be of a very different sort than the favors returned by the client, calculating the balance of the relationship proves challenging. Often it is difficult to know when to say, \u2018We\u2019re even.\u2019 As one anthropologist writes, \u2018Debt provides a basis for a permanent balance of expectations between two parties despite the asymmetrical character of the relationship \u2026 Debts maintain these relationships\u2019 (Campbell 1968: 150). In fact, a balance in patron-client relationships is usually avoided intentionally, in order that the relationship might be allowed to continue. Consequently, patron-client relationships tend to linger indefinitely. Again Q. Cicero\u2019s treatise on campaigning provides an illustrative example. He writes:<\/p>\n
Let [your patronal friend] understand \u2026 that he should serve you with all his heart; and that he will be making a good use of his influence, and gain your friendship, which will not be a short-lived one\u2014lasting till he has voted, and no longer\u2014but firm and lasting.<\/p>\n
(4) The bonds tying patron and client are not legal bonds but moral and affective. An element of virtue imbues all relationships between patrons and their clients, with trust being the most important virtue associated with patronage. The honor of the partners depends upon the trustworthiness, or loyalty, they practise in reciprocating favors. Loyalty \u2018underwrites the promise of future mutual support\u2019 (Wolf 1966: 16). Another virtue integral to patronage is gratitude. Few things are more dishonorable than a client who fails to express gratitude.
\nPatron-client relationships also involve an affective element. Like the kinship relationships they replicate (see Kenny 1960), they can provide an environment for trust and loyalty in an otherwise inimical world. Sydel Silverman elucidates the fictive kinship nature of patron-client relationships, and points out how they function to \u2018supplement\u2019 inadequate kinship systems:<\/p>\n
Stability of the patron-client tie is reinforced by its patterning after a kin relationship, the patron becoming \u2018like a father\u2019 in obligations to and respect due from the client (as close connection between \u2018patronage\u2019 and \u2018paternalism\u2019 suggests). Personalized terms of address are used, there generally are affective overtones to the relationship, and frequently there is a denial of utilitarian motives and an insistence instead upon the non-priced demands of \u2018loyalty\u2019, \u2018friendship\u2019, or being \u2018almost like one of the family \u2026\u2019 In societies where social mobility is limited and where kinship therefore cannot function as a link between the local and the national system \u2026 patronage provides a close, highly sanctioned, and self-perpetuating relationship between the systems (Silverman 1977: 297\u201398).<\/p>\n
The parallels between kinship and patronage will be of utmost importance in my discussion of patronage in John, since kinship language figures so prominently in the Gospel. Therefore, I devote a section of this chapter to \u2018Kinship and Patronage\u2019 (see p. 31).
\n(5) Finally, patronal relationships are voluntary in that they are not legally enforceable. However, in some instances, coercion may be used to encourage the loyalty of a client. Further, in social situations where the less advantaged are socially and\/or economically handicapped without the aid of a patron, one has to wonder whether the clients would describe patronage as voluntary or utterly necessary.<\/p>\n
b. Variations of the Patron-Client Model<\/p>\n
Not all patronal relationships look quite the same or function identically. For example, the degree of inequality between a patron and client can vary substantially. Therefore, those who study patronage find it useful to distinguish different variations of patronage. In an essay entitled \u2018Variations in Patronage\u2019, Anton Blok (1969) identifies four ideal-types: vassalage, brokerage, friendship, and patronage disguised. The most significant variations for us are those that pertain to the period of John\u2019s Gospel, the period of the Early Roman Empire. I will, consequently, focus only upon brokerage and friendship, both of which were actively practiced during that time.<\/p>\n
1. Brokerage. This distinguishes the form of patronage that emerges in a highly segmented society in which non-elites who comprise the bulk of the population lack the means to achieve contact with the decision-makers who make up the elite center of influence. Blok, in his research on the function of brokerage in community-state relations, explains that brokerage emerges where sections of the population are not fully integrated into the state by direct contact with government. In such a system, brokers \u2018mediate between the central administration and the people in gaps where no formal administration exists to perform the tasks\u2019 (Saller 1982: 4). Brokers mediate between higher and lower orders while maintaining their separateness, bringing the more and less powerful into contact for personal benefit (Weingrod 1977: 47). Here the term \u2018power\u2019 means control over resources. However, \u2018resources\u2019 need not be of a material nature. The resources needed by a client might be human resources: a referral, a connection or honor conferred. A broker facilitates communication between a patron who has specific resources and a client who needs the resources which that patron possesses. While patrons offer \u2018first-order resources\u2019, such as jobs, land, honor, personal influence, political weight or protection, brokers offer \u2018second-order resources\u2019, strategic contact with those who control first-order resources or who have access to those who do (Boissevain 1974: 147\u201348).
\nBecause a broker essentially straddles the gap between disparate social systems, it is necessary that a broker represent some of the interests of both. Silverman explains that a broker figure usually has \u2018a distinctly defined status in both systems and operates effectively in both\u2019 (Silverman 1977: 297). Moreover, brokers must \u2018understand the different values and symbols that set these structures apart\u2019 (Blok 1969: 370). These characteristics make the broker an ideal mediator. Silverman finds two further criteria to be definitive for mediators, or brokers (1977: 294). First, they must be \u2018critical\u2019 in that the resources they provide must be of direct importance to those on either side of the mediation. Secondly, they must be \u2018exclusive\u2019 in that the resources they provide through mediation must be otherwise unattainable. A broker must guard his \u2018contacts\u2019 from competing mediators (e.g. Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 80, 86, 90, 93). Such guarding is evident in Cyprian\u2019s correspondence with the Christian community in Carthage, where he maneuvers to re-establish his position as patron\/broker in Carthage after opponents, in his absence, have usurped his position as broker of forgiveness and reconciliation from God, readmission to the church, and material patronage.
\nFinally, a broker does not aspire to replace the patron, but from the perspective of the client, the broker acts as a patron. With respect to the patron, the broker is regarded as a client (Blok 1969: 370). The subordination of the broker to the patron, and the client to the broker is evident in Pliny\u2019s attempt to broker a deal between a patron of his and his client Tranquillus. Pliny begins by writing, \u2018My friend Tranquillus has an inclination to purchase a small farm, of which, as I am informed, an acquaintance of yours intends to dispose. I beg you would endeavour he may have it upon reasonable terms.\u2019 After asserting the case of his client, Pliny continues, \u2018I mention these particulars, to let you see how much he will be obliged to me, as I shall to you, if you can help him to the purchase of this little box.\u2019 In this situation, Pliny\u2019s patron will also serve as a broker in getting Pliny\u2019s request fulfilled by the seller of the farm. The scenario demonstrates well the pyramidal structure of patronal (or brokerage) \u2018networks\u2019.
\nBrokerage constitutes one variation of the patron-client model. It is the variation most significant for our study of John.<\/p>\n
2. Friendship. A fine line exists between brokerage and friendship but the distinction proves significant. The blurred distinction can in part be attributed to the complicated language of patronage. More pointedly, \u2018friend\u2019 can be a euphemism for \u2018client\u2019. In some contexts, referring to someone as one\u2019s client is deemed offensive, for the term implies inferiority. \u2018Friend\u2019, on the other hand, is far more ambiguous and carries no negative implications. For this reason, patrons and brokers will sometimes call their clients \u2018friends\u2019 (Boissevain 1966: 22; Saller 1989: 56) even when the relationship in view would more accurately be described as a brokerage relationship than one of patronal friendship. Despite this problem, ways of distinguishing between the characteristics of brokerage and friendship do exist.
\nFor example, Blok highlights how brokers and friends function differently in relation to the state. While brokers facilitate contact between the governmental center and the peripheral groups who lack the means by which to influence the center, patronal friends function in more bureaucratized social systems where the periphery is more integrated into the center. Thus there exists a less dramatic social separation between patronal friends than between broker and client. Within the more bureaucratized context, the patronage of friends merely \u2018lubricates\u2019 the system of social contact, the bureaucracy. Patronal friends allow the bureaucratic lines of communication available to the periphery to be used more effectively. The main task of patronal friends is to make recommendations, linking their clients with significant people, potential patrons. Friends have a close personal connection with both of the people between whom they mediate. Still, the \u2018friendship\u2019 of which we speak is not an emotional attachment between two people who share common interests, a modern, western understanding of friendship. Patronal friendships have strong instrumental overtones, although an affective element imbues the relationship (Wolf 1966: 13). The bond between friend and client-friend centers on an understanding of mutual benefit. However, while the relationship is largely conditional upon the benefits of the relationship for the parties involved, it is not as structured or purposeful as a patron-broker-client connection. Blok further delineates between brokers and friends by the frequency and multiplexity of their mediations:<\/p>\n
I admit there are no hard and fast lines running between the role of a broker and that of a \u2018friend\u2019: the latter may equally be called a mediator. Yet, there is an important difference which justifies maintaining the distinction. Individuals who perform brokerage constitute clear and separate social categories \u2026 They are usually supported by relatively stable followings on whose behalf they regularly interfere with outside authorities. In brokerage, patron-clientship is definitely many-stranded. Friends, however, mediate occasionally and as a rule on behalf of successive clients. It appears that their mediation is much less relevant to their own position in society than is the case with brokers whose mediation is their very raison d\u2019\u00eatre (Blok 1969: 373).<\/p>\n
c. Kinship and Patronage<\/p>\n
As mentioned above, patron-client relations are patterned after kinship relationships. Patronage is a form of \u2018fictive kinship\u2019, and it is not uncommon for kinship language to be used in describing patronal relationships (Silverman 1967: 287). In a commendation letter written by Fronto on behalf of a client, Faustinianus, Fronto writes, \u2018\u2026 I desire [Faustinianus] to be loved no less than if he came from my own loins.\u2019 Often patron-client ties function as a substitute in situations where kinship ties are either unavailable or unable to provide people with the security they need to survive in a hostile world. But can patron-client relationships take place between actual kin?
\nTrue family members can operate as patron and client within patronage societies. One anthropologist goes so far as to say it is ideal for a patron to be a kinsman (Campbell 1968: 143). Especially as brokers, family members are crucial to the system of patronage, for they are among the key people called upon to use their \u2018connections\u2019 to benefit others. If a family member can serve as a link to the patron in possession of needed benefits, the family member is the first person to whom one will turn. For one reason, in Mediterranean societies, kinsmen are thought more trustworthy than non-kinsmen (Campbell 1964: 95\u201396). For another, they bear the obligation to help their relations when needed. And if a man needs a favor from a patron who is unapproachable to him, he, or his brokers, will likely seek access through those closest to that patron, namely family members (de Silva 1996: 96), for proximity is of great importance to the patron and broker relationship (Saller 1982: 66\u201369). Incidentally, this accounts for why, in patronage societies, the Virgin Mary, \u2018the Mother of God\u2019, is thought to be an insuperable broker between believers and Jesus\/God. As one man commented, \u2018She\u2019s most closely related to the Big Boss\u2019 (Foster 1967: 226).
\nWhen a cousin, or aunt, or father, or child serves as a broker for a family member, providing him or her with a valuable connection or recommendation, the relationship between the two family members in the exchange looks like a patron-client relationship, and the person asking the favor will surely be called upon to reciprocate at some point in the future (Campbell 1964: 99). However, it is still more than mere patronage. The relationship between kin members practicing patronage is distinct from a patron-client relationship between non-kin. The most significant difference being that true kin are not voluntarily associated. They are inherently and necessarily accountable to one another (Boissevain 1966: 21\u201322). Yet although this characteristic distinguishes true kinship from the fictive kinship of patronage, operationally, kin members do function as patrons and clients, especially in the form of brokers (see Boissevain 1966). A prominent example of a family member who functioned as a broker in the Early Roman Empire is Livia, the wife of Augustus. Livia constituted a great patroness in her own right, but also brokered many benefits to her clients as a result of her influence on Augustus and Tiberius (Saller 1982: 64\u201366). The patronage of family members also appears prominent in the provinces of the Empire (Saller 1982: 176\u201380).<\/p>\n
d. Social Conditions Favoring Patron-Client Relations<\/p>\n
In an article entitled \u2018An Attempt to Put Patrons and Clients in their Place\u2019, John Waterbury (1977: 329\u201342) pleads for a contextualized understanding of patronage. Waterbury argues for the importance of joining each examination of the subtle manifestations of patronage with an understanding of the social context in which patron-client relationships are generally embedded. \u2018It is this context\u2019, he writes, \u2018that can \u201cexplain\u201d the characteristics of brokerage networks rather than the other way around\u2019 (p. 341). An understanding of the social context of patron-client relations can equip us to assess what interpretive weight is due to manifestations of patronage. Manifestations of patron-client relationships in social settings especially conducive to such relationships are more likely to reflect an all-embracing social system than are signs of patronage in settings inimical to their development.
\nSocial factors favoring patron-client relations are many. Still Waterbury asserts that the single most definitive characteristic of the social context of patronage is a perception of vulnerability on the part of all social groups, from highest to lowest. Eisenstadt and Roniger offer a more detailed description of the social conditions generating patron-client relationships, and since their findings illuminate my model substantially I will summarize their four-part analysis with only minor adaptations.
\n(1) The most prominent social feature favoring patronage is internal weakness, meaning the formal institutional structure of a given society is unable to foster cohesion within that society. Usually in such an environment there exists a concentrated center of power with minimal ties to the periphery of the society, which is composed of the masses. Within both center and periphery will be various distinct, relatively autonomous groups. But despite the organizational autonomy experienced by groups in these societies, they all share a general lack of autonomy in regard to access to major resources or to the influence necessary to implement their goals. Furthermore, even when the center of such societies manages to erect an elaborate administration, it still fails to exercise independent control over the periphery. It tends to impinge on the periphery only in the administration of laws, the exaction of taxes, the provision of some goods, and in the maintenance of peace and cultural\/religious ties (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1980: 64\u201365). The situation just described, in which the center is unable to administer control over the periphery and the periphery is unable to manipulate the center for its own good, seems an adequate reflection of the shared vulnerability that Waterbury deemed central to the gestation of patron-client relationships.
\n(2) Elites often arise in societies that favor patron-client relationships. These elites develop a power base by which they effect control over the flow of resources within society. This group perpetuates the basic cultural orientations institutionalized in the society and limits the availability of resources to other groups (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 207\u2013208).
\n(3) The patterns outlined above naturally have repercussions for the major social structures of a society, especially for the economic and social hierarchical structures. A predilection for plundering, rather than developing, characterizes the practices of the resultant economy. Such practices are carried out by people at all levels of society. Furthermore, since most economic groups in this sort of economy display a low level of specialization and tend to avoid innovation in the means of production, the economic focus is generally on new sources for extraction, such as land or other natural resources, rather than on what can be done to make better usage of the resources already in hand, or on ways of improving existing industries. During the \u2018traditional\u2019 periods of these societies, expansion of control over large territories took precedence over domestic economic development. Likewise, rulers sought total control of land ownership by vesting all land into the hands of themselves and their fellow aristocrats. As we will see, these characteristics are highly indicative of the period of John\u2019s Gospel, the period of the Early Roman Empire.
\nAnother economic trend of these societies is the emergence of differentiated economic groups, such as merchants or manufacturers, which function to produce the resources to be extracted by the elite class. It is considered crucial that these groups remain peripheral. Therefore, they tend to be segregated into special enclaves. Because of the highly segmented nature of the society, social hierarchies exist in small social groups, each with their own social categories (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 208\u201310). Knowing one\u2019s proper place and maintaining it within one\u2019s various social environments is of utmost importance.
\n(4) Certain basic conceptions of cosmic and social order underlie the patterns outlined above. Foremost of these orientations is<\/p>\n
the combination of a conception of tension between a \u2018higher\u2019 transcendental order and the mundane order (especially in the \u2018religious\u2019 sphere) with the absence or relative weakness of any sense of necessity to overcome these tensions through some \u2018this-worldly\u2019 activity \u2026 oriented to the shaping of the social and political order or its transformation (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 206\u2013207).<\/p>\n
There exists a strong sense of the givenness of the order of society and the lack of control, by all members of society, over its processes. It is believed that access to the higher orders is out of reach for most social groups and must be mediated. Concomitant to this belief is the widespread reliance on mediator figures in all areas of social interaction. This is especially the case in the religious sphere where certain figures, ritual experts or religious leaders representing the higher order, are endowed with access to the transcendental order that is unavailable to the masses. While mediators, or brokers, serve a practical function in societies where integration between center and periphery is wanting, they clearly serve a cosmological purpose as well (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 206\u2013207).
\nAs I shift the focus to the social realities of the Early Roman Empire, in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor and Palestine, comparing the data from that period with my model, I hope to demonstrate the applicability of the patron-client model to a discussion of the socio-cultural world of John\u2019s Gospel. Since the location of John occasions extensive and ardent debate, a debate outside the bounds of this study, I will not focus my discussion on a particular location in the Mediterranean world. Rather, I assert that patronage featured in several Mediterranean societies at the time of John\u2019s composition. I will begin my examination in Italy, since there the evidence of patronage is most overt and since the structure of patron-client relations in Rome likely carried over into the provinces of the Roman Empire. But I will also ask whether patron-client relations featured in Asia Minor and Palestine, since these regions are viewed by scholars as possible locations of John.<\/p>\n
2. Patron-Client Relations in the Early Roman Empire<\/p>\n
a. Patronage Flourishes in Italy<\/p>\n
The early years of the Roman Empire exhibit a resurgence in patron-client relations in Italy. It is undisputed that patronage was pervasive in the Early Roman Republic. However, the Later Republic had seen a decline in patronage (see Brunt 1988: 382\u2013442) because of the emphasis on democratic process and the contention between various social segments who were all fighting for their own interests (Brunt 1988: 386). Augustus put an end to this clamor of disparate voices when he became the first Roman emperor in 27 BCE. Power became completely concentrated in the Principate with little means of influence left to those outside the limited governmental boundaries (Finley 1983: 52). This was the case no matter how assiduously Augustus worked to foster the illusion of free elections (see Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 79; Ste. Croix 1954).
\nThe shift in government from Republic to Empire had far-reaching effects on the structure of society throughout the Roman Empire. One change that likely facilitated the resurgence of patronage was the gulf that developed between the central power structure in Rome and the great majority of people in the periphery with little or no access to that center. Patronal ties became essential to the peasants and urban plebs who sought representation before those in power. Patronage was also essential for the Principate. The Emperor, the senators, and the relatively small body of other Roman officials and provincial leaders could not conceivably exercise control over so vast a region as the Roman Empire on their own (Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 84). Patron-client relationships allowed the localized government to stretch its tentacles far into the business of the provinces, which were otherwise elusive. Patronage also encouraged loyalty, the key virtue in patron-client relations, toward the Principate (Saller 1982: 78).
\nIncreased taxation during the Empire contributed to the proliferation of patronage by forcing the already struggling peasants and urban poor to seek the aid of patrons (Saller 1982: 206). Loss of land and abject poverty were commonplace during this period, as were banditry and harassment by landlords (see MacMullen 1974). It was entirely necessary for individuals and communities to approach patrons, asking them to plead their case in court, to provide them with protection, loans or financial gifts, to gain them permission to hold market-days, or to win them leniency with tax collectors. The acute demand for patrons at this time and the sated market of clients constituted a crisis for clients but an auspicious situation for patrons. Indeed, Wallace-Hadrill attributes the proliferation of patronage during the Early Empire to the inability of patrons to meet the demands of the potential clients. He explains:<\/p>\n
The ruling nobility, priests, magistrates, judges, legal counsel, and generals rolled into one, stood astride all the major lines of communication with the centre of state power and the resources it had to distribute \u2026 Their success in control lay as much in their power to refuse as in their readiness to deliver the goods. In this light, the inability of a few hundred to satisfy the needs of hundreds of thousands, their manifest failure to alleviate poverty, hunger and debt, indeed their exploitation of these circumstances to secure themselves advantage \u2026 need not be seen as arguments for the inadequacy of patronage, so much as the conditions of its flourishing (Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 73).<\/p>\n
Historians have noted that the incentives for patronage shifted dramatically from the Republic to the Empire (Wallace-Hadrill 1989; Ste. Croix 1954; Nicols 1980). The harsh social and economic realities during the Early Empire presented clients with an important incentive to forge patron-client connections. The motivation for patrons to form such alliances was also different than it had been during the Republic. The prize of winning a client\u2019s vote, the most weighty incentive for aristocratic patrons during the Republic, was no longer at issue during the Empire, for, as Finley writes, \u2018the final and effectively unrestrained power of decision on matters of policy rested with one man, not with voters\u2019 (1983: 52). Though the semblance of elections was revived by Augustus, in 14 BCE popular elections became nothing but a ceremony. New senators were chosen by the senate, usually under the influence of the Emperor (Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 79). And from Vespasian onward, the Emperor wrested unlimited power of commendatio. Whomever he favored won election (Ste. Croix 1954: 37; Garnsey and Saller 1987: 25\u201326).
\nThe new motivation for aristocrats to become patrons during the Early Empire was their need to build a good reputation, to muster influence and honor (Torjesen 1993: 101\u2013102). As stated, governmental positions were generally decided by the Emperor (or under his influence). On what basis did he choose who deserved to be put in office? Ste. Croix argues it was on the basis of suffragium, a word that had meant \u2018vote\u2019 in the Republic but came to mean \u2018favorable assent\u2019 or \u2018applause\u2019 in the imperial period. If a man could arouse enough suffragium to gain the interest of the Emperor or his advisors, he had a better chance of entering the governmental aristocracy. It was thus very important for a man to secure a following, which usually came in the form of many clients. The collective loyalty of a man\u2019s clients spoke favorably of him, bolstered his honor and preceded him in all his affairs. Still, the ultimate rewards for patronage would, for elites, come from the Emperor in the form of public office (Nicols 1980: 383\u201384; Saller 1982: 206).<\/p>\n
1. Types of Patron-Client Relationships in Italy. One can offer no technical definition of patronage during the imperial period of Rome. The terminology of patronage was used at the time to denote a wide range of relationships between people of unequal power (in the sense of control over resources) (Saller 1989: 60). Nonetheless, within that wide spectrum patterns do emerge and certain types of patron-client relationships can be ascertained. Throughout Richard Saller\u2019s study of \u2018Personal Patronage under the Early Empire\u2019, the following forms of patronage receive attention (Saller 1982); these forms are readily apparent in the literature from Italy, but also describe the general types of patron-client relationships found in the provinces of the Early Empire (see below).
\n(1) Patron to client: patron to an individual who lacks resources which the patron possesses. This form of patronage is the type most often discussed in studies of patron-client relations. During the imperial period of Rome it was only one form among several. And it was common for individuals to engage in relationships with more than one patron (see Brunt 1988).
\nI have already alluded to some of the duties and benefits associated with this type of patronage. The favors exchanged between a patron and client would have varied with each relationship. Basically, patrons provided clients with protection, help in gaining citizenship or assignations (i.e. to military commands or governmental offices), resources, such as money, land or state-subsidized food, or connections with other influential people. Pliny provided one client with 300,000 sesterces, enabling him to qualify for Roman knighthood. A subsequent letter from Pliny to this client not too subtly points out Pliny\u2019s expectations in lieu of his substantial monetary \u2018gift\u2019:<\/p>\n
The length of our friendship pledges you not to forget this gift. I shall not even remind you to enjoy your new status with becoming discretion because it was received through me (as I ought to). Do I not know that you will do so unprompted? An honor ought to be guarded carefully when it must protect the patronage of a friend.<\/p>\n
Clients reciprocated their patron\u2019s favors with gifts of loyalty, public acclamation, sometimes in the form of inscriptions, and a willingness to support their patrons in time of trouble. At times they reciprocated with goods and services. Perhaps most importantly, both patron and client enhanced one another\u2019s honor. T. Raymond Hobbs points out, \u2018The patron gains honor through the widespread knowledge that he can sustain a large body of clients or retainers through his \u201cgenerosity\u201d, and the clients gain honor by being associated with such a figure\u2019 (1997: 502).
\nSaller finds that in Italy, patrons and clients often called each other \u2018friend\u2019 (1982: 8\u201315), even when their relationship was not one of \u2018patronal friendship\u2019 as described below.
\n(2) Patronal friendship: patronal friendship between members of similar social situation who have unequal access to certain resources. During the Early Roman Empire, friendship, or amicitia, was an ambiguous term that was used to denote friendship between equals or non-equals. Only the amicitia among non-equals is appropriate to this discussion of patronage, however. This particular kind of patronage may have been practised more widely among elites. An example of a patronal friendship would be the relationship between a junior and senior senator. The duties of a patronal friend might involve writing a recommendation, giving advice or criticism, or offering hospitality and other expressions of selfless service. The client friend would reciprocate with gratitude, respect and public acclamation as well as by returning hospitality and service.
\n(3) Patron to freedman: patronage between a master and his former slave. This form of patronage was the least voluntary and most subject to coercion. During the Early Republic the patron-freedman bond was legally enforceable, and the freedman remained obligated to the master\u2019s descendants even after the master\u2019s death (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 54). Because of his close relationship to his patron, a freedman served as an important broker between the patron and his clients (Saller 1982: 64\u201369).
\n(4) Patron as legal advocate for his client. Legal advocacy is not a separate type of patron-client relationship. Rather, defending a client in court was thought to be a duty of patrons in all types of patronal relationships, as defending a patron was the duty of clients. Pliny expresses this sense of duty when he has been asked to take on the legal defense of the daughter of his patron, Corellius. He hesitates not a moment and describes how his intimacy with her father obligates him to return the favor by defending his family members in court. Of course, not all advocates were patrons, but all patrons were expected to perform as advocates for their clients when their clients were in need of legal representation. Patrons were especially active in the courts during the Republic, to the extent that patronus became the most popular term for a barrister in the Late Republic. Although advocatus was used as often as patronus in the Empire (Saller 1982: 29\u201330 n. 100), and despite Augustus\u2019s reorganization of the court system, in imperial Rome patrons were still defending their clients in court (Brunt 1988: 414\u201315). In addition to arguing the case of his client, the patron might assist him by securing an agreeable court date or channeling recommendation letters to the proper parties. In a letter to the courts in Rome, written on behalf of his \u2018friend\u2019 Sulpicius Cornelianus, who was soon to be a defendant in those courts (Bobertz 1997: 254), Fronto describes the important role patronal letters of recommendation had come to play there:<\/p>\n
The custom of letters of commendation is said in the first place to have sprung from good will, when every man wished to have his own friend made known to another friend and rendered intimate with him. Then the custom gradually grew up to giving such commendations in the case of those persons even who were parties to a public or private trial \u2026 But as there had long established itself in the very courts of law this custom of bringing forward \u2026 witnesses to character to give in all honesty their own private opinion of the defendant, so these letters of commendation seemed to discharge the function of a testimony to character (Fronto, Correspondence 2.282\u201385).<\/p>\n
Presumably a client would stand in defense of his patron by attesting to his honor and good name, and by witnessing on his behalf, as Pliny does in the case of Corellia.
\nPatrons and clients in the court would enjoy the usual benefits of patronage in return for their assistance, as well as the possibility of cultivating prestige, which always accompanied fine oratory.
\nIn this study we will distinguish the reciprocal relationship between a patron and a province or community from patron-client relations, and will call it \u2018benefactorism\u2019. The benefactor of a community bestowed favors upon an entire city or province and in turn received the support of the region and the esteem inherent in being its benefactor. This civic \u2018benefactorism\u2019 has come to be distinguished from patronage among other reasons because the benefactor can be almost coerced into providing benefits to a city or region, making the relationship less voluntary than the patron-client relationship. Other features setting benefactorism apart from patronage include the way benefits are conferred to a collectivity rather than to specific privileged individuals, and the fact that the inequality between the benefactor and beneficiaries is not as salient as that between a patron and client (Joubert 1999).<\/p>\n
b. Patronage and Ritualized Friendship in Imperial Greece and Asia Minor<\/p>\n
The prevalence of patron-client relationships in Greece and Asia Minor proves more difficult to detect than in Italy, mainly because the Greeks lacked a vocabulary of patronage. From the time of Romulus, the institution of patronage, or clientela, was a well-oiled machine in Roman society and was distinguished by a patronage vocabulary with words for patron (patronus), client (cliens) and patronal friend (amicus), as well as a distinct terminology for the benefits of patronage (beneficium, officium, meritum, gratia). Because the Greeks lacked a \u2018language of patronage\u2019, it is necessary when investigating patron-client relations in Greece and Asia Minor to look for other indicators than simply language. Our discussion of Greece and Asia Minor will focus on two indicators: the influx of population to urban centers during the early Roman imperial period and the Greek institution of \u2018ritualized friendship\u2019.<\/p>\n
1. Nucleation in Imperial Greece and Asia Minor. It was not unusual for Greek writers during the Roman Empire to lament the desolation of much of their landscape, to decry the ruins and wastelands. For there is strong evidence that during the early Roman period many settlements in Greece and Asia Minor were abandoned and a shift from rural to urban settlement patterns took place. While major centers such as Corinth and Patrae in Achaia, and Ephesus in Asia Minor saw growth and prosperity during the period, most cities and rural settlements experienced marked decline (see Finlay 1844: 51\u2013102; Larsen 1938: 465\u201383). Both Corinth and Patrae were of special interest to Rome because of the commercial and military advantages they offered. Rome invested vast sums of money into their beautification and development, inhabited them with Roman citizens and imposed the language, culture and institutions of Rome upon their Greek inhabitants. These were Greek cities no longer (Finlay 1844: 72\u201375). Ephesus earned Rome\u2019s favor because of her role in the cult of the Emperor and on many occasions became the depository of Rome\u2019s munificence (see Magie 1950: 583\u201384; Strelan 1996: 43\u201344). Only the connections these cities had with Rome allowed them to flourish amidst the general poverty that resulted from the Roman provincial administration in Greece and Asia Minor (Finlay 1844: 72\u201375). The majority of the regions sank into economic decline, which no doubt affected the rural peasant population as dramatically as any, as is evidenced by the fact that many small farm sites were abandoned during the early imperial period (Alcock 1993).
\nIn a superlative study of the Greek province of Achaia under Rome, Susan Alcock (1993: 63\u201371) argues that this abandonment pattern can be best accounted for by an influx of the rural farmsteaders to \u2018nucleated\u2019 settlements or towns. Furthermore, she notes that along with decline in the number of rural sites during the period came a rise in the number of large rural estates. These larger sites could be characterized as \u2018villas\u2019 and are marked with signs of affluence, such as mosaics, private baths and marble. They evidence a strong elite presence in the Greek countryside during the Early Roman Empire (Alcock 1993: 63\u201371). This shifting of land from the hands of many small landholders to the hands of a few elite estate-holders suggests some kind of societal upheaval.
\nOne factor likely perpetuating this pattern was the movement of many Roman aristocrats into Greece. That wealthy Romans owned a vast amount of land in the provinces of Greece and Asia Minor is well documented. Many Roman businessmen also moved into the Greek cities and invested in rural lands. It is likely that indigenous peasants worked some of these lands as tenants, though it seems that only tenants of sizable properties took rural residences. Tenants of small properties would probably have chosen to live in towns and enjoy urban benefits (Alcock 1993: 85). Yet with all things considered, Alcock contends that one cannot attribute the evacuation of rural settlements solely to foreign immigration (1993: 77\u201379). Alcock postulates an additional explanatory factor: the desirability of nucleation.
\nIt is plausible that during a period of increasing social stratification and political change, such as the early Roman imperial period, the rural population might have willingly sought the benefits of nucleated urban dwelling. Among the benefits of nucleation Alcock includes security, or defense. During the period prior to Augustus, warfare was prolific in many areas of Greece. And the settlement patterns we have been discussing were instigated during those times. More nucleated dwellings would have offered provincial peoples \u2018safety in numbers\u2019. But why would these patterns have persisted in the pax Romana? There are two, not unrelated, possible reasons. One is the introduction of imperial taxation during the period. This caused an increased demand for cash, which could have forced subsistence farmers into wage labor, the markets for which were concentrated in the cities, or crop specialization and cash cropping, a risky and highly competitive endeavor. Alcock explains:<\/p>\n
The desire to supplement income and raise necessary revenue would have led individual households to a more general economic diversification. If opportunities to seek additional and alternative employment were to be seized, these chances were possible only through the town. In addition to farming their own land, individuals could work for wages, sharecrop, take on tenancies, or pursue non-agricultural employment \u2026 Urban residence would facilitate this mixture of tenures and options (Alcock 1993: 107).<\/p>\n
The second possible reason for nucleation is intertwined with the economic instability resultant from taxation and increased social stratification. In such an environment, the underprivileged and vulnerable are likely to seek social ties with the more powerful and affluent members of society, who will be able to offer them assistance in times of need. In other words, they are likely to seek patronage. Even the non-elite citizens of \u2018free\u2019 cities that were not directly taxed would have felt the pressure to form vertical ties with the increasingly influential elite class. The economic imbalance, greater polarity in lifestyle, and pronounced social stratification of the time would have necessitated such ties (Alcock 1993: 115; MacMullen 1974). Alcock asserts that patronage was one of the main benefits sought by the Greeks leaving the countryside for the cities. A need for patronal networks would have routed peasants away from an isolated existence in the countryside (Alcock 1993: 113\u201314).<\/p>\n
2. Ritualized Friendship in Greece and Asia Minor. Another indicator of patronage in Greece and Asia Minor is the institution of \u2018ritualized friendship\u2019. \u2018Ritualized friendship\u2019 is an anthropological term defined as \u2018a bond of solidarity manifesting itself in an exchange of goods and services between individuals originating from separate social units\u2019 (Herman 1987: 10). Usually the social units of these friends are separated spatially, meaning the friends might live some distance from one another. They may also be separated vertically. Vertical distance, or inequality, is, however, not a definitive criteria of ritualized friendships. Consequently, not all ritualized friendships are patron-client relationships, since the latter, by definition, must be unequal relationships. Patron-client relations often fall within the ambit of ritualized friendship nonetheless.
\nRitualized friendships factored markedly in Greek social life (Herman 1987). Reciprocal \u2018give and take\u2019 relationships between individuals were thought to be essential to social survival (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 63\u201364). This was especially so in pre-monetary times. Yet even in a monetary economy, there were certain services which money could not buy, and people relied on friends for these services. For example, \u2018friends\u2019 could function as bankers, lawyers, hotel owners or \u2018insurance\u2019 agents for each other (Hands 1968: 33). One form of ritualized friendship was that between \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, or \u2018guest-friends\u2019, who would provide hospitality to their friends from other communities. Another form was \u2018inegalitarian friendship\u2019, which we would call patronage. Aristotle contended that, ideally, all friendships should be equal, though he acknowledged a special breed of friendship between unequals. Such relations were utilitarian, solely based on an assumption of mutual advantage. Often, ritualized friendships between equals mutated into inegalitarian, patron-client relationships as the balance of the exchanges became uneven. Herman (1987: 39) explains:<\/p>\n
Relative status might alter in the course of the interaction \u2026 [the relationship] could have shaded off into a relationship in which one partner attained a position of strength, the other a position of weakness. In other words, a horizontal tie linking together social equals may have been transformed into a vertical patron-client bond.<\/p>\n
This is why Aristotle believed it far wiser to confer benefits to others than to receive them. He lauded the man who does not fall into a position of inferiority by accepting favors, and praised the man who overpays what he has received from his friend so that his friend might be in his debt (Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea Bk 4, ch. 4).
\nWe now turn our attention to the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, particularly Palestine, to demonstrate even more broadly the applicability of the patron-client model to the social world of the Early Roman Empire.<\/p>\n
c. Patron-Client Relations in the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire<\/p>\n
My discussion of patronage in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire will focus primarily on Palestine. Still, it is arguable that patronage was operative in several provinces of the East. Pliny\u2019s correspondence with Trajan, for example, repeatedly manifests evidence of patron-client relations as Pliny plays the role of \u2018broker\u2019 between his subjects and the Emperor, frequently petitioning Trajan, the ultimate patron of the Roman Empire, for favors on behalf of various citizens of Bithynia, his clients. Furthermore, certain studies have demonstrated the extent of patron-client relations in other areas of the Roman East, such as Syria.
\nIn all areas of the Roman Empire, Roman officials, like Pliny, played an important role as patrons and brokers. In Palestine, another group of individuals equally bore the weight of the role of patron\/broker: the Temple aristocracy. Two groups appear to have been especially predominant in the affairs of Palestine under the Roman Empire: the \u2018chief priests\u2019 and a group of laity referred to variously as \u2018the elders\u2019, \u2018the leading men\u2019, \u2018the first men\u2019, \u2018the rulers\u2019, \u2018the notable men\u2019, \u2018the eminent men\u2019 and \u2018the respected men\u2019. All such terms were used to designate the same group (McLaren 1991: 204\u2013205). These social groups, rather than formal institutions, collectively represented the interests of the Israelite community before the Romans. The \u2018chief priests\u2019 and influential non-priestly elites were the premier advisors and decision-makers of Palestine. This receives attestation in several historical accounts (see McLaren 1991).
\nJames McLaren, in his study Power and Politics in Palestine (1991), examines 21 representative crisis events in Palestine that reveal the power structures operative in Palestine during the Roman period, prior to 70 CE. The historical accounts of these events that make up the data for his study are drawn from Josephus, Philo, the New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, Tacitus and tannaitic literature. Space does not allow me to treat each event separately, but only to offer a cursory summary of some of the main conclusions of McLaren\u2019s scrupulous work. His study demonstrates several important points. The following are most germane to this discussion of patronage. (1) Administration in Palestine during the Roman period was based on \u2018influence\u2019, and this was determined by privilege and public status rather than office. (2) As already mentioned, the chief priests wielded the most influence, with the active and past high priests being included as the pinnacle of this group, as well as a group of influential elites referred to as the \u2018leading men\u2019 or by other equivalent titles. Both of these social groups consisted mainly of wealthy aristocrats (McLaren 1991: 206). Moreover, it appears the \u2018chief priests\u2019 constituted an elite group of priests in close association with present or past high priests (McLaren 1991: 203). (3) The main tool of diplomacy used by these groups was mediation, in many cases with Roman officials. (4) The \u2018chief priests\u2019 and influential non-priestly elites were expected to speak on behalf of the Israelite population and to represent their interests, as well as to be accepted in Roman circles (McLaren 1991: 220). (5) The advent of Roman rule provided greater opportunity for prominent Israelites to participate actively in administrative affairs (McLaren 1991: 224).
\nMcLaren manages to paint a striking picture of brokerage in Palestine without ever actually alluding to patron-client relations. The political system operative in Palestine during the Roman period appears to have been markedly dependent upon patronal networks. This interpretation of McLaren\u2019s findings receives ample support from Saldarini\u2019s study of Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees (1988: esp. 154\u201356, 197\u201398, 302). He writes, \u2018The Pharisees, scribes, Herodians, etc.\u2026 probably functioned as unofficial patrons and brokers for the people and perceived Jesus as a threat to their power and influence\u2019 (Saldarini 1988: 156). With Rome as a well-suited and willing patron, the opportunities for brokerage on a \u2018national\u2019 level were abundant and were rapaciously seized by the chief priests and influential elites vying for power in Palestine (see McLaren 1991: 188\u201391). Like ideal brokers, these aristocratic Israelites were in a unique position to mediate between the power structure in Rome and the client-kingdom of Palestine.
\nThis was also true of the Herodians, who perhaps provide the most lucid depiction of patronage in Palestine (see Richardson 1996). Herod the Great was called \u2018friend of the Romans\u2019 or \u2018friend of the Emperor\u2019 in several inscriptions, and Josephus frequently describes the relationships of the Herodians to the Caesars as one of \u2018friendship\u2019. And, especially in Josephus, \u2018friendship\u2019 clearly has a patronage connotation when used in regard to political maneuvering. Josephus also describes Augustus as Herod\u2019s patron (Josephus, War 1.407). When Herod implores the patronage of Augustus after his patron Mark Anthony has died, Augustus accepts and lavishes benefits on Herod, his new client, or \u2018friend\u2019. The forming of this alliance is portrayed by Josephus as a textbook exchange between a grateful and loyal client and a magnanimous patron (Josephus, War 1.386\u201393). Shortly after their friendship begins, Augustus and his army pass through Syria and are granted Herod\u2019s utmost hospitality, after which:<\/p>\n
The thought naturally occurred to Caesar and his men that in view of his generosity Herod\u2019s kingdom was far too small. So when Caesar arrived in Egypt, and Cleopatra and Anthony were now dead, he showered honours upon [Herod], restored to his kingdom the area sliced off by Cleopatra, and added Gadara, Hippus, and Samaria, with the coastal towns Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato\u2019s Tower. He further made him a present of 400 Gauls, to be his body guards as they had formerly been Cleopatra\u2019s. Of all his liberality here was no more potent cause than the open-handedness of the recipient (Josephus, War 1.395\u201397).<\/p>\n
The dynamics of a patron and client are unmistakably evident in this portrayal of Herod and Augustus, both in Caesar\u2019s \u2018liberality\u2019 and Herod\u2019s \u2018open-handedness\u2019.
\nHerod appropriately reciprocates his patron\u2019s favors by naming some of his building projects in Augustus\u2019s honor, including his grandest accomplishments of Caesarea Maritima and Sebaste with its Temple of Augustus (Richardson 1996: 178\u201379). The amicable relations established between the Herodians and Rome during this time continued on after the deaths of Herod and Augustus (see Richardson 1996).
\nIt is unlikely that the population of Palestine would have remained untouched by the patronage that figured into their national politics so heavily. Rather, the people would have been well aware of the patron-client ties their leaders had established with Rome, and would have taken any opportunity to use those ties to their advantage. Such was the case in the mid-first century CE when Agrippa II convinced the Emperor Claudius to allow the Israelites control over the high priest\u2019s vestments. This intervention was quite welcomed by the Israelite community (Josephus, Ant. 20.9\u201311). Moreover, the pattern of patronage operative in the politics of Palestine would ostensibly have been replicated in the patterns of social interaction on all levels of society in Palestine. Unfortunately, we are forced to speculate at this point since we lack detailed accounts of social interaction on all levels of society in Palestine. However, the increased social stratification, the harsh economic strain on the peasants, and the political upheaval of Palestine during the Early Roman Empire are all factors that would encourage patronage. Rabbinic sources from the third century CE reveal that certainly at that time patronage was rampant throughout Palestinian society, causing the rabbis to inveigh against it (see Sperber 1971). Though we do not have documented evidence of this sort from the first century to suggest, for example, that Palestinian peasants relied on patronage, we do know that many of the socioeconomic factors that fostered patronage in the third century were operative in the first century as well. Most of the factors mentioned in the concluding paragraph of Daniel Sperber\u2019s \u2018Patronage in Amoraic Palestine (c. 220\u2013400). Causes and Effects\u2019 (1971), should resonate with anyone familiar with the socioeconomic situation in first-century Palestine:<\/p>\n
Social disorder and unrest from within, danger and insecurity from without, crippling burdens of taxation ever coming anew with unpredictable suddenness \u2026 droughts and successive crop-failures followed by famine \u2026 and plague, these were the lot of the poor Palestinian peasant around the middle of the third century. Naturally he fell prey to the exploitation of the wealthy, and small wonder if at times he was even attracted to the comforts of his protection, the security of patronage (Sperber 1971: 242).<\/p>\n
Interestingly McLaren concludes his aforementioned book by observing that the Israelites were able to retain their community identity and partnership with the Romans as long as they remained \u2018loyal in friendship to Rome\u2019 (McLaren 1991: 225). In other words, perhaps they might have maintained an auspicious position if they had been willing to play by the rules of patron-client relations in their dealings with Rome. This position is forwarded in a rabbinic text (Abot of R. Nathan, Version A) where R. Johanan ben Zakkai, \u2018a friend of Caesar\u2019s\u2019 and one of the principal leaders at Jamnia, is credited with saving the Israelite religion by means of his \u2018tolerant attitude towards the Romans\u2019 (Manns 1988: 9\u201311).
\nOne further source of support for patron-client relations in Palestine during the Early Roman Empire could be the fact that patronage is thoroughly ingrained in Israeli culture today. Anthropological studies of both present-day Israelis and Palestinians show that patron-client relations are the primary mode of operation among them. Despite efforts by some to encourage more universalistic methods of decision-making and access to resources in Israel and the Middle East, patronage thrives. It constitutes an ingrown structure that seems impossible to eradicate. In a study among Israelis, the practice of protektzia, defined in one of the standard dictionaries of the Hebrew language as \u2018patronage, a recommendation for preferential treatment\u2019 (Danet 1989: 16), was rated more effective than any other means for getting one\u2019s needs met (p. 146), and it was found that, given the opportunity, most Israelis use protektzia whenever it is needed (pp. 150, 170). The practice of patronage among Palestinians and Middle Easterners is known as wasta, a word that refers to both the action and the person who mediates or brokers access to resources on behalf of another (Cunningham and Sarayrah 1993: 15). Wasta is so pervasive in the Middle East that \u2018most Middle Easterners view wasta as part of the environment\u2019 (p. 15). Every crucial point in life, from entry into higher education, to obtaining a job, to disputes with other citizens, is determined by wasta; therefore, one\u2019s place in society, one\u2019s quality of life, depends largely upon the wasta connections at one\u2019s disposal (p. 12). Consequently, while the wasta system can be highly beneficial to certain individuals in critical situations, it is a debilitating structure for many within the society.<\/p>\n
d. The Social Context of Patron-Client Relations and the Early Roman Empire<\/p>\n
The societies found in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor and Palestine during the early imperial period align well with our model of \u2018social conditions favoring patron-client relations\u2019. Furthermore, they share certain features that anthropologists have found common to Mediterranean societies. A short description by David Gilmore summarizes some of those features:<\/p>\n
The Mediterranean societies are all undercapitalized agrarian civilizations. They are characterized by sharp social stratification and by both a relative and absolute scarcity of natural resources \u2026 There is little social mobility. Power is highly concentrated in a few hands, and the bureaucratic functions of the state are poorly developed \u2026 These conditions are of course ideal for the development of patron-client ties and a dependency ideology (Gilmore 1982: 192).<\/p>\n
Our model of social conditions favoring patron-client relations is indicative of both historical and contemporary Mediterranean societies (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 61\u201362), as societies of the Early Roman Empire displayed the following features of our model:<\/p>\n
1. Center and periphery were largely estranged.
\n2. A relatively small group of autonomous elites dominated.
\n3. Economic practice was expansive and exploitive rather than innovative.
\n4. Society was segmented into many differentiated groups (see MacMullen 1974: 17\u201318).
\n5. Within these differentiated groups existed elaborate hierarchies.
\n6. The majority of property belonged to the small group of elites.
\n7. There existed a strong sense of the givenness of society and the elusive nature of the given cosmic and social orders.
\n8. Reliance on mediator figures was pervasive.<\/p>\n
The affinity between the social context of patronage according to our model and the social context of the Early Roman Empire is highly suggestive. Within such a social context, patron-client relationships are likely to be pervasive. The closeness between our model and the historical social realities of the Early Roman Empire, as well as the evidence that patronage was present in the culture of that time and place, indeed prolific in some areas, legitimates the use of the patron-client model for interpreting the Gospel of John, a text coming out of that context. Furthermore, as Water bury suggests, the social context of patronage, as outlined about, can help to explain manifestations of patronage when they are found within that context. These manifestations can be interpreted in light of their social function in facilitating contact between disparate orders, in providing access to limited and monopolized resources, and in helping the power center to effect control within an otherwise weak internal system. Hopefully these insights can also assist the outsider in understanding social relations within such a context. For example, it can help one to comprehend the gravity of a breakdown in patronal relationships within such a context, or to interpret manifestations of brokerage, or emphasis on mediators, within a religious tradition. It is on this note that we turn our attention back to John\u2019s Gospel.<\/p>\n
3. Patron-Client Relations in John with Respect to Jesus<\/p>\n
a. Why Patron-Client Relations?<\/p>\n
At this point in the discussion we should have a clear view of the prevalence and importance of patronal relationships within the socio-cultural world of John\u2019s Gospel and be equipped with an understanding of what they entailed. Wherever the author and his audience may have been located within the Mediterranean area during the Early Roman Empire, whether in the traditional location of Ephesus or in another region, patronage would have been a social reality for them. Still, the presence of patron-client relations within the socio-cultural context of John may in itself not be an adequate reason for choosing that model. We are confronted, then, with a variety of inquiries: What makes patron-client relations the model best apt to explain and make meaningful the pneumatology of John? Or, why is a model from the social sciences more illustrative than another model, such as the \u2018agency\u2019 model? As was suggested earlier, a theoretical model should be one deemed to share certain properties with the research subject. What properties of John\u2019s theology, specifically his pneumatology, have to do with patronage? In other words, how does the Gospel of John suggest the model of patronage? It was also asserted that a model functions to open up new possibilities and questions within an investigation. What questions does the patron-client model rouse in relation to the pneumatology of John? These issues will be addressed throughout the course of this study, though I now intend to offer an initial explanation of the choice of the patron-client model.
\nFirst, however, it must be stated that the preference for a social-scientific model does not imply that other models, theological models for instance, are unsuitable for use. In all cases, the subject matter of an investigation should determine the sort of model chosen. Recent biblical scholarship has, especially in the case of the Gospels, begun to grapple with the socio-cultural element of the biblical texts and, subsequently, to recognize the benefits of employing social-scientific models toward that purpose. The biblical texts were written within certain socio-cultural contexts and their meanings were determined by those contexts; language is a socio-cultural construct, the meanings within a language being socially determined. Therefore, one should interpret the meaning of a text in light of its socio-cultural context. However, such an approach should be viewed as complementary, not inimical, to other approaches.
\nIn reflecting on the pneumatology of John the following theme was found to be dominant in the author\u2019s use of spirit: \u2018spirit\u2019, which Jesus provides, opens up the possibility of access to God and, in the Farewell Discourses where Jesus is starkly portrayed as the only \u2018way\u2019 to the Father (14:6), the Paraclete provides access to Jesus. Furthermore, the access to God afforded by Jesus and the Paraclete seems to serve a legitimating function for the author. The author and his community can claim to know God (14:7) because they have access to God\u2019s patronage through Jesus and the Paraclete. In other words, they can claim to have the patronage of God through Jesus and the Paraclete\u2019s brokerage.
\nThe mediation, or brokerage, of the Paraclete is inextricably tied up with the oft-noted christological theme of Jesus\u2019 providing, or mediating, access to God. Jesus\u2019 role in this regard compels some scholars, signally Bultmann, to interpret aspects of Johannine Christology in the light of ancient mediator figures (Bultmann 1971). However, to my knowledge, no studies have been done that apply the model of patronage\/brokerage in its interpretation, except for the commentary of Malina and Rohrbaugh. I assert that the portrayals of both Jesus and the Paraclete as mediator figures suggest patron-client relations, and specifically brokerage, as a workable model for the interpretation of the Christology and pneumatology of John. Finally, the use of the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to denote the spirit in the Farewell Discourses lends considerable support to this thesis, since it will be shown that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 was a word used for patrons\/brokers around the time when John was written.
\nBefore I begin a discussion of spirit in John\u2019s Gospel I will conclude this chapter with a brief discussion of patron-client relations with reference to John\u2019s Christology, for it is integrally connected to pneumatology in John, and will necessarily be a focal point throughout this study.<\/p>\n
b. Jesus as the Broker of God<\/p>\n
For the Israelites, God was the patron par excellence. Throughout their history God had provided them with the ultimate first-order resources: first covenant, as well as the Law, protection, guidance and material provision. These were always mediated through significant persons who functioned as brokers to God. God\u2019s brokers, figures like Abraham and Moses and the prophets, as well as the Temple and eventually the synagogue, facilitated the access that the people of Israel had to Yahweh. Conversely, in John Jesus is portrayed as solely able to provide access to Yahweh. Because Jesus alone has dwelt with the Father and has been sent \u2018from above\u2019, he qualifies as the only being fit to bridge the divide between the earthly realm and the realm of God (1:14\u201318; 3:13\u201315; 3:31\u201336; 5:21\u201324; 6:27, 32\u201333, 46\u201351b; 8:12\u201316; 8:23\u201324; 10:11\u201315, 25\u201330; 14:3\u20137; 17:6\u201311). He is portrayed as replacing Moses, the broker par excellence (Exod. 32:11\u201314; Num. 11:2\u20133; 21:7\u20139), in his role as God\u2019s mediator. Furthermore, he proclaims, \u2018before Abraham was, I am\u2019 (8:58) and in so doing usurps Abraham\u2019s position as broker to God and provocatively aligns himself with Yahweh. The Fourth Evangelist depicts Jesus as the supreme \u2018hinge\u2019 figure between God and humanity. Unlike all human, earthly forms of brokerage, Jesus is \u2018heavenly\u2019, and not another human attempt at access to the realm of God. Jesus is sent from God as God\u2019s extension of patronage to those who will believe in him. And according to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus is the only one who has come from the realm of God (1:18; 6:46). Thus he is the only one who can provide access to that realm. This appears especially significant in light of the estranged relationship the Johannine Christians seem to have had with the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. The traditional brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are rendered ineffective in light of Jesus.
\nAllow me to digress very briefly to explain who constitutes the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in John and to briefly address the recent contribution to this discussion by Stephen Motyer (1997: 54). The precise identity of John\u2019s \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 defies apprehension, but like Motyer, I believe they are primarily the \u2018supremely religious\u2019 of Judea rather than Judeans in general. Thus the term \u2018\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u2019 does not primarily denote a geographical designation. \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are those who rigidly adhere to the religion of Judea whether living in Judea or not (Motyer 1997: 56). Furthermore, the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 of John\u2019s Gospel function as \u2018representative\u2019 characters. They sometimes parallel \u2018the world\u2019, those who reject Jesus. Thus the title comes to bear a \u2018pejorative connotation\u2019 in John (Motyer 1997: 57). Unlike Motyer, however, who plays down the offense that this portrayal of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 would have evoked, I believe the characterization of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in John would in fact be heard by \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 as insulting and denigrating (contra Motyer 1997: 209). Though, as Motyer suggests, it is unlikely that the \u2018supremely religious Judeans\u2019 would have read the Gospel of John, I believe the portrayal of them in John would have insulted all \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 who were not followers of Jesus. Motyer makes very little of John\u2019s dualistic context in which \u2018the world\u2019 and \u2018the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u2019 stand opposed to Jesus. Perhaps this is because he is (justifiably, I believe) put off by those who have interpreted Johannine dualism in gnostic terms (Motyer 1997: 186, 194, 218). But I hope to show that the terms \u2018the world\u2019 and the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 do figure prominently in the dualism of John and are a feature of the in-group\/out-group language common in Mediterranean culture (see Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 238\u201340). I find the Fourth Gospel\u2019s alignment of the \u2018supremely religious Judeans\u2019 with darkness and \u2018the devil\u2019 disconcerting, but this feature of John\u2019s dualism cannot be smoothed over by asserting, as does Motyer, that the Evangelist uses such harsh language to prophetically \u2018warn\u2019 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and persuade them to accept Jesus. Motyer fails to take into account the group-oriented nature of Mediterranean peoples and the power of the insult in that culture. I concur with W.D. Davies, who writes, \u2018The reaction of Jewry to John\u2019s Christian challenge \u2026 could have been nothing but sharp and bitter\u2019 (1996: 57). Still, it is equally unwarranted to conclude that the Evangelist characterizes all the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, or all the world, as unredeemable. The disciples were chosen \u2018out of the world\u2019, and future disciples will be made from those of the world (17:18\u201320). Surely the Evangelist hopes such disciples will be many.
\nTo return to our discussion of brokerage and Jesus, it is plausible that when the Johannine Christians split with the synagogue concern arose that they had severed the brokerage ties connecting them to Yahweh, since the patronage of Yahweh had always been mediated through the Torah, prophets and cultus of the Israelite religion. At least this would have been how the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 viewed their situation. Might the Johannine Christians also have been anxious about this perceived loss of brokerage after their estrangement from the synagogue? In a culture where it was believed that the gap between higher and lower orders had to be bridged by a mediator (Boissevain 1966: 30; Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 206\u2013207), it is quite possible they did. Consequently, it was crucial for them to reassess their position in relation to Yahweh God. In the process of this reassessment they developed a conception of Jesus as the only legitimate broker between God and humanity, and a simultaneous denigration of all earthly forms of brokerage to God. According to this conception, Jesus was sent by the Father as a means of access to his lavish patronage, an extension of grace. The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 had failed to accept Jesus\u2019 role as inexorable broker to God, preferring the brokerage they believed they already had through Abraham and Moses and the Law (5:39, 45\u201346; 8:39). The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 had therefore forfeited the patronage of Yahweh and were now illegitimate (8:41\u201344). According to the Johannine Christians, they were no longer God\u2019s children. Jesus had superseded Israel\u2019s prophets and religion as broker between God and humanity. This theme of \u2018replacement\u2019 recurs in John, though in fact Jesus not only \u2018replaces\u2019 these things but proves superior in all aspects to Israel\u2019s brokers. The position just outlined makes clear that we do not believe the Johannine Christians were expelled from the synagogue because of their belief in Jesus as sole broker to God. As Malina and Rohrbaugh point out in their characterization of the Johannine Christians as an antisociety, \u2018John\u2019s Gospel reflects the alternate reality John\u2019s group set up in opposition to its opponents\u2019 (1998: 9). Precisely what precipitated the expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue we cannot know, though certain latent references to the event in the Gospel may suggest that simply confessing belief in Jesus led to expulsion (see 9:22; 12:42). But it was out of this social crisis that the Evangelist\u2019s alternate view of reality evolved, and it is the instigators of that crisis which his unique language, which Malina and Rohrbaugh call his \u2018anti language\u2019 (1998: 7\u201315), serves to resist.
\nJesus is especially well suited for the role of broker since, like all brokers, he represents the interests of both sides, in his case God and humanity. Barrett takes note of Jesus\u2019 aptness for the role of mediator, writing, \u2018Being truly God and truly man, and being also the image of God and the archetype of humanity, he is an ontological mediator between God and man; he is no less a mediator of true knowledge, and of salvation\u2019 (Barrett 1978: 74\u201375). Jesus straddles the divide between the divine and human. This aspect of John\u2019s Christology has occasioned attempts to explain the seemingly contradictory nature of Jesus\u2019 character in the Gospel. Some scholars have found it difficult to accept that Jesus\u2019 fleshly characterization and divine characterization could have been fashioned by the same author and argue that one or the other is foremost in the author\u2019s mind, sometimes attributing the contradictory elements to a redactor. But it is the presence of both human and divine elements in Jesus\u2019 characterization that enables him to represent the interests of both God and humanity and, consequently, makes him an ideal broker figure. This ability to integrate disparate spheres or systems, while keeping them still separate, chiefly characterizes brokers according to our model.
\nThe two essential characteristics of a broker that are noted by Silverman, namely, critical status and exclusivity, are also fulfilled in Jesus. A broker must make possible a connection that could otherwise not be made, or facilitate the supply of a need that could be supplied no other way. In this sense, the broker is of critical importance. In John, Jesus\u2019 position is critical. Salvation, or eternal life, depends on him (3:15\u201316; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:54; 8:24, 31\u201332, 36, 51; 10:27\u201328; 11:25\u201326; 14:6; 17:2\u20133). Moreover, Jesus\u2019 brokerage is exclusive in that no other human broker or human institution can mediate access to God\u2019s patronage (1:18; 8:23\u201324; 10:7\u201310; 14:6\u20137). Access to the Father is available exclusively through the Son Jesus. The attributes of Jesus as a broker align well with our model of brokerage.
\nNow let us explore how Jesus as broker aligns with the defining characteristics of patron-client relations, as outlined in the beginning of the chapter.<\/p>\n
(1) Patron-client relationships are reciprocal. In exchange for Jesus\u2019 brokerage, clients, the believers in this case, must provide certain benefits or resources in return. This is indeed evident in the way Jesus\u2019 followers are to obey him (14:15), to testify on behalf of him (15:27), to believe in him (3:36) and to follow his example (13:15).
\n(2) Patron-client relationships are asymmetrical. This point appears axiomatic in the Gospel. Jesus is in all ways superior to the disciples (15:20), to all persons for that matter.
\n(3) Patron-client relationships are binding and long term. Jesus\u2019 brokerage activity extends even beyond this life (14:3, 18).
\n(4) Patron-client relationships involve a moral and affective element. In John, Jesus and his disciples share an emotional as well as a spiritual attachment. Jesus loves the disciples and the disciples love him (16:27). Jesus calls his disciples \u2018friends\u2019 (15:15) and \u2018little children\u2019 (13:33). At the death of a disciple, Lazarus, Jesus weeps (11:35) and comforts the others who mourn. Likewise, the loyalty expected within patron-client relationship distinguishes the Jesus-disciple relationship. This becomes especially clear when one of Jesus\u2019 followers, Judas, becomes his betrayer. Judas\u2019 disloyal demeanor results in his being characterized as demonic (6:71; 13:2).
\n(5) Patron-client relationships are voluntary. Throughout the Gospel narrative we are introduced to characters whose interaction with Jesus presents them with a decision. This dramatic element in the story reveals the highly voluntary nature of discipleship. From Nicodemus to the Samaritan woman to Pilate, characters in the Gospel are never manipulated into following Jesus, or into accepting his brokerage, but are free to choose for themselves. All in all, the evidence supporting a characterization of Jesus as a broker figure proves strong. As a broker, Jesus is ideal.<\/p>\n
Still, a dilemma seems to have evolved among the Johannine Christians in which Jesus\u2019 brokerage capacity came to be doubted in light of his seeming absence. Perhaps the question arose of how believers could continue to rely on Jesus as a broker when he was no longer around. That the problem of Jesus\u2019 absence was weighing upon the community is reflected perspicuously in the Farewell Discourses. There the problem is addressed and resolved. Its resolution will be given greater attention later in this study. Let it suffice to say that the brokerage of Jesus comes to be strongly reasserted in these discourses. Furthermore, one finds that in the Discourses the spirit, fashioned as the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth, comes to be depicted as a broker as well. However, the Paraclete\u2019s role as broker centers on providing believers with access to Jesus after Jesus\u2019 departure.<\/p>\n
Chapter 2<\/p>\n
FOUR APPROACHES TO JOHANNINE PNEUMATOLOGY<\/p>\n
Four scholars who have studied \u2018spirit\u2019 in the Gospel of John are C.H. Dodd, George Johnston, Felix Porsch and Gary Burge. I have chosen to survey their approaches in the hope of gaining a representative picture of the scholarship on Johannine pneumatology, for these scholars demonstrate the wide range of perspectives from which it can be viewed. C.H. Dodd focuses mainly on the word \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, its meaning in different literary contexts, and its specific usage in John; George Johnston executes a religious-historical study of John\u2019s pneumatology, emphasizing the significance and meaning of the Paraclete in relation to other religious-historical notions that may have influenced the Fourth Evangelist; Felix Porsch\u2019s study is exegetical and in it Porsch strives to demonstrate the continuity between the spirit sayings in the Gospel proper and those in the Farewell Discourses; and Gary Burge offers a theological interpretation of John\u2019s use of spirit, in his exegetical investigation of the spirit passages in John and 1 John. In my brief treatment of each study, I cannot begin to canvas the full range of these authors\u2019 very nuanced arguments. I hope to capture the essence of their main theses and to respond to them in a way that does justice to the overall works. My critique will focus both on their judgments and on the utility of the methods employed in the different interpretations of John\u2019s pneumatology.<\/p>\n
1. C.H. Dodd<\/p>\n
As part of his larger work entitled The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1960: 213\u201327), Dodd includes a study of spirit in John. His study is predominantly an etymological examination of the meaning of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in various contexts. Dodd demonstrates that in both Hellenistic and Hebraic thought, the word had two general meanings. The Greek word \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, most readily defined as \u2018wind\u2019 or \u2018breath\u2019, represents firstly the power-source in nature, and secondly the \u2018soul\u2019 or \u2018life-breath\u2019 of humankind, though this is stated differently by different schools of thought (Dodd 1960: 213). This latter aspect can sometimes be indicative of the essential nature of a person. The Hebrew word \u05e8\u05d6\u05d4 which the LXX regularly translates as \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 also carries the connotations of \u2018wind\u2019 and \u2018breath\u2019, though the term seems to have taken on the meaning of a supernatural, elemental power force, of which wind was only a symbol. \u05e8\u05d6\u05d4 primarily referred to this irresistible force, which could possess a person at any time, empowering him or her to accomplish extraordinary feats. It was particularly associated with prophetic fervor and revelation. Eventually \u05e8\u05d6\u05d4 was thought to be responsible for heightened intellectual acumen and wisdom, though still in a supernatural sense. As with \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u05e8\u05d6\u05d4 later (Ps. 104:29\u201330; Isa. 57:16) came to parallel \u2018soul\u2019 (\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1), meaning \u2018the principle of life, which God imparts to man at his beginning, and recalls at death\u2019 (Dodd 1960: 215). While Hellenistic writers and Hebraic writers had slightly different conceptions of \u2018spirit\u2019, according to Dodd, in Hellenistic Judaism these different conceptions acted and reacted upon one another (Dodd 1960: 215).
\nFor example, while the Stoics understood \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as an \u2018element\u2019 pervading the entire universe that had the attribute of thought, hermetic writers tended to think generally of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as an ubiquitous life-giving and empowering force in the universe and as the vehicle of thought and life in humankind. For Stoics, the element \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 properly belonged to the remotest reaches of the universe, but had become imbued through all of nature and in the human being took the form of a soul. They called this vital, intelligent force \u2018God\u2019 and virtually equated it with the divine \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Hermetic writers believed that \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 possessed a quality of divinity, but this is variously described by different authors and seems to have been a source of confusion. They largely integrated the Stoic notion of a material element in the universe with the concept of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as the transcendent God. Still, although hermetic writers seem to reveal Hebraic influences in their conception of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, the Hebraic understanding of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as divine inspiration or revelation is not expressed in hermetic literature (Dodd 1960: 213\u201319).
\nDodd discusses how Philo especially brings together the Hellenistic and Hebraic understandings of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (Dodd 1960: 219\u201322). Philo used \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 for \u2018wind\u2019, but also views \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as the stamp of divine power, or as a reflection of God\u2019s nature in humankind. The Hebraic influence issues starkly in his belief that prophetic inspiration closely aligns with \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Dodd also argues that the pneumatology of the Gospel of John reflects both Hellenistic and Hebraic influences (Dodd 1960: 222\u201327). In 3:8, the Fourth Evangelist demonstrates knowledge of the meaning of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as \u2018wind\u2019: The [\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1] blows where it chooses, and you hear of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born [\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2].\u2019 The meaning of spirit as the inward person seems to be implied in 11:33: \u2018[Jesus] was greatly disturbed [\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9] and deeply moved.\u2019 At the point of Jesus\u2019 death \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 has a connotation of the \u2018life-breath\u2019 or \u2018soul\u2019 of Jesus: \u2018\u2026 he bowed his head and gave up [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1]\u2019 (19:30), though a double meaning may have been intended by the author. And in 6:63, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 preserves the sense of a life-giving power: \u2018It is [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1] that gives life; the flesh is useless.\u2019 According to Dodd, the author\u2019s meaning in these instances seems to be fairly coherent with the basic meanings of the word in both Hellenistic and Hebraic thought. In the other occurrences of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in John, the Evangelist seems to be adapting the Hellenistic and Hebraic definitions and, in the process, developing his own concept.
\nIn 4:23, 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is integrally bound up with truth (\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), and Dodd contends that truth in John has a Hellenistic sense of reality or knowledge of reality. Thus, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 relates to ultimate reality in John. It is also conceptualized as the \u2018way\u2019 to truth (16:13). In this sense it parallels Philo, where he speaks of a divine spirit guiding one\u2019s feet into the way of truth (Vit. Mos. 2.265), and hermetic texts where \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, close associates of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, are said to guide people into \u2018knowledge of the light\u2019.
\nLastly Dodd acknowledges \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as a vehicle of rebirth in John. However, he believes this rebirth is apprehended along Hebraic lines rather than Hellenistic. In the Fourth Gospel, rebirth contrasts with fleshly birth, in the tradition of the Old Testament. Dodd contends that this emphasis sets the Johannine notion of rebirth apart from dualistic notions because the Old Testament contrast is not one of substance but of power. Dodd asserts this is true of John. In contrast to human flesh, which is powerless and subject to decay, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is a regenerative and life-giving power. In Dodd\u2019s summation, it is the driving force behind the Johannine \u2018rebirth\u2019.
\nDodd summarizes his study of Johannine pneumatology by noting that, most importantly, John defines deity as \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Spirit is not a third figure of the Trinity, though the Paraclete seems to be, but rather the essence of the Trinity. Conversely, the essence of humankind is \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be. Therefore, the only way for humankind to rise from degenerative, fleshly life to the life of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is by way of spiritual \u2018rebirth\u2019. This function of spirit, providing a way for \u2018man to rise from the lower life to the higher\u2019 (Dodd 1960: 226), stands out in Johannine pneumatology. And since, in John, the spirit could not be given until the \u2018hour\u2019 of Jesus\u2019 glorification, birth \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 can only be understood in light of Jesus\u2019 life-giving death.
\nDodd\u2019s explanation of the etymological background of the Johannine \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 proves useful for helping us understand how the term was used in different contexts that may have had an influence on the Fourth Evangelist. He also explicates the difficulties inherent in translating and interpreting the word \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. But we have to question how extensive are the benefits of such etymological studies as Dodd\u2019s. John\u2019s usage of the term \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is unique and the meaning of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in John can only be ascertained from the context of each occurrence of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in the Gospel. This is an important, if obvious, consideration. We cannot translate or interpret \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in John based on how that word was used someplace else. The meaning and usage of the word in other texts can guide us to a range of possible meanings, but it cannot in itself assist us in translating and understanding the unique usage of the word in John. Only a careful study of the context of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in John will allow us to do so. As this study progresses, we will see that the Evangelist repeatedly adduces spirit in the setting of a contest between Jesus and other brokers. One can only understand the meaning of spirit in these passages in the light of this context.
\nDodd\u2019s interpretations of the Johannine \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019, as reflecting a Hellenistic understanding of ultimate reality, are compromised by the fact that the phrase appears in 1QS (3.13\u20134.26), where it bears strongly dualistic connotations. His convenient categorizations of Hellenistic and Hebraic are brought into question when one considers the mixture of influences in the Qumran literature. Finally, in saying the Gospel expresses Hebraic ideas in its contrasting of spiritual and fleshly birth, Dodd seems to be countering the Bultmannian tendency to find latent Gnostic dualism in John. Dodd wants to argue that in its \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1-\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be antithesis, John is more Hebraic than Hellenistic. However, Dodd\u2019s description of this antithesis and its cosmological significance in John (Dodd 1960: 224\u201325) sounds close to the general Gnostic myth as it has been reconstructed by scholars.
\nIn our study, we will challenge Dodd\u2019s view that truth refers to \u2018ultimate reality\u2019 in John, as well as the implication that John\u2019s spirit language does not reflect an essentially dualistic world view.<\/p>\n
2. George Johnston<\/p>\n
Johnston\u2019s study of Johannine pneumatology, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (1970), incorporates all the references to spirit in John, but the figure of the Paraclete comes to dominate Johnston\u2019s attention. His interpretations of the references to spirit outside of the Farewell Discourses comprise a small portion of his study and will not be our focus. In summation, Johnston finds that spirit outside the Discourses denotes divine power (p. 119). Spirit as a power has a cleansing function (p. 42), and is the force behind inward, true worship (p. 45). He interprets 7:39 to mean that believers will become a source of life, since the divine power of spirit wells up within them (p. 48). It is not entirely clear, however, how Johnston envisions the spirit fulfilling these functions, though he does view the work of the Church as empowered by the divine spirit (p. 38).
\nIt is Johnston\u2019s theory about the Paraclete that sets his work apart. His conclusions seem largely to stem from his interpretations of the phrase \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019, a title that accompanies that of \u2018Paraclete\u2019 for the spirit in the Farewell Discourses. This title appears in Qumran literature denoting an angelic intercessor whose nemesis in the dualistic struggle between light and darkness is called the \u2018Spirit of Error\u2019. Though Johnston believes the line of contact between John and Qumran to be indirect, he finds that the term \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 in John derives from a tradition shared with Qumran, and that the Spirit of Truth had come to be identified in pre-Christian times with the angel of truth, Michael (Johnston 1970: 120).
\nJohnston believes the Fourth Evangelist engages in polemic with Christians who, like those of Qumran, share dualistic ideas about the Spirit of Truth and Spirit of Error, and moreover, who identify the angel Michael with the true spirit of God (Johnston 1970: 122). Furthermore, he agrees with Mowinckel (1933) that the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 has roots in the Hebrew word \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05e5, which can refer to an angelic intercessor (Johnston 1970: 120). Johnston proposes that the Fourth Evangelist combined the term \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 with \u2018Paraclete\u2019 in order to confront a heretical angelology (1970: 119). Unlike Otto Betz, who equates John\u2019s Spirit of Truth with the angel Michael, who appears in Revelation (12:7) (see Betz 1963), Johnston contends that the purpose of the Evangelist is to rebut \u2018heretical claims for an angel-intercessor as the spiritual guide and guardian of the Christian church\u2019 (Johnston 1970: 119). In John, the Spirit of Truth equals the spirit of God, or the spirit of Christ, and therefore cannot be associated with Michael.
\nTo interpret the Spirit-Paraclete in John as the divine spirit or power is not unusual. It is how the Spirit-Paraclete comes to be experienced, however, which makes Johnston\u2019s theory so distinctive. Johnston asserts that the Spirit-Paraclete becomes embodied in, and experienced through the activity of certain outstanding Christian leaders (1970: 119). \u2018This activity\u2019, writes Johnston, \u2018which is itself God\u2019s own, becomes visible in a very real way in those \u201crepresentatives\u201d or \u201cparacletes\u201d who are the Christian prophets, remembrancers, teachers and martyrs\u2019 (1970: 16). The word \u2018representative\u2019 best translates \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 according to Johnston (p. 120), for the Christians who carry out the functions associated with the Paraclete, the \u2018spirit of Christ\u2019, become representatives of Christ on earth after his glorification. In Johnston\u2019s summation, to fulfill the activities of the Paraclete is to become a \u2018paraclete\u2019 to others:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the time of the spirit-paraclete is the age of the Church. In and for the Church some men are chosen witnesses, with authority and therefore spiritual power for their task \u2026 John locates the activity of the spirit within the Church \u2026 For him, apostles and Christians in general are the visibility of the unseen spirit. Of course, they are not to be identified with the spirit \u2026 Rather, this divine, Christ-like power makes them its instruments (1970: 38).<\/p>\n
By appropriating the activities of the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, to Christ\u2019s representatives, the Evangelist aims to focus the activity of the spirit squarely on Jesus and thereby to combat heretics who give undue authority to angels, and specifically to the angel Michael.
\nHere Johnston has in view the social background of the Johannine community. He sees the Evangelist\u2019s pneumatology as polemical, and therefore grounded in and shaped by concrete experiences in the life of the community. In attempting to get at those experiences, Johnston employs historical-critical methodology. His interpretation of the Paraclete also betrays the influence of a history-of-religions approach. Therefore, Johnston looks for religious-historical categories by which to make sense of certain features of John\u2019s pneumatology, for example, the use of the titles \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 and \u2018Paraclete\u2019, and then accounts for those historical connections through his exegesis of the text. The problem with Johnston\u2019s view of the social situation of John is that it derives from his assumptions about the use of the term \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019. His conclusions about the origins and meaning of the term then inform his views on the social context of the community. If his beliefs about the relevance of the Qumranic use of the term for the Johannine community are wrong, his whole theory falters. Besides, it is likely that understanding the context of John\u2019s Gospel is what will allow us to make sense of the particular way \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 is used in John, since language derives meaning from its context (see Halliday 1978). Insight into the socio-cultural context of the Johannine community will inform our understanding of the meaning of \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019. One should not begin with assumptions about the meaning of the phrase and then draw conclusions about John\u2019s context based on those assumptions. Johnston\u2019s conclusions about John\u2019s social context end up sounding somewhat arbitrary.
\nJohnston builds an elaborate theory to explain the mediatorial characteristics of the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth in John\u2019s pneumatology. But his theory necessitates some kind of connection between Qumranic angelology and the strategy of the Fourth Evangelist. Why is this necessary when there was a form of mediation prevalent throughout Mediterranean culture, namely, brokerage, which could explain those characteristics? To postulate that this culture-based concept of mediation factored into the portrayal of the Paraclete in John seems far less speculative than to draw connections between the Johannine community and a specific situation at Qumran.
\nFinally, we must question Johnston\u2019s theory about how the Paraclete is experienced. Johnston\u2019s view that the Paraclete works through individual Christians who serve as the representatives of Christ finds little support in the Paraclete passages. Though the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth is said to abide in the disciples (14:17), to teach them all things (14:26) and to guide them into all truth (16:13), there is no mention of the Paraclete functioning through them in an instrumental kind of way so that they become \u2018paracletes\u2019. Furthermore, Johnston believes prophecy constitutes one of the tasks of the \u2018paracletes\u2019 of the Church. However, prophets rarely feature in the Gospel of John, allowing very little grounds for assuming that prophets had a valued role among the Johannine Christians. Johnston\u2019s theory about the Christian \u2018paracletes\u2019 rests on little, if any, substance.
\nIn this study I will demonstrate that the mediatorial function of the Paraclete can be explained in a way that does not require one to read instrumentality into the text. Furthermore, I will show that the Paraclete\u2019s characterization as a mediator does not require a remote explanation from the history-of-religions.<\/p>\n
3. Felix Porsch<\/p>\n
In his distinguished study of Johannine pneumatology, Pneuma und Wort: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (1974), Felix Porsch strives to demonstrate the continuity between John\u2019s spirit passages outside of the Farewell Discourses, and to synthesize these with the Paraclete passages. Porsch contends that the connecting thread running through all of the Johannine spirit sayings is the theme of spirit as revelation. As the title of his work suggests, Porsch sees an integral unity between spirit and word in John. Indeed, Porsch views the spirit as coterminous with Jesus\u2019 words or revelation such that the giving of the spirit by Jesus happens via his spoken word (1974: 200\u2013201). According to Porsch, 6:63 is pivotal for an understanding of John\u2019s pneumatology, and he interprets the passage to mean that Jesus\u2019 word is where spirit comes to be encountered and conferred (p. 191). In the proclaiming of the words given to him by the Father, Jesus confers spirit on those who receive his word. Understandably, Porsch interprets 3:34 to indicate Jesus as giver of the spirit through his words (pp. 103\u2013105, 200). He also understands Jesus\u2019 activity of baptizing in spirit, or making possible spiritual birth, as part of his function as revealer, because it is the rebirth of spirit that enables believers to understand and receive Jesus\u2019 revelation (pp. 96\u2013101).
\nPorsch finds continuity between the Gospel\u2019s portrayal of spirit as revelation and the characterization of the Paraclete. The Paraclete\u2019s functions of teaching and reminding are central for Porsch (1974: 257\u201358, 299\u2013300). He accepts the view that the portrayal of the Paraclete as witness has its origins in the Synoptic tradition in which the spirit assists disciples in testifying before the courts (Mt. 10:17\u201320; Mk 13:9\u201311; Lk. 12:11\u201312). He sees this \u2018forensic\u2019 characterization of the spirit as an element of the Johannine trial motif that runs throughout the Gospel, and understands \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to be a forensic title. In the trial before the world, Jesus serves as the disciples\u2019 advocate, or Paraclete. In the Farewell Discourses, the spirit assumes the role of Paraclete for the time following Jesus\u2019 departure (Porsch 1974: 222\u201327, 268\u201375). The Spirit-Paraclete will both witness inwardly to believers on behalf of Jesus, and will serve as support for the disciples (pp. 269\u201375). According to Porsch, when the Paraclete witnesses on Jesus\u2019 behalf he is proffering Jesus\u2019 revelation to the disciples, making the Spirit-Paraclete\u2019s forensic title and function integrally related to his teaching and reminding, or \u2018revelatory\u2019, functions (Porsch 1974: 322\u201324). Porsch\u2019s emphasis on revelation as the hermeneutical key to understanding Johannine pneumatology thus allows him to synthesize the pneumatology of the Paraclete passages with that of the Gospel proper. He asserts that the overarching theme of the encounter of spirit in Jesus\u2019 word ties together all the spirit passages in John. The gift of spirit that is promised to believers in 7:39 is none other than the Paraclete, and the events in 19:34 and 20:21\u201323 narrate the fulfillment of the Paraclete promises.
\nPorsch interprets 7:39 to mean that there was no giving of the spirit during Jesus\u2019 ministry. During Jesus\u2019 ministry belief was consequent upon his signs. Therefore he sees the spirit as active in two stages: first, in the spirit\u2019s activity in the proclamation\/revelation of the earthly Jesus on whom the spirit abode, and, secondly, in the conferral of the spirit after Jesus\u2019 glorification (Porsch 1974: 65\u201381). The spirit continues to be made available through the proclamation of the Church.
\nPorsch\u2019s interest in synthesizing the Johannine spirit sayings seems to drive his exegesis. In fact, the connection between spirit and revelation in John\u2019s spirit sayings outside of the Farewell Discourses is tenuous. Verse 6:63 is the only occurrence of a linking of spirit and \u2018word\u2019 in these sayings, and it is by no means certain in this verse that the Evangelist intends to somehow equate spirit with Jesus\u2019 words. Porsch takes the metaphor too literally, and allows it to color his exegesis of the remaining spirit sayings. Furthermore, in his emphasis on revelation as key, Porsch seems to be guided by existentialist tendencies, which may be inappropriate to ascribe to the Evangelist. Finally, Porsch\u2019s emphasis on the continuity between the spirit sayings in the Gospel proper and those in the Farewell Discourses seems less tenable in light of the increasingly established view that the Discourses represent a later stage in the Gospel\u2019s composition. The Paraclete sayings may have come out of different interests than did the other spirit sayings.
\nIt will be argued below that the Paraclete\u2019s emergence in the Farewell Discourses is occasioned by doubts among community members about Jesus\u2019 continued efficacy as broker after his departure, and the subsequent reassertion of Jesus\u2019 exclusivity as broker in those Discourses. The Paraclete provides a way for Jesus to continue his work as broker among the disciples even after he has returned to the Father.<\/p>\n
4. Gary Burge<\/p>\n
Burge\u2019s study of pneumatology in John, entitled The Anointed Community (1987), is incontrovertibly one of the most thorough examinations of the spirit in John\u2019s Gospel to date. In it Burge gives attention to the relevant scholarship on his subject, as well as to every passage related to spirit in John and 1 John. His consideration of the relationship between the pneumatology of the Gospel and Epistle enhances his work.
\nAccording to Burge, the single most prominent and important feature of John\u2019s pneumatology is its inter-relatedness to Christology. This is especially evident in the Paraclete figure. Burge finds the Paraclete in John conceptualized as the very presence of Christ after he has departed, in that Jesus speaks through the Paraclete to the believers (1987: 41). The Paraclete cannot be separated from Jesus, for both his image and work receive definition in relation to Jesus. He is thus a model of Christ in the way that Christ is depicted as the model of God. As Burge explains, this christocentric portrayal of the spirit in the figure of the Paraclete allows Jesus\u2019 \u2018glory\u2019 to remain preeminent (1987: 203). The Paraclete is the spirit \u2018personalized\u2019, and, strikingly, given the personality of Jesus (Burge 1987: 142).
\nThe function of the spirit in John also evinces the importance of Jesus to its depiction, in Burge\u2019s opinion. It is the union with Christ, the indwelling of Christ in the believer that the spirit makes possible, that constitutes the primary function of the spirit (Burge 1987: 188\u201389).<\/p>\n
The climax of the Gospel is the believer\u2019s present experience of Jesus. John writes so that the reader may have life and faith (20:31), but more, that through the Spirit both Jesus and the Father might dwell within the disciple in a relationship of love. Therefore within John\u2019s present eschatology the Spirit assumes the role of Christ and effects a personal epiphany of Jesus to the believer (Burge 1987: 147).<\/p>\n
According to Burge, the ability of the spirit to bring believers into union with Christ permits the Fourth Evangelist to appropriate the sphere of heaven to present experience (14:13). Burge does not assert the second coming is no longer an expectation in John, but he contends that in many ways the experience of the second coming is depicted as a present reality for believers (1987: 149).
\nBurge\u2019s study offers much thorough and helpful exegesis, yet in his discussion of the function of the spirit certain elements are lacking. He fails really to address the issue of how the Johannine community experiences the indwelling, or \u2018union with Christ\u2019, which he asserts is central to their notion of spirit. When he attempts to address the issue, he turns to a discussion of the sacraments. But as his conclusion about the importance of the sacraments to the Johannine community suggests, the sacraments can hardly be the key. Although the Evangelist views the sacraments as valued \u2018material expressions\u2019 of the vital reality of Christ\u2019s indwelling (Burge 1987: 155), they are regarded as nothing more. Burge interprets the sacramental references in John as contesting a mechanistic, instrumental sacramentality that allows rituals to usurp the place of the actual, \u2018pneumatic\u2019 experience of Christ (1987: 177\u201378, 188\u201389). All in all, his study lacks a decisive verdict on how the Johannine community believed the pneumatic experience of Christ to be effected. We wonder: How did the Johannine community picture this indwelling of Christ in their lives? What did it do for\/in them? How were their lives thought to be different because of the spirit?
\nBurge likewise does not give adequate attention to why the group might have begun to emphasize \u2018union with Christ\u2019 in the first place. He does propose a theory as to the development of the Paraclete, but it does not account for the uniqueness and intensity of the purported Johannine emphasis on the indwelling of Christ. Burge highlights the role of the Paraclete in enabling believers to witness on behalf of Jesus. Burge places much emphasis on this characterization of the spirit, which he deems \u2018forensic\u2019, and claims it best accounts for the introduction of the noun \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in John, since he believes the noun to have a forensic meaning in Greek (Burge 1987: 6, 205\u2013208). He asserts that the Paraclete figure was inspired by the Synoptic tradition in which the spirit is portrayed as giving believers the words they need to testify in times of persecution (Burge 1987: 208). This forensic function of the spirit impacted upon the Fourth Evangelist, who developed the idea further in his own Gospel. In John, the forensic function expands to that of a revelatory function. Instead of speaking through the believers, the Paraclete is said to act as witness and revealer. To clarify how this is accomplished, Burge explains that 15:26\u201327 means the spirit witnesses and reveals through the community\u2019s witness and preaching (1987: 208).
\nThe assertion of Burge that the Paraclete derived from the Synoptic forensic depiction of the spirit is about as close as Burge comes to addressing the development of John\u2019s pneumatology. He does not, though, explore why the Evangelist would have taken up a forensic characterization of the spirit or why he would have recast it in more revelatory terms. Maybe due to the integral association of the Paraclete and Christ in John we are to assume that if the Paraclete is portrayed as speaking through the believers, and he speaks the words of Jesus, then it is actually Jesus speaking through the believers. Perhaps this is how believers experience Christ\u2019s indwelling through the spirit. Perhaps we are then to conclude that the indwelling of Christ in the believer is the central function of spirit because it enables them to witness and preach. Do the paucity of references to witnessing in connection with the spirit allow such an interpretation, however? Burge offers a discussion of the ideas of John without a clear discussion of the unique context in which they germinated and in which they functioned meaningfully for the author and audience. As indicated above, a discussion of ideas severed from their context can lead to many unanswered questions.
\nAt points in Burge\u2019s description, John\u2019s pneumatology seems to hover on a higher plane. Burge describes it in very rosy terms, frequently using the term \u2018pneumatic\u2019 (1987: 173, 177). He writes:<\/p>\n
If we can be certain about anything in the Johannine community, we can be assured that it stirred with spiritual vitality and strength. Above all, these were Christians who knew they had been transformed by the Spirit \u2026 united with Christ in Spirit \u2026 and fully enabled to worship in power \u2026 They had been anointed with the Spirit \u2026 and this mark had become their strength and distinctive (Burge 1987: 197).<\/p>\n
It is certainly conceivable that the Johannine Christians defined themselves by their unity with Christ through the spirit. But should this notion be attributed to \u2018spiritual vitality\u2019 or could there be pragmatic reasons behind an emphasis on the \u2018pneumatic\u2019 element in Christian experience? Moreover, one wonders to what degree Burge\u2019s characterization of the Johannine community as \u2018anointed with the Spirit\u2019 depends on his interpretation of the term \u2018anointing\u2019 (\u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) in 1 John 2? Is it methodologically sound to characterize the Johannine Community in general using a term from 1 John that is not found in the Gospel? And what exactly does the \u2018anointing\u2019 mean? Burge seems to interpret the \u2018anointing\u2019 variously, sometimes as a \u2018mark\u2019, which has a connotation of legitimation, and sometimes as an indwelling, which has a connotation of possession. Note the mixture of these themes in the following:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the Fourth Evangelist gave special attention to this concept [i.e. \u2018anointing\u2019] particularly in his account of Jesus\u2019 baptism as well as in 3:34 and 6:27 \u2026 In effect, the Spirit is the mark of Christ and should be the mark of the Christian as well. In [1 Jn 2:20, 27] this anointing forms a part of the overall picture of possession of the Spirit (3:24; 4:13) and divine birth (2:29; 3:9; etc.), and it certainly refers to the messianic anointing promised in the Gospel \u2026 this anointing dwells within the believer (Burge 1987: 175).<\/p>\n
Overall, Burge\u2019s explanation of the nature of pneumatic experience in the Johannine community is unclear, and his phraseology confusing. He notes the importance of Christ to the Johannine conception of spirit but does not place enough emphasis on the mediatorial role of the Paraclete in providing believers with a link to Christ. In this he has not adequately appreciated a crucial element in John\u2019s pneumatology. It becomes difficult to conceptualize and understand the interrelatedness of the Spirit-Paraclete and Jesus in John without understanding the centrality of mediation to their relationship.
\nI fully agree with Burge\u2019s conclusion that in John spirit figures prominently in Jesus\u2019 identity. The identity and authority of Jesus are signaled by the spirit\u2019s descent, and this \u2018authentication\u2019 of the spirit to which Jesus refers in 6:27 serves as his \u2018seal\u2019, according to Burge (1987: 84\u201385). Similarly, Burge claims that the \u2018anointing\u2019 characterizing the community in 1 Jn 2:20, 27, which he identifies with spirit, is their authorization (1987: 174\u201375). This continuity between the depictions of Jesus in John and that of the community behind 1 John as proprietors of spirit would seem to be suggestive, yet Burge does not draw out the implications of this purported connection. Such a connection would raise the following questions: What caused the 1 John community to place such a stress upon spirit? Why do they need to assert that they have unique access to spirit just as Jesus had?
\nThe following study will challenge Burge\u2019s view that John\u2019s pneumatology originated in the Synoptic forensic-spirit concept. Furthermore, it will show that the function of the spirit in John is not aimed at facilitating pneumatic worship or charismatic vitality, nor is it aimed at making possible a mystical-type \u2018indwelling\u2019 of Christ. Rather the spirit opens up the possibility of receiving the benefits of God\u2019s patronage, most notably eternal life. The spirit does legitimate Jesus and the believer, and this study will explicate the nature of this legitimation and why it is important. Finally, in Chapter 4 I will explain the interrelationship of Jesus and the Paraclete in a way that does not require pneumatology to become subsumed in Christology.<\/p>\n
Chapter 3<\/p>\n
SPIRIT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN<\/p>\n
1. Exegesis of the Spirit Passages in John<\/p>\n
a. The Spirit Descends upon Jesus (1:31\u201334); Jesus Gives Spirit (19:30\u201334; 20:22\u201323)<\/p>\n
1. John 1:31\u201334. The spirit is given mention in John in the very first narrative of the Gospel, in the story about John. In traditional fashion, the Fourth Gospel opens Jesus\u2019 ministry with John. Each of the Synoptics do so as well (Mt. 3:1\u201317; Mk 1:1\u201311; Lk. 3:1\u201322), and clearly a traditional story similar to the Synoptic tradition underlies the Fourth Gospel\u2019s account of the meeting between Jesus and John at the Jordan. A reference to the spirit appears in all four gospels. Still, the Fourth Evangelist has developed and adapted the tradition about John to suit his unique purposes, as have the other evangelists, and his treatment of the spirit is no exception.
\nBecause the author of John apparently had in mind an independent tradition similar to that of the Synoptics when he composed his narrative (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 66), his emphases, adaptations and additions to this underlying tradition reveal to us something of his intentions. Some of the unique features in the Johannine account are: (1) the interrogation of John by those sent from the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9; (2) the outright denial of any identification of John with Elijah or any other eschatological figure; (3) the adaptation of John\u2019s character from that of an eschatological preacher of judgment and repentance to that of a witness; (4) the absence of any mention of Jesus\u2019 being baptized by John; (5) the absence of the epithet \u2018the Baptist\u2019 for John; (6) the fact that John, rather than just Jesus (Matthew and Mark), sees the spirit\u2019s descent; (7) the fact that John, rather than a voice from heaven, testifies to Jesus; (8) the stress on the spirit as a sign to John of Jesus\u2019 identity; and (9) the way the spirit does not just descend upon Jesus, but \u2018remains\u2019 (\u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd) on him. Because the spirit references are vital to the reworking of the account of John in the Fourth Gospel, we will look at the whole account in our effort to understand the role of the spirit in 1:32\u201333.
\nScholars often note that the Fourth Gospel portrayal of John is highly tendentious; some even deem it polemical. The Fourth Evangelist deliberately limits the role of John. He is merely a \u2018voice\u2019 or a witness, and the portrayal of John evinces an emphatic contrasting between Jesus and John, by which Jesus is shown to be far superior. This has led these scholars to speculate that in his depiction of John, the Evangelist addresses disciples of John who have elevated him above Jesus, perhaps claiming John was actually the Messiah, or Elijah. When he introduces John in the Prologue, the Evangelist emphasizes that while John was not the light, Jesus was the true light (1:8\u20139). This kind of stark contrast pervades the Fourth Gospel narratives about John. In 1:15 John cries: \u2018He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me\u2019, a statement echoed in v. 30. And when a conversation about Jesus arises between John and his disciples in 3:25\u201330, John emphatically denies being the Messiah, stating that the Messiah (Jesus) comes after him, and that \u2018He must increase, but I must decrease\u2019 (v. 30). The characterization of John in the Gospel\u2019s first narrative must be viewed in conjunction with these other references to him (see also 10:41). Whether or not it is warranted to speculate about a \u2018Baptist sect\u2019, the Evangelist makes fairly explicit in the text that he does not allow for any competition between Jesus and John.
\nStill, the portrayal of John in the Fourth Gospel is by no means negative. John is \u2018sent from God\u2019 (1:6), a significant designation in the Gospel and one used repeatedly to depict Jesus as the envoy of God, and John is sent in order that Jesus might be revealed to Israel (1:31). As one commentator notes, this is \u2018no mean task for a man to perform\u2019 (Morris 1972: 151). John witnesses on Jesus\u2019 behalf, a mission he shares with many characters in the Gospel. However, John\u2019s testimony seems especially important despite the Gospel\u2019s many witnesses, for it allows Jesus\u2019 identity to be made manifest to Israel. Of special interest to us is the key role the spirit plays in enabling John to complete his mission. It is interesting that John\u2019s testimony features so prominently in the Fourth Gospel and he even receives the designation as one \u2018sent from God\u2019, yet any identification of John with an eschatological figure is expressly denied. What motivates these limits? I will address this question shortly.
\nThe account of John in the Fourth Gospel appropriately begins with \u2018This is the testimony given by John\u2019 (1:19a). The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 send \u2018priests and Levites\u2019 to question John about his baptizing, which provides John an opportunity to testify. Here begins the \u2018trial motif\u2019 that will feature in the story of Jesus as told by the Fourth Evangelist. In John, \u2018the world\u2019, often represented by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (Ashton 1991: 136), places Jesus on trial and throughout the Gospel several characters are put on the stand, either to confess or deny Jesus. The ironic scheme of the Gospel demands that while the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 act as judge throughout the Fourth Gospel, they actually stand condemned. They are judged by their wrong judgment of Jesus (Neyrey 1996: 111). The priests and the Levites represent the interests of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in our passage, and we take the inquisitors mentioned in v. 24 as related to this group, since this is the plainest meaning of the text, despite the supposed difficulties caused by the idea of priests and Levites being \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. In fact, many priests and Levites belonged to the Pharisaic party (Lindars 1972: 105). Whatever their specific designations may be, leading \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 desire to know more about John, who he is and why he is baptizing; hence they send clients\/brokers to question John. When asked \u2018Who are you?\u2019 John addresses the issue at the heart of their question. He answers pointedly, \u2018I am not the Messiah\u2019, and the Evangelist highlights his answer by writing, \u2018He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed \u2026\u2019 (1:20). The brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 then inquire, \u2018Are you Elijah \u2026 are you the prophet?\u2019 John answers both questions negatively, and tells them he is \u2018the voice of one crying out in the wilderness\u2019 (1:23a).
\nApparently the Evangelist does not consider John a threat to Jesus as \u2018the voice\u2019, or the witness, for this is how he allows John to be characterized. As we have seen, he also permits John to be described as one \u2018sent from God\u2019. But when it comes to the eschatological figures of the Messiah, Elijah or the prophet, the Evangelist rigidly draws the line. Why is this? First of all, as a witness to Jesus, John\u2019s work is strictly limited to disclosing the identity of Jesus. He does not offer any benefits other than this knowledge. Even as a broker sent from God John does not offer benefits from God, only an authoritative witness to the other broker who will come after him, who will impart benefits from God. So as a witness and broker John does not compete with Jesus\u2019 role as broker. On the other hand, if John was seen as the Messiah he would be in direct competition with Jesus, for the Messiah was to be mediator of God\u2019s kingdom. Similarly \u2018the prophet\u2019, who is ostensibly meant to be the expected prophet like Moses presaged in Deut. 18:15\u201322, was to lead the people according to God\u2019s commands, speaking directly from God. It is therefore clear why the Evangelist thought the \u2018prophet\u2019 to be a competitor. Both the Messiah and the prophet act as direct brokers to God. Still, why was Elijah a threat? According to Mt. 17:10\u201313 \u2018the scribes\u2019 expected Elijah to \u2018come first\u2019, presumably before the new age would dawn (see also Mal. 4:5), but there is nothing to suggest that as a forerunner Elijah would compete with Jesus. Furthermore, while the Messiah and the prophet gain mention in John as expected eschatological figures associated with Jesus (6:14; 7:40\u201341), Elijah is only mentioned in ch. 1 in connection with John. Why is the Fourth Evangelist adamant about denying an identification of John with Elijah when that identification clearly does not daunt the First Evangelist (Mt. 11:14)?
\nEvidence from the mid-second century CE provides a possible explanation for the Fourth Evangelist\u2019s concern over Elijah and John. As Marinus de Jonge (1977: 88\u201390) has pointed out, Justin\u2019s Dialogus cum Tryphone provides evidence of an Israelite belief, apparently shared by some Christians during Justin\u2019s time, that Elijah would precede the Messiah and reveal to him his identity. According to this view, the Messiah would be born a mere \u2018man of man\u2019 (Dial 49.1) and would not know his identity as the Messiah or have power until Elijah had anointed him and revealed to him all that he was to do (de Jonge 1977: 88\u201389). Perhaps the Fourth Evangelist\u2019s treatment of John presupposes a similar belief. There are, no doubt, problems with using second-century viewpoints to explain ideas in the Fourth Gospel. However, the close association of Elijah with the Messiah and the prophet in John and the concern of the Evangelist to distance John from all three, suggests he thought Elijah to have some sort of eschatological significance, placing him in competition with Jesus just as the Messiah and the prophet. The fact there existed in the mid-second century a belief about Elijah that would definitely have compromised the supremacy of the one coming after him shows Elijah was not merely conceptualized as a forerunner figure. Since a picture of Elijah as one in competition with Jesus seems to lie behind the Johannine portrayal of John, it is not fantastic to assume some sort of connection between the Elijah beliefs described by Justin and those which the Fourth Gospel presupposes.
\nA view of Elijah like that in Justin\u2019s Dialogus would certainly have motivated the Fourth Evangelist to distance John from Elijah. According to that view, Elijah was not only a heavenly mediator who would be sent to identify the Messiah. Elijah would actually bring heavenly knowledge about the Messiah\u2019s identity that the Messiah himself would not even know, since he would be merely a \u2018man of man\u2019. Additionally, Elijah\u2019s anointing would empower the Messiah to do all that he was to do (Dial 49.1). A depiction of John as this kind of Elijah had no place within the Evangelist\u2019s thinking. He repeatedly stresses that Jesus is not a mere man, but is \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (from above), and \u03ad\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (of God) (3:31; 8:23, 42; 16:28; 18:36) (de Jonge 1977: 89). In the Fourth Gospel Jesus knows his mission and needs no one to reveal it to him, for he does solely what the Father directs him to do. Interestingly, John never identifies Jesus as \u2018Messiah\u2019 in John, but instead as the \u2018Son of God\u2019 and \u2018Lamb of God\u2019. According to the view of Elijah in Justin\u2019s Dialogus, Elijah acts as a direct broker to God, brokering divine knowledge to the Messiah. It is thus understandable why the Evangelist would have viewed this sort of Elijah figure as competing with Jesus\u2019 role as broker, and why he might have avoided having John identify Jesus as the Messiah.
\nIn the Evangelist\u2019s eagerness to deny any identification of John with the Messiah, or Elijah, or the prophet, we begin to see him dealing with the difficulty of other potential brokers of God. This theme surfaces repeatedly in the Gospel, for example, in the Evangelist\u2019s treatment of Moses. Moses\u2019 role as direct broker to God is denied, but as with John, the Evangelist allows Moses a place of importance. Like John, Moses, in the scriptures, testifies to Jesus (5:39\u201347; cf. 12:41). Moses also, then, brokers access to the knowledge of Jesus. It seems, then, there exists a category of brokerage that is acceptable for figures other than Jesus in the Gospel, though it is strictly limited. More pointedly, the brokerage of people other than Jesus is permitted and effective only in so far as it supplies access to Jesus. The Evangelist stresses the fact that only Jesus provides access to the benefits of God\u2019s patronage (14:6). Other brokers in the Gospel are strictly brokers to Jesus, not brokers to God. This is an important distinction for us to make, and it aligns well with our model of brokerage. According to our model, many brokers can be involved in any given transaction. Though only one broker ultimately allows access to the benefits of the patron (the criteria of exclusivity), another broker (or other brokers) can supply a client with access to the broker who has ultimate access to the patron. This kind of \u2018network of brokers\u2019 dominates in patronage societies. So John is, in a sense, sent from God as a broker. He brokers access to Jesus by revealing him to Israel. However, his brokerage is entirely contingent upon Jesus\u2019 brokerage relationship with God. Because, in John, Jesus is the exclusive broker to God, it becomes a bit confusing to speak of other characters as brokers. Consequently, I will from this point on refer to such \u2018subordinate brokers\u2019 as John and Moses by using the term \u2018subordinate broker\u2019. On that note I return to the narrative.
\nJohn\u2019s answer to the brokers of the Pharisees that he is neither the Messiah, Elijah or the prophet leaves John\u2019s inquisitors perplexed. They ask, \u2018Why then would he be baptizing?\u2019 This question probably does not mean that baptizing was an eschatological act that needed to be associated with an eschatological figure. Though baptism was indeed eschatological\u2014it was done to prepare people for the coming of the new age\u2014it was not carried out solely by \u2018eschatological figures\u2019. The issue addressed seems to be that John was baptizing fellow Israelites and the brokers of the Pharisees wanted to know what gave him the authority to do so. Baptism implied purification, and usually that of non-Israelites when they became proselytes of the Israelite religion (Carson 1991: 145; Morris 1972: 140). Furthermore, sometimes people baptized themselves. Why did John presume to have the authority to baptize other Israelites? John answers his interlocutors rather circuitously. He tells them he baptizes with water, but another is coming after him who is far greater than he. He implies that, while he will recognize this \u2018one coming after him\u2019, they do not know him (1:26).
\nThe whole exchange between John and the brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 constitutes an honor challenge, depicted as an example of Mediterranean \u2018challenge and response\u2019. The questioners challenge John\u2019s honor status. Though John does not claim to be any of the eschatological figures they mention, he does make an honor claim in asserting to be the voice in the wilderness foretold by Isaiah. He also challenges the honor of the brokers by implying he knows of \u2018the coming one\u2019, a designation for the Messiah, whom they \u2018do not know\u2019. Considering the importance of \u2018knowing\u2019 in our gospel, this is an acerbic response (cf. 7:28; 8:14, 19, 55; 10:14\u201315; 15:21; 16:13; 17:3) (Neyrey 1996: 113). John\u2019s counter-challenge manages to win the match for John, and the brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 disappear without a word, a sure sign of defeat.
\nThe Evangelist portrays John as a subordinate broker sent from God so that Jesus\u2019 identity could be revealed to Israel. In our passage, John acts as Jesus\u2019 subordinate broker in defending and testifying to him, representing him to the brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. It is fascinating, then, that the Gospel of John begins with this skirmish between brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and a subordinate broker of Jesus, since Jesus and the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are the two main opponents throughout the Gospel. While the central characters await their cues, their brokers are on stage vying for their honor, and Jesus\u2019 wins. Not only does John defend his own honor, but he honors Jesus in the process by elevating Jesus\u2019 status above his own. John says the one coming after him is so much greater than he that he does not even deserve to be the man\u2019s slave (1:27).
\nOn the day following his interrogation, John sees Jesus coming toward him and declares, \u2018Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!\u2019 (1:29). Oddly, the title \u2018Lamb of God\u2019 is not used in any other Gospel narrative. That the Evangelist twice attributes it to John in this account (see 1:36), along with the fact he does not repeat it elsewhere, suggests to us the title reflects traditional material about John that the Evangelist preserved despite his apparent detachment from it. Yet even if the title \u2018Lamb of God\u2019 is not a popular one in the Gospel, the Evangelist has employed the traditional title to undergird his theme of Jesus as a sacrifice. He does so regardless of what the saying originally meant on the lips of John. The confession \u2018the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world\u2019 fits within the Gospel, for throughout the Gospel one finds allusions to Jesus\u2019 sacrifice in death. In a passage where Jesus seems to make repeated references to his death (see de Boer 1996: 222\u201336), he talks about giving his flesh for the life of the world (6:51). In ch. 10, though Jesus describes himself as a shepherd rather than a \u2018lamb\u2019, he portends that he will lay his life down for others. Caiaphas unwittingly echoes this prediction in 11:50, as the Evangelist explains (11:51\u201352). Moreover, the chronological alignment of the crucifixion with the slaughtering of the paschal lambs, the appearance of the hyssop branch in the passion narrative, and the use of Exod. 12:46 and Num. 9:12 in 19:36, \u2018None of his bones shall be broken\u2019, all manage to depict Jesus as the perfect Passover lamb. Finally it is important to note the key role the chief priests and high priest, whose primary function was to offer sacrifices to God in the Temple, play in orchestrating Jesus\u2019 death in John (18:3, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 35; 19:6, 15, 21) (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 274). In light of all the aforementioned passages, the most likely meaning of John\u2019s confession in the Fourth Gospel centers on the cross and Jesus\u2019 sacrifice in death. Even though the Passover sacrifice was formerly not viewed as a sacrifice for sin, by Jesus\u2019 time the lambs slain at the Exodus from Egypt were apparently associated with removal of sin (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 62; Bultmann 1971: 96 n. 4).
\nHence, the narrative about John in the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel sets the stage for the climax of the Gospel in John 19\u201320. The cross is signaled right from the start of the Fourth Gospel, as well as throughout it, by the allusions to Jesus as a sacrifice. Furthermore, from the confession of Jesus as the \u2018Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world\u2019 to the portrayal of Jesus\u2019 death as exaltation, the cross appears honorific. In 1:29, when John calls Jesus the \u2018Lamb of God\u2019, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross seems to be that which procures for believers freedom from sin and death. It removes the condition of sin that stands between God and humanity and thus makes it possible for humanity to receive the benefits of God\u2019s patronage. So part of Jesus\u2019 mission as broker involves permanently removing the barrier of sin that blocks the outpouring of benefits from God, a task the brokers in Israel\u2019s past have been unable to do. Effecting removal of sin is not Jesus\u2019 primary task in John, as the paucity of references to this function makes clear, but it is integral to his work as broker to God. Those who accept Jesus as the one sent from God are spared \u2018condemnation\u2019 for sin or rejection as clients (3:16\u201318; 5:24\u201329; 8:23\u201324). In other words, they have recognized Jesus as the true broker of God and submitted to him and can thus enter into a loving, patronal relationship with God the Father.
\nBut what does the \u2018sin of the world\u2019 mean in John, and how does Jesus procure its removal? In John, sin denotes unbelief, or the active disloyalty toward and rejection of Jesus as sole broker to God, and thus rejection of God\u2019s patronage (3:36; 8:23\u201324; 15:22\u201324; 16:8\u20139). Sin is not generally characterized as wrong actions or impurity in the Fourth Gospel (Bultmann 1971: 551, 563). According to our Evangelist all sin is subsumed under the one wrong action of disloyalty toward God the patron. This partially accounts for the scarcity of ethics in John. Since in this gospel sin is not characterized as impurity or ethical misbehavior that must be rectified, Jesus\u2019 sacrifice is not conceived of as expiation in the sense of taking on the misdeeds of the world and extirpating the guilt associated with them. Still, disloyalty toward God, or the breaking of a patron-client \u2018contract\u2019 with God can, of course, involve impurity and ethical misbehavior. But the wrong actions themselves are not the focus in John, rather the disloyalty of which the wrong actions are merely a symptom. Nathan\u2019s speech to David in 2 Sam. 12:7\u20139 exhibits how ethical misbehavior can be seen as symptomatic of disloyalty to the patron God or as a \u2018breach of contract\u2019:<\/p>\n
\u2026 Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel. I anointed you king over Israel, and gave you your master\u2019s house, and your master\u2019s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.<\/p>\n
The speech focuses not so much on the culpability of David\u2019s actions as on his blatant disrespect of and disloyalty to God in light of all the benefits God had conferred to him.
\nExactly how the Evangelist envisages Jesus \u2018taking away the sin of the world\u2019 and removing the barrier to God\u2019s patronage through his death presents a complex issue in John and we cannot propose to offer a complete explanation of John\u2019s soteriology. The topic will, however, surface again in our study, and so I offer a summary of it at this point. In John, the broker Jesus reveals God to the world; he makes God known (1:18; 3:34; 8:26, 38, 40; 14:7; 15:15; 17:3). By believing in, or accepting, Jesus one expresses loyalty to God and acceptance of God\u2019s patronage, and is thus spared rejection as a client (3:16\u201318, 36; 5:24\u201329; 6:40, 47; 8:23\u201324, 51; 10:9, 28; 11:25\u201326; 17:2\u20133). Those who reject Jesus the broker reject God, and thereby decide their own fate. Unbelievers are judged by their own unbelief (3:18, 36; 12:48). In John, Jesus takes away the sin of the world through his mission of coming into the world, revealing God to humanity, and making God\u2019s patronage available to those who choose to accept him as God\u2019s true broker, thus allowing them the possibility of eternal life, the ultimate benefit of God\u2019s patronage (3:16; 15:22\u201324). Jesus\u2019 death represents a crucial part of his life of revelation, perhaps even its climax, for it reveals Jesus\u2019 posture of love and obedience to the Father (8:28; 12:27; 14:31; 18:11) and thus ratifies his claims to be God\u2019s Son, and thus the ultimate broker to the Father.
\nIt is also through Jesus\u2019 death that the \u2018ruler of the world\u2019 is \u2018cast out\u2019 (12:31\u201332; 14:30). Loader asserts that the best way of understanding this \u2018casting out\u2019 is as \u2018exposure\u2019, since the evil one apparently will not be \u2018driven out\u2019 in the literal sense. The ruler of the world continues to exercise jurisdiction within the world after Jesus\u2019 return to the Father (17:15; see also 1 Jn 5:19). But in Jesus\u2019 death, \u2018the world\u2019 and its ruler are exposed as those who have rejected and killed God\u2019s revealer and broker, so that those \u2018drawn by the Father\u2019 can recognize the world\u2019s guilt and choose not to conform to the world in its rejection of Jesus and its allegiance to false brokers. Because of his death, sin (i.e. unbelief and rejection of God) no longer constitutes the sole alternative in sight for humanity, since those who were once \u2018blind\u2019 can now see (9:39). Jesus\u2019 mission as revealer thus has two sides. Jesus reveals or exposes both the Father, and the ruler of the world (Loader 1989: 104\u2013106). As Loader explains:<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 death \u2026 represents the climax of the Son\u2019s fulfillment of his task. As an event pitting claim against claim, it brings to a climax the issues of Jesus\u2019 life: the world rejects the Son and thereby exposes itself as sinful and its ruler for what he is. At the same time Jesus\u2019 rejection and subsequent vindication by his return to the Father reveals, for all who want to see, that he is the one he claimed to be (Loader 1989: 106\u2013107).<\/p>\n
The grounds for rejection as God\u2019s client is thus \u2018taken away\u2019 for all those who accept God\u2019s broker who has been sent into the world, Jesus. Those who so do are no longer estranged by their disloyalty, or sin. Whereas those who reject Jesus are, as a result of their failure to accept the true broker, estranged from the patron God, and in the case of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, their treasured means of brokerage to God are shown to be inefficacious.
\nGetting back to the title \u2018Lamb of God\u2019, I conclude it is an honorable one and the honor connected with it results from the work of \u2018taking away the sin of the world\u2019. The Fourth Evangelist\u2019s reworking of the sacrificial lamb image to be a symbol of honor is not unique within the New Testament; it also features prominently in Revelation. Many efforts have been made to explain the imagery of the lamb in John\u2019s Gospel. However, these efforts have not led to any consensus regarding its meaning. In light of this fact, I propose a perspective on the lamb imagery that, to my knowledge, has not been considered. Undergirding this perspective are the insights of the social psychologist Henry Tajfel, specifically his theory of \u2018social creativity\u2019 (Tajfel 1981).
\nThrough his studies of group behavior Tajfel finds that members of minority groups that possess an \u2018inadequate social identity\u2019 will take steps to alter their situation. According to Tajfel, social comparison drives those of inferior status in society to create, achieve, preserve or defend a positive conception of themselves. This effort he calls \u2018social creativity\u2019 (Tajfel 1981: 338). Social creativity can take several forms. If a group as a whole accepts the inferior status assigned to them by the wider society, individual members of that group will attempt to develop a positive self-image by individual means. But if the collective group does not view their inferior status within the society as fair and legitimate, the group as a whole will take certain measures to solve the problem. Tajfel outlines three ways this can be done (summarized from Tajfel 1978: 94): (1) the group can strive to become more like the dominant group; (2) the group can reinterpret their existing inferior characteristics so they no longer appear as inferior and acquire a positively valued distinctiveness from the dominant group; (3) the group can create through social action or the diffusion of new \u2018ideologies\u2019 new group characteristics that have a positively valued distinctiveness from the dominant group.
\nTajfel\u2019s second solution, reinterpreting negative characteristics so that they no longer appear as negatives but as positives, is the key point for this discussion. It seems this is largely what the authors of John and Revelation were doing when they reinterpreted their crucified Messiah as a triumphant sacrificial lamb, achieving redemption for the faithful of Israel. Jesus\u2019 crucifixion no doubt earned the early Christian movement ubiquitous disdain within its Israelite context. Re-evaluating Jesus\u2019 death was a central concern for Christians in the decades following it, and different Christian thinkers went about that re-evaluation variously. For example, Paul reinterprets the cross to be a thing of power by which Jesus reconciled humanity to God (1 Cor. 1:17\u201318). Though the world views the cross as an offense (1 Cor. 1:18, 23), it is actually the cross that allows Christians to have victory over the world (Gal. 6:14). This reversal of the image of the cross from an object of shame to one of power and victory is one way that early Christians went about \u2018creating\u2019 a positive social identity for themselves.
\nThe same can be said about the reinterpretation of the sacrificial lamb in John. The fact that John\u2019s lamb represents a victorious, honorable figure does not necessarily mean the Evangelist had in mind apocalyptic imagery. The reinterpretation of the paschal lamb as honorable and as the means of removal of all barriers between the patron God and God\u2019s clients, since the barrier is in essence unbelief in God\u2019s true broker, as well as the application of that imagery to Jesus, can be explained as an act of social creativity on the part of the Evangelist and the Johannine Christians. Significantly, they chose to reinterpret an image that was especially meaningful to their main opponents, the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. That the Johannine Christian group worshipped a crucified Messiah was indubitably one of the negative characteristics of the group in the eyes of the dominant group, the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. Therefore, the group solves this problem by taking this inferior characteristic and turning it into a positively valued distinctiveness from the dominant group. Their Messiah Jesus is thus characterized as the perfect paschal lamb who manages to acquire removal of sin once and for all. Conversely, their opponents are implicitly condemned for relying on ineffective means of removing the barrier of sin. John\u2019s \u2018Lamb of God\u2019 needs to be understood in the context of the contest between Jesus and the Israelite religion as purported brokers to God. In lieu of this context, the Evangelist reappropriates the key symbol of redemption according to Israelite religion and asserts that only the broker Jesus is capable of procuring removal of sin and opening the way for him to broker access to eternal life. The context of this reinterpretation is defensive.
\nThe day following John\u2019s interrogation by the brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and the Pharisees, Jesus appears. John\u2019s reply to the question of the previous day, \u2018Why then are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?\u2019 culminates when he sees Jesus. At that point he declares that his baptism is in order for the \u2018Son of God\u2019 to be revealed to Israel, disassociating his baptism from the traditional baptismal function of purification. The text does not tell us whether John\u2019s inquisitors are around to hear this response. Next, John sees the spirit descend on Jesus and remain (\u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd) on him. John was awaiting this event, according to the Evangelist. John was sent by God that Jesus might be revealed to Israel, and John is to testify to him \u2018so that all might believe through him\u2019 (1:7). Significantly, the spirit identifies Jesus to John and makes the revealing of Jesus, and subsequently John\u2019s confession, possible. John testifies: \u2018The one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, \u201cHe on whom you see the spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9 [in holy spirit]\u201d \u2019 (1:33). In his momentous testimony to Jesus in 1:34, John affirms that Jesus is the one on whom the spirit abides (1:32). Because the spirit remains on him, Jesus can baptize others \u2018in holy spirit\u2019. Why does the Fourth Evangelist emphasize the spirit\u2019s abiding with Jesus? Some commentators believe the Evangelist\u2019s emphasis primarily shows that the spirit dwelt permanently with Jesus, that the spirit\u2019s descent on Jesus was not a fleeting experience, but rather that it heralded the lingering presence of the spirit with Jesus. But what exactly is the significance of this? Is the Evangelist suggesting that Jesus needed the spirit or was empowered by it? This idea would seem incongruent with the Evangelist\u2019s emphasis on Jesus\u2019 superiority over all things except the Father. Does the Evangelist wish to say the spirit abides with Jesus so that Jesus can confer it upon others, by baptizing them in holy spirit? This could be inferred by John\u2019s comments in this passage. But if this is the case, one would expect Jesus to be actively conferring spirit throughout his ministry, since the spirit was already remaining on him, yet in 7:39 we are told the spirit did not become available to believers until after Jesus was glorified. If the spirit remained on Jesus so that Jesus could confer it to believers, it would seem that the spirit was dormant during Jesus\u2019 ministry. Does the spirit serve to legitimate Jesus\u2019 ministry somehow? The reference to Jesus\u2019 baptizing in the spirit must be read in conjunction with John\u2019s answer to the question of the previous day of why he baptizes: \u2018I baptize with water\u2019, John says, using the emphatic \u2018I\u2019, \u2018but another comes after me \u2026\u2019 John\u2019s circuitous answer sets up a contrast that becomes clear with the mention of Jesus\u2019 baptism in holy spirit. John\u2019s baptism in water pales in comparison to the baptism that Jesus will bring. That Jesus will baptize in spirit sets him apart from John whose baptism is merely one of water. It is earthly. The fact the spirit remains on Jesus signifies him as bearer of the heavenly benefit of spirit that he will give to his potential clients. Thus the remaining of the spirit does seem to serve a legitimating function here. It identifies and legitimates Jesus as the one who will proffer divine benefits.
\nThe prediction that Jesus will baptize in \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1 is part of the traditional narrative of John and is included in all of the Gospels. However, in Q, John says Jesus will baptize in holy spirit and fire (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16). The association of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af is interesting. In the Q passage John also says the one coming after him \u2018will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, and the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire\u2019 (Mt. 3:12; Lk. 3:17). He thus prophesies one who will purify Israel with a fiery punishment. In this case, spirit probably denotes a cleansing in the Q tradition, fire and spirit together signifying judgment and purification. Spirit bears such a connotation in the Qumran literature (1QS 4.20\u201321; 1QH 50.12; 1QS 3.6\u20138) and occasionally in the Old Testament (Isa. 4:4; Ezek. 36:25\u201326). Nonetheless, in the Fourth Gospel, John\u2019s saying that Jesus would baptize in holy spirit does not include a reference to fire and does not imply judgment. Still, could the coupling of the prediction with the confession of Jesus as the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world suggest the Evangelist conceptualizes the spirit as a cleansing spirit? It does not seem that he does. As was earlier explained, the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, does not remove sin through a process of purification, but through revelation. Jesus\u2019 death reveals his relationship to God, and thus his status as supreme broker to God, and exposes the disloyalty of the world who have rejected God\u2019s true broker. For those who can see this and who choose to accept Jesus, the barrier of sin, or disloyalty, is taken away. The way is open for them to enter into a relationship of patronage with God and receive eternal life. Thus, there does not seem to be a connection between the spirit and judgment\/purification in this passage. If the Evangelist was aware of such a connection in the tradition, he has purposely left it out of his narrative.
\nThe meaning of \u2018baptize in holy spirit\u2019 in John is difficult to ascertain. Does the Evangelist use baptism as a metaphorical way of referring to Jesus\u2019 impartation of spirit, or does Jesus literally impart the spirit to believers through water baptism? A baptizing ministry of Jesus is mentioned in 3:22 and 4:1, but a qualification is added to the latter mention in 4:2: \u2018it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized\u2019. What about the statement in 7:39 that the spirit would not be given until Jesus had been glorified? This implies that Jesus did not impart the holy spirit before his \u2018hour\u2019, and seems to rule out a literal baptism in spirit. These are difficult questions that merit careful attention, especially considering the association of water and spirit in 3:5. I will therefore devote a section to the discussion of \u2018Baptism, Water and Spirit\u2019 (see p. 165) following an exegesis of John\u2019s spirit passages.
\nReturning to the narrative, John in the end confesses, \u2018I myself have seen and have testified that this [the one on whom the spirit descended and remained, v. 33] is the Son of God\u2019 (1:34). The contrast between John and Jesus is made salient with the spirit\u2019s descent and John\u2019s testimony to Jesus\u2019 honor as spirit-bearer and Son of God. Bultmann, in his commentary (1971: 84), comments that Jesus\u2019 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, or \u2018glory\u2019, referred to in 1:14 is not revealed until ch. 2 of John. This conclusion proves unwarranted. He, along with many commentators, fails to recognize the significance the Evangelist places on the spirit\u2019s descent in this passage. The abiding of the spirit signifies Jesus as the \u2018Son of God\u2019, a title implying great honor. \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, which can be translated \u2018honor\u2019 as well as \u2018glory\u2019 (Liddell and Scott 1997: 209) implies the honoring of Jesus by God in John, or Jesus\u2019 honoring of the Father through his obedience and love. As \u2018Son of God\u2019, Jesus has the honor of God the Father as well as access to all that is the Father\u2019s (3:35; 16:15), including the spirit that seems to come down from God (though this is not explicit in the text). The abiding of the spirit on Jesus, highlighted by the Johannine catch-phrase \u2018remain\u2019 (\u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, 1:32), allows John to identify Jesus as \u2018Son of God\u2019.
\nSince the spirit identifies Jesus to John as the Son of God, the spirit does indeed function as a legitimation of Jesus. The dichotomy presented throughout the Gospel of flesh versus spirit or earthly versus heavenly supports the interpretation of the spirit as avowing Jesus\u2019 honorable, \u2018heavenly\u2019 identity. The spirit\u2019s abiding on Jesus marks him as \u2018of the spirit\u2019 and \u2018from above\u2019. Therefore, it legitimates Jesus over his enemies in the Gospel who are shown to be of the world or earthly (8:23). He is the \u2018Son of God\u2019, whereas they are sons of the devil (8:44). Moreover, the importance of Jesus\u2019 having the spirit upon him becomes more evident as the Gospel progresses and Jesus is repeatedly measured against some of the Israelites\u2019 most revered brokers. The association of Jesus with spirit will play a role in setting him apart as the only figure able to broker access to the spirit realm, the realm of God. And in this passage, the abiding of the spirit not only identifies Jesus as the Son of God, but it legitimates Jesus as the bearer of the divine benefit of spirit that he will confer to his potential clients. In contrast to John, Jesus will baptize in spirit (1:33).
\nIt is fitting that John calls Jesus \u2018Son of God\u2019 in the passage (1:34). Kinship language was often used for patrons and brokers\/clients, as it aptly expressed the loyalty, obedience and dependence of a client, the \u2018child\u2019 (see 1:12), and the loyalty and provision of a patron, the \u2018father\u2019. The patron-client relationship usually takes the form of fictive kinship (Silverman 1967: 287). This is significant for our interpretation of the Father\/Son language of the Fourth Gospel. The Father\/Son language of John does have a patronal tone about it, as implied in Schnackenburg\u2019s conclusion:<\/p>\n
The Johannine Son-Christology is essentially the doctrine of salvation for believers \u2026 with Jesus as God\u2019s emissary revealing and mediating salvation \u2026 Jesus Christ, who is our access to the Father, the revelation in this world of the remote, invisible God; the disclosure of God\u2019s love for the world, which otherwise remains hidden and incomprehensible to us; the light which makes sense of our existence and the way along which we can attain to its goal: these are the matter with which the Johannine Son-Christology is concerned, indeed, they are the very heart of it (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 185\u201386).<\/p>\n
By noting that the central concern of John\u2019s Son-Christology is Jesus\u2019 role as God\u2019s emissary who mediates salvation and provides access to God\u2019s \u2018love\u2019 and \u2018light\u2019, Schnackenburg implies the Son-Christology centers on Jesus as broker.
\nThough the relationship of the Father to Jesus in John is characterized as a patron-broker, or patron-client relationship, is the relationship between the Father and Jesus merely conceptualized as Active kinship? Not necessarily. It could be much more than that. While patrons and clients often have a fictive kinship relationship, it is important to remember that sometimes patrons and clients, especially in the form of brokers, can be true kin. Family members constitute some of the key \u2018hinge\u2019 figures, or brokers, in patronage societies. Having kinsmen with valuable connections is a principal way to solicit benefits from a patron. Consequently, a son can broker a deal between his real father and a client by providing the client with a connection to his father, or by recommending the client to him. In such situations, the son is considered an ideal broker\/patron by the client precisely because of his strong kinship ties. As Samir Khalaf writes, \u2018The son, himself his father\u2019s client, attains more credibility as a patron if the source of his patronage is reinforced by family loyalty\u2019 (1977: 196). Such family-based connections are made by cousins, uncles, wives, children, et al., who all function as brokers within a patronage society. So when a son brokers a deal between his father and a client, the father-son relationship very much resembles a patron-client relationship between non-kin. Operationally, the exchanges are quite similar, yet the relationship is different. Most significantly, true kin are not voluntarily associated (Boissevain 1966: 22). In Mediterranean society they are obligated to each other for life (Boissevain 1966: 19\u201320) and share all things in common to the extent that if a kinsman has a need, his or her fellow kinsmen must share their possessions until that need is met (Bartchy 1991: 314). As Prov. 17:17 states, \u2018kinsfolk are born to share adversity\u2019. This kind of giving and sharing as needed is called generalized reciprocity or \u2018generalized exchange\u2019 (see Moxnes 1988: 34\u201335; Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 32\u201334).
\nIn John, Jesus\u2019 relationship with the Father does appear to be one of true kinship. Jesus is described as \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f30\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 (the only begotten son) (3:16; see also 1:14, 18). This suggests Jesus\u2019 relationship with God is unique, and not, for example, like the fictive kinship relationship between God and Israel. Moreover, Jesus\u2019 heavenly origin, the focus of attention throughout the Gospel, suggests Jesus shares a truly paternal relationship with God the Father. While the Father\/Son language of the Fourth Gospel could merely indicate the patronal element in Jesus\u2019 relationship to the Father, it in fact seems to express true paternity. Indeed, Jesus\u2019 greatest advantage over other purported brokers to God is his heavenly origin and his ability to claim for himself the honor status of his Father, God. Jesus is \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f30\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 (the only begotten son) and thus can claim an edge over all other brokers. This is where Jesus\u2019 claim to true sonship has the most effect. The effectiveness of Jesus\u2019 brokerage depends entirely on his unique ability as God\u2019s Son to mediate access to God. As Paul Meyer writes in his study on \u2018The Presentation of God in the Fourth Gospel\u2019:<\/p>\n
Behind Jesus\u2019 life and activity lie the Father\u2019s will (6:40), the Father\u2019s life (15:10), the Father\u2019s acting (14:10), the Father\u2019s word (14:24), and the Father\u2019s love (15:10). \u2018My Father\u2019 in the mouth of Jesus \u2026 makes it clear that God is his Father as no one else\u2019s (1996: 260).<\/p>\n
The characterization of Jesus as son and God as father does not merely serve to lend authority to Jesus\u2019 ministry. Rather it functions to distinguish Jesus from all other brokers, since he is shown to be originated from God and to share an intimacy with God that is distinctive to the kin relationship. This is one reason the \u2018sent-language\u2019 and \u2018oneness-language\u2019 of the Gospel cannot be explained in terms of juridical practices of \u2018agency\u2019. Many agents can bear the authority of the sender and carry his words. The emphasis of John\u2019s sent-language and his characterization of Jesus\u2019 relationship to the Father is not on Jesus\u2019 authority as an agent or on his message, but much more so on Jesus\u2019 unparalleled closeness with the Father (see Schnackenburg 1995: 253\u201358) and his ability to represent the God-realm like no one else. He alone was sent from that realm. As Meyer concludes, the sent-language of John is always God-centered language (i.e. God is described as \u2018the one who sent\u2019, while Jesus is never described as \u2018the one who was sent by God\u2019). The sent-language aims to identify Jesus\u2019 origins in God, and God\u2019s work through him (Meyer 1996: 264\u201365). It does not primarily authorize Jesus as an \u2018agent\u2019 or legitimate his message, but demonstrates that Jesus\u2019 mission in the world is significant because it is exclusively through him that God is making available spiritual birth. Agency cannot account for the stress on exclusivity inherent in John\u2019s Christology.
\nAccording to the cultural presuppositions of Mediterranean societies the divide between higher and lower orders must be bridged by some sort of mediator or broker (see, e.g., Boissevain 1966: 30). Direct autonomous access to God, or to persons of higher social status than oneself, is typically thought to be impossible, so reliance on brokers predominates (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 206\u2013207). As stated above, these mediators must represent the interests of both \u2018orders\u2019. Their qualification as brokers requires that they have one foot in both worlds, so to speak. This explains Jesus\u2019 insistence in John\u2019s Gospel that he is the only one who fits this criteria. He is \u2018from above\u2019 and pre-existent. His divine origins thereby make him capable of functioning as a broker to God. No other person, or group, or institution possessed this capability. Interestingly, this capability is lucidly ascribed to the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in Philo:<\/p>\n
To His \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (Word), His chief messenger, highest in age and honor, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word both pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glories in this prerogative and proudly describes it in these words \u2018and I stood between the Lord and you\u2019 (Deut. 5:5), that is neither uncreated as God, nor created as you, but midway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides \u2026<\/p>\n
Here Philo conceptualizes the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 as a heavenly \u2018ambassador\u2019, mediating access between God and his creatures. The \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is described as somehow created by God yet standing apart from creation. Jesus, the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 of God, is in John also conceived of in these terms. As the \u2018only begotten Son of God\u2019 Jesus is sent from God to humanity \u2018to stand on the border\u2019 between the two.
\nIn 1:32\u201334, the spirit\u2019s abiding presence on Jesus legitimates Jesus as being from God, occasioning John\u2019s confession of Jesus as God\u2019s Son (v. 34). This conclusion of the narrative demonstrates Jesus\u2019 unique status as the true Son of God and thus as the only possible mediator between God and humanity. God\u2019s spirit abiding on him not only signified his identity but also showed that he was the bearer of a key benefit that his potential clients will need. As the one bearing the spirit, Jesus was the one who would baptize others in spirit. The passage does not indicate that he was empowered by the spirit in some way (Beare 1987: 112). Rather, he is the one who will confer spirit to those who accept him, and as the Gospel progresses the magnitude of this activity for them becomes quite clear (3:5).
\nI have chosen to jump forward at this point to the end of John in order to interpret the last spirit passages of John in conjunction with the first, for they are integrally related. In the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel John declares Jesus to be the one who will baptize in holy spirit. Then in 7:39, a passage that will be given more extensive attention later in this study, the Evangelist writes that those who believed in Jesus would not receive spirit until Jesus had been \u2018glorified\u2019. Later, in 20:22, after the resurrection, Jesus \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (breathed in) the disciples and told them \u039b\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Receive holy spirit). Some kind of relationship seems to exist between these three passages: one predicts the imparting of (\u2018baptizing in\u2019) spirit; the next points to that impartation after Jesus\u2019 glorification; and the last reports the fulfillment of the conferring of spirit to the believers. The three aforementioned passages form a continuous strand through the earthly ministry of Jesus. Spirit is central in the commencement of Jesus\u2019 earthly ministry, is highlighted during the course of that ministry and plays an pivotal role in its concluding scene. This strand makes it evident that the conferring of spirit by Jesus plays a vital role in his mission. We will look at 20:22, where Jesus gives spirit to the disciples, shortly. But first we must examine a spirit passage toward the end of the passion narrative.<\/p>\n
2. John 19:30\u201334. After Jesus had said he is thirsty \u2018in order that scripture might be fulfilled\u2019, and after his crucifiers had sated his thirst with the sour wine offered on a branch of hyssop, he declared, \u2018It is finished.\u2019 Then he bowed his head and gave up the spirit (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, 19:30). The wording of this last phrase stands out to the sensitive reader of the Gospel. Is this the imparting of spirit promised by John and presaged in 7:39? Or has the Evangelist just found a creative way of saying \u2018he died\u2019? Some scholars choose the latter option, interpreting the Evangelist\u2019s words to mean \u2018he gave up his breath, or his life-force\u2019. This would not be an inaccurate translation of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, since the word can indeed denote the force giving life to humanity. However, the phrase \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was never used by Greek writers as a way of saying someone died (Porsch 1974: 328). Dodd comments that \u2018\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is more often used of \u201chanding on\u201d a piece of property (or a piece of information, or the like) to a successor\u2019 (1960: 428). Liddell and Scott (1997: 595) include as possible meanings, \u20181. to give or hand over to another, transmit \u2026 to one\u2019s successor\u2019, \u20182. to give \u2026 into another\u2019s hands \u2026 to deliver up, surrender\u2019, \u20183. to give up\u2019 and \u20184. to hand down\u2019. Likewise, the word \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 could also have various connotations in 19:30. It could refer to Jesus\u2019 life force or to God\u2019s spirit. Apparently, on the surface, there is a broad range of possibilities for the meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in Jn 19:30. We must take a closer look at the context of the phrase before we can discern which meaning the author intended.
\nSome scholars argue that the Evangelist uses \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 to emphasize the voluntariness of Jesus\u2019 death (e.g. Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: III; Lindars 1972), an emphasis made in Matthew, who writes, \u2018Jesus sent away\/discharged [\u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1] the Spirit\u2019 (Mt. 27:50). Mark and Luke also include a variation of the saying in their passion accounts, but there the saying simply means \u2018he died\u2019. Both Mark and Luke have: \u2018Jesus breathed his last\/expired [\u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd]\u2019 (Mk 15:39; Lk. 23:46), but Luke interjects a note of voluntariness with his use of Ps. 31:5: \u2018Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.\u2019 The Fourth Evangelist repeatedly punctuates the voluntariness of Jesus\u2019 death (10:17\u201318; 12:27; 14:31; 18:11) (de Boer 1996: 142). Jesus sometimes even initiates the action in the passion account (18:4\u20138; 19:28, 30), since the cross is his exaltation, not his victimization (de Boer 1996: 143). Voluntariness, therefore, could conceivably be the author\u2019s meaning in 19:30. However, this would not adequately account for the uniqueness of the Johannine language in 19:30. The Evangelist\u2019s word choice, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, does not make sense if he was primarily emphasizing Jesus\u2019 upperhandedness, for the word implies the giving up\/over of something to another. Matthew\u2019s phrase, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, would constitute a better choice for the Evangelist if voluntariness was his intended meaning.
\nSince \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 was not usually a way of saying someone had died, and since the Evangelist does not use the phrase simply to stress the voluntariness of Jesus\u2019 death, another meaning must be intended. We propose the author\u2019s meaning in 19:30 is ironical. After all, irony does feature prominently in John. Paul Duke points out that irony has three aspects (1985: 13\u201318): (1) it presents a double-layered or two-storied meaning; (2) it presents opposition; and (3) it contains an element of \u2018unawareness\u2019 or lack of understanding. In the passage there does appear to be two levels of meaning. On one level the text expresses that Jesus died, while on another level it communicates that Jesus released the holy spirit. As Duke points out, however, the second aspect of irony, that it presents opposition or clash of meaning, distinguishes irony more starkly than does a two-level meaning (1985: 14). Irony presents a situation where the true meaning of an expression actually opposes the meaning seemingly being communicated, or where the true meaning somehow contrasts with the apparent meaning. In situations where irony is employed, certain characters involved in the discourse, either the speaker, or the speaker\u2019s dialogue partner\/partners, or the audience, fail to see the irony of the expression and to apprehend its true meaning (aspect 3). Verse 19:30 does seem to present a scenario where the true meaning intended by the author opposes the apparent meaning of what is expressed. On the surface, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 seems to mean that Jesus has died; however, the true meaning of the expression is that Jesus has just made the life-producing spirit available. The contrast inherent in the irony is one between death and life. Other evidence from the Gospel lends support to this interpretation.
\nThe saying of the Evangelist in 7:39 that spirit would be received by the believers after Jesus\u2019 glorification proves significant here, since Jesus\u2019 glorification is occasionally portrayed as parallel to his crucifixion (12:23\u201332; 13:31; 21:19). Does 7:39 predict that spirit will become available to the believers upon Jesus\u2019 \u2018lifting up\u2019, or crucifixion? It would be easier to answer this question affirmatively if the glorification of Jesus were unambiguously connected with the crucifixion, but this is not the case. In John, Jesus\u2019 \u2018hour of glorification\u2019 (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1) stretches over a period of time and encompasses several events. After Judas has gone out to betray Jesus, Jesus says, \u2018Now the Son of Man has been glorified\u2019 (13:31), and at the end of the long farewell scene between Jesus and his disciples (chs. 13\u201317) Jesus remarks, \u2018Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son.\u2019 Yet at other points in the Gospel the Evangelist links Jesus\u2019 hour of glorification to his crucifixion, as mentioned above, as well as to the resurrection or ascension (12:16; 17:5). Consequently, it appears he conceives of Jesus\u2019 glorification as fluid. From the point of betrayal, to the crucifixion, to the resurrection, to the conferring of spirit, to the ascension, the Father glorifies Jesus. The entire passion account constitutes Jesus\u2019 \u2018hour\u2019, when both God and Jesus are honored by Jesus\u2019 obedience to and love for God, and when God glorifies, or honors, Jesus for his loyalty and love.
\nThat the \u2018hour\u2019 of Jesus\u2019 glorification encompasses several events and extends over a long period of time unsettles modern American and North Atlantic interpreters. We are accustomed to thinking of time and events in a linear, chronological fashion and strive to comport the New Testament narratives with our own understandings of time. But the Mediterranean conception of time differs from ours in significant ways. It is present-oriented, whereas American and North Atlantic cultures are fiiture-oriented. Present-oriented persons usually apprehend future events only when those events are somehow rooted in the \u2018perceived present\u2019, if they are \u2018forthcoming\u2019, meaning they are the working out of something tangibly present. For example, the birth of a child constitutes a forthcoming event. It lies on the horizon of the perceived present since it is the \u2018potentiality\u2019 or the result of something tangibly present, the pregnancy of a woman. The perceivable experience of pregnancy roots the forthcoming birth in the perceived present, so that the birth of the child is not viewed as a future event in the way we would perceive it, as an event divorced from the present, but as a part of the present. A linear, future-oriented concept of time causes one to think of the present as a segment on a continuum that is here and then gone. But Mediterranean persons, with their present-orientation, experience time not as a continuum, but as \u2018made up of a series of heterogeneous islets of differing duration\u2019 (Bourdieu 1963: 60). For them, time consists of discontinuous, disjointed \u2018events\u2019. And the \u2018present\u2019 can encompass both events palpable in the here and now (the actual present) and forthcoming occurrences resultant from those events, for \u2018the forthcoming is perceived in the same manner as the actual present to which it is tied by an organic unity\u2019 (Bourdieu 1963: 61). Thus at the time of planting, harvest is conceptualized not as a future event, but as part of the present (Bourdieu 1963: 66). Someone with this perception of time would have no trouble viewing Jesus\u2019 ascension as part of the present event of his glorification beginning at his betrayal. Likewise a phrase like \u2018the hour is coming, and is nowhere\u2019 (4:23; 5:25) would not confound that person the way it does those of us with a linear conception of time.
\nSo spirit, which the Evangelist tells us will not be available until after Jesus\u2019 glorification, could conceivably become available at the cross, an event included in Jesus\u2019 glorification, though not necessarily the glorification in total. This possibility does not, however, of itself justify an interpretation of 19:30 as an imparting of the spirit. An obstacle to that interpretation could be the way that spirit is unambiguously imparted to the disciples in 20:22. A conferring of the spirit in 19:30 would seem to make the same event in 20:22 redundant. This could be the most convincing argument against the interpretation of 19:30 as an imparting of the spirit, and has led several commentators to dismiss that interpretation as impossible. Still other scholars concede the Evangelist does intend the phrase \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 in 19:30 to refer to the holy spirit. Verse 19:30 need not be in conflict with 20:22; 19:30 need not refer to an imparting of spirit to the disciples as does 20:22. This impels us to explore the alternatives. If the conferring of the spirit to the disciples is not the true meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, what is?
\nAt this point John 19:34 warrants consideration. After Jesus has died, and the soldiers are preparing to remove his body from the cross, one of the soldiers pierces his side with a spear, and \u2018at once\u2019 blood and water flow from Jesus\u2019 side [\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd]. This verse increases the validity of an interpretation of 19:30 as a reference to the holy spirit, for in 7:39, where the gift of spirit is foretold by the Evangelist, Jesus cries out, \u2018Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As scripture has said, \u201cOut of his belly [\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] shall flow rivers of living water\u201d \u2019 (7:38). Then the Evangelist explains that Jesus was referring to the spirit that the disciples would receive after Jesus had been glorified (7:39). The stream of blood and water flowing out of Jesus\u2019 side after the crucifixion indubitably fulfills Jesus\u2019 words in 7:39. \u2018Living water\u2019 was a way of denoting \u2018moving water\u2019 or \u2018flowing water\u2019 as opposed to still. The water flowing or \u2018coming out\u2019 of Jesus\u2019 side in 19:34 is the living water that represents the holy spirit in John. Several scholars support this conclusion. The reference to the flow of water from Jesus\u2019 side representing spirit suggests that spirit did indeed become available upon Jesus\u2019 death, validating an interpretation of 19:30 as an ironical reference to the Holy Spirit. The two allusions to spirit relate intimately, and together make it clear that the Evangelist depicts the crucifixion as the point when spirit became available. In 19:34 Jesus fulfills his promise to provide living water, or spirit (7:39), and thereby receives vindication as a true prophet (Deut. 18:22). The Evangelist underwrites this fulfillment when he pens, \u2018He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true\u2019 (19:35). Our view that the water flowing from Jesus\u2019 side symbolizes spirit receives confirmation by the Evangelist\u2019s use of an excerpt from Zech. 12:10 to conclude the passage (19:37), since Zech. 12:10 portends an outpouring of \u2018spirit\u2019.
\nWhile Jesus indeed makes the Holy Spirit available upon his death, in 19:30 it is never said that Jesus gives the spirit to someone. It is unlikely he imparts the spirit to the disciples here, since he does this in 20:22. Some scholars aver that in 19:30 Jesus gave the spirit to the mother of Jesus and\/or the Beloved Disciple who stand before the cross. This interpretation is unconvincing. If the Evangelist wished to portray Jesus giving the spirit to someone he need not have concealed the identity of the recipient so well. It would have been easy enough for him to add a direct object. The fact that he chose not to use a direct object or to imply a recipient should caution us against naming one.
\nA better interpretation of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 could be: he gave up, as in released, the spirit. This implies access to the spirit was made available by Jesus, but does not insist Jesus gave the spirit directly to anyone. It means the availability of the spirit was activated upon Jesus\u2019 crucifixion, while leaving open the possibility that Jesus was making it available for the disciples upon whom it would later be bestowed, and allowing 20:22 to be the actual fulfillment of that bestowal. Several scholars support such an interpretation. The implication of this interpretation is that upon his death, or \u2018glorification\u2019, Jesus became able to broker the spirit to humanity. The spirit was made available to God\u2019s clients at that very point.
\nBut what about the connotation of a successor implied by the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9? This question will be answered more fully in my treatment of 20:22; however, I assert, in light of the bestowal of the spirit in 20:22, that the Evangelist depicts the disciples as successors of Jesus in having spirit. Like Jesus the disciples are soon to have the spirit, and in this regard they are Jesus\u2019 successors. As Elijah passed on a double portion of spirit to his successor, Elisha, upon death (2 Kgs 2:9\u201314), so Jesus makes spirit available to his disciples at the close of his ministry.
\nVerses 19:30 and 19:34 of John demonstrate that Jesus\u2019 ability to broker the spirit to believers constitutes a critical part of his crucifixion and glorification. John summarizes Jesus\u2019 mission by saying that \u2018he \u2026 is the one who baptizes [in holy spirit]\u2019 (1:33). Jesus is the one on whom the spirit abides, and by baptizing believers in God\u2019s spirit, Jesus makes possible for them a \u2018birth from above\u2019, or spiritual birth. The integration of the release of spirit with Jesus\u2019 crucifixion impacts our interpretation of Jesus\u2019 passion and of what it means for Jesus to be glorified, or honored. A son and a client both receive honor through the obedience and loyalty they express toward their father or patron. The honor associated with Jesus\u2019 \u2018hour\u2019 emanates from his faithfulness to God in completing the mission for which he was sent: \u2018I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father\u2019 (14:31; see also 10:15\u201317; 12:27\u201328). The making available of spirit to God\u2019s clients seems to be a central part of Jesus\u2019 mission. Directly before Jesus \u2018gave up the spirit\u2019 in 19:30 he uttered \u2018It is finished\u2019 (\u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9). Beasley-Murray discloses that the word used by the Evangelist \u2018denotes \u201cto carry out\u201d the will of somebody, whether of one-self or another, and so to fulfill obligations\u2019 (1987: 352). The obligations of Jesus are said to be accomplished at the very moment of his releasing spirit. This does not demand that releasing spirit constitutes the only significance of the cross, or of Jesus\u2019 departure. Still, this function of the cross does appear to be a prominent one in the Fourth Evangelist\u2019s portrayal of Jesus\u2019 passion and is prepared for from the start of the Gospel.<\/p>\n
3. John 20:22\u201323. John\u2019s account of the appearance of Jesus to the disciples has affinities with the Synoptic tradition, suggesting the Evangelist used an earlier tradition similar to that of the other Gospels. Nevertheless, in characteristic style the Evangelist takes over the earlier tradition and appropriates it to his own purposes, reworking its theology, for there is nothing to suggest the Johannine post-resurrection account conflicts with the overall tendenz of the Gospel. For example, though Mary Magdalene traditionally appears among the first women at the empty tomb, in John she becomes the sole witness and the central focus of the first resurrection appearance. The conversation between Mary and Jesus hints at John\u2019s unique theology.
\nIn his article \u2018The Characterization of God in the Fourth Gospel\u2019, Tolmie (1998) notes the pivotal significance of Jesus\u2019 statement to Mary: \u2018Go to my brothers and say to them, \u201cI am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God\u2019 \u201d (20:17). This is the first time since the Prologue (1:12) that God is described as the disciples\u2019 father (Tolmie 1998:64). Tolmie argues that throughout chs. 1\u201312 of John God is characterized primarily in terms of his relationship to Jesus. More than 80 percent of the references to God in this section concern his relationship to Jesus in one way or another (Tolmie 1998: 64). And the relationship between God and Jesus throughout the Gospel repeatedly parallels that of a father and son, as well as a patron and broker\/client. The conflicts Jesus encounters in these chapters, such as the challenge-and-response scenarios between Jesus and the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in chs. 5, 6 and 8, all focus upon Jesus\u2019 identity, and particularly on his claim to have God\u2019s paternity and patronage (5:17\u201330; 6:41\u201358; 8:48\u201359). In these conflicts Jesus is measured against some of the most revered brokers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9: the scriptures (5:39), Moses (6:32) and Abraham (8:53). Jesus defends his honor in each instance by claiming to be God\u2019s Son and broker.
\nThe focus of the Johannine characterization of God broadens in chs. 13\u201321, where God comes to be characterized more often in terms of the relationship of God to believers. Interestingly, the focus of the relationship between God and believers usually centers on the benefits of that relationship for the latter. Tolmie includes the following list of examples from the Farewell Discourses (1998: 72):<\/p>\n
There is adequate space for them in his \u2018house\u2019 (14:2).
\nHe will send the Paraclete to them (14:16, 26; 15:26).
\nHe will love them (14:21, 23; 16:27).
\nHe will come and stay with them (14:23).
\nHe will prune the branches in order that they bear more fruit (15:2).
\nHe will grant their requests (15:16; 16:23).
\nHe will protect them from the Evil One (17:15).
\nHe will enable them to be one (17:21\u201322).<\/p>\n
It is fitting that the focus of the relationship between God the patron and the client disciples should be on the benefits of that relationship for the clients, since patrons function to supply benefits to their clients. Yet aside from the benefits of the relationship, another aspect of the relationship between God and the disciples surfaces toward the conclusion of the Gospel. After Jesus\u2019 resurrection, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, \u2018Go to my brothers and say to them, \u201cI am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God\u201d \u2019 (20:17). This passage signals the cusp of the relationship between the disciples and God. The resurrected Jesus calls the disciples \u2018brothers\u2019 and God \u2018their Father\u2019. The possibility presented in the Prologue, that Jesus would give believers power to become \u2018children of God\u2019 (1:12), becomes a reality through Jesus\u2019 passion, and in 20:17 Jesus declares that the disciples now share in the paternity of God the Father. But is this new \u2018paternal\u2019 relationship between God and the disciples a fictive kinship\/patron-client relationship, or true kinship? Are the disciples now to be thought of as Jesus\u2019 true brothers and as true children of God, or as Jesus\u2019 fictive brothers and as God\u2019s fictive children and clients? The revelation to Mary in 20:17 sets the stage for the appearance of Jesus to the disciples and the conferring of the spirit to them. This suggests that Jesus\u2019 comment refers to the \u2018birth of spirit\/birth from above\u2019 the disciples are soon to undergo. Such a birth opens up the patronage of God (entrance into the kingdom of God), according to 3:3. This, along with the fact that the focus of the relationship between believers and God has been on the benefits of that relationship for believers, could suggest the kinship relationship envisaged between God and the disciples denotes a fictive kinship\/patron-client relationship. It seems unlikely that the Evangelist, who takes such pains to emphasize the gulf between Jesus and ordinary human beings, and Jesus\u2019 mediatorial role between God and believers, would allow the disciples to become true children of God in the sense that Jesus is the true Son of God. Though they are now allowed to share in a kinship-\u2018type\u2019 relationship with God, because of Jesus\u2019 brokering of the spirit to them, the gulf between God and humanity still gapes.
\nThe Evangelist tells us in 20:19 that on the first day of the week the disciples are gathered behind locked doors for fear of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. The note about locked doors should not be read as a device the Evangelist uses to accentuate the miraculous nature of Jesus\u2019 entrance, as some commentators suggest (such as Lindars 1972; Beasley-Murray 1987). Open doors are the norm in the honor-conscious Mediterranean where closed doors imply hiddenness and shame. People in Mediterranean societies are expected to allow their neighbors access to the goings on of their lives, so as to leave no room for suspicion. Open doors symbolize such access (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 204). That the disciples cower behind closed doors, especially locked doors, would mean they behave dishonorably, in secrecy and with trepidation. It is into this context that Jesus appears among them and says, \u2018Peace be with you\u2019 (20:19). Although \u2018Shalom\u2019 was the conventional greeting among Israelite communities (Barrett 1978: 568), Jesus\u2019 greeting likely bears a special connotation here, for after showing the disciples his wounds Jesus repeats it: \u2018Peace be with you\u2019 (20:21). Jesus\u2019 greeting recalls the peace promised the disciples in 14:27 (also 16:33) and assuages the disciples despite their dishonor in the world\u2019s eyes.
\nThere is no reason to deduce that only the Twelve are present in this scene. The Evangelist states \u2018the disciples\u2019 are present, and it would be going beyond the evidence to suggest he means an elite group of disciples. This is not signaled in the narrative. The Evangelist highlights the joy of the disciples upon seeing Jesus: \u2018\u2026 the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord\u2019 (20:20). As James Swetnam (1993) has noted, this phrase bears a striking resemblance to the phrase in 16:22, \u2018I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice\u2019, although the subject of the sentence is reversed. In 16:22 Jesus says he will see the disciples and they will rejoice, and in 20:20, the disciples see Jesus and rejoice. Both verses seem to recall Isa. 66:14: \u2018You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice.\u2019 The Evangelist seems to deliberately change the sense of the phrase between 16:22 and 20:20 by changing the subject from Jesus to the disciples. Swetnam explains that this kind of deliberate change often signifies irony (1993: 559). Due to Jesus\u2019 prediction in 16:22, \u2018I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice\u2019, the sensitive reader is privy to the deeper level of meaning of 20:20. The disciples ironically rejoice upon seeing Jesus, despite their lack of understanding. But the implied reader, recalling 16:22, realizes that Jesus is truly the one who \u2018sees\u2019, and understands the fundamental reason for joy lies in Jesus\u2019 coming to give spirit to the disciples (Swetnam 1993: 561). In other words, the disciples are overjoyed because they think their leader has come back to them, but the true occasion for rejoicing is that the spirit will be coming to them. Paul Duke\u2019s three aspects of irony are thus met in this passage: (1) the verse has a two-level meaning; (2) the true meaning of the expression is in opposition to the surface meaning: the disciples think they \u2018see\u2019, but Jesus is really the one who \u2018sees\u2019 the significance of his coming; and (3) the true meaning of the expression is missed by certain characters. The true meaning of 20:20 is that the disciples are now \u2018children of God\u2019, since the spirit has become available to them.
\nAt 20:21 Jesus tells the disciples, \u2018As the Father has sent me, so I send you\u2019 (see also 17:18). He then \u2018breathes on them\u2019 and says, \u2018Receive holy spirit\u2019. The characterization of Jesus as \u2018the one sent from God\u2019 stands out starkly in John\u2019s Christology. It is central to the Johannine concept of brokerage. We contend that in John Jesus is sent from God to broker the benefits of God\u2019s patronage, most importantly eternal life, to those who respond faithfully in the world. Our concern in this section is with his brokering of one particular benefit, the spirit. However, before I proceed with my treatment of the spirit passage at 20:22\u201323, this would be an appropriate point at which to discuss briefly the Johannine \u2018sending motif\u2019 in relation to our model of patron-client relations.
\nIn John\u2019s Gospel, God takes the initiative to send Jesus into the world in order to make God known and to make available the benefits of God\u2019s patronage. According to accounts of patron-client relations in the Mediterranean world, it is not unusual for a patron to take the initiative in seeking out clients, for it is thought to be presumptuous, and thus dishonorable, for a client to ask for a patron\u2019s help (Malina 1993: 98\u201399). This belief is alluded to in Quintus Cicero\u2019s treatise to Marcus Cicero. Quintus reminds his brother, with reference to his campaign for the consulship: \u2018\u2026 in the rest of your life you are not able to form friendships with whomsoever you please; for if you were at any other time [than during a campaign] to request men to form an intimacy with you, you would appear to be acting absurdly.\u2019 In a limited good society, asking someone a favor involves imposing on them, attempting to attain something to which one may not be entitled (Foster 1965: 304). This does not mean it is never done, as is evidenced by the number of people who came to Jesus asking for healing. But usually when a client approaches a patron for a favor he or she will come with a gift or do them a favor before making the request. Often, however, the patron takes the initiative. In a limited good society, one\u2019s honor depends on one taking the initiative to share one\u2019s resources rather than hoard them. The \u2018powerful\u2019, or those who have covetable resources at their disposal, are expected to be givers, not merely receivers of life\u2019s limited goods (Bartchy 1991: 314). Therefore, while it is considered dishonorable for a client to impose upon a patron by asking for favors, it is quite honorable behavior for a patron to seek out clients with whom to share his resources and influence (see Campbell 1964: 98\u201399). The God who chooses a people to bless and protect is culturally appropriate in the Mediterranean world.
\nThere also existed a special circumstance in which patrons would take the initiative to seek out their clients: when clients had become unruly or unfaithful. This sort of scenario is vividly sketched in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33\u201346; Mk 12:1\u201312; Lk. 20:9\u201319). There a house-holder sends various servants to collect fruit from one of his vineyards, but the tenants of his vineyard, his clients, abuse his servants, even killing some of them. Consequently, he decides to send his son, assuming the tenants will treat his son more respectfully. He turns out to be mistaken, and his son is put to death as well. So Jesus asks: \u2018What will the owner of the vineyard do then?\u2019 The audience explains he will go to his clients and destroy them. The parable depicts a situation where a patron takes the initiative to approach his clients, first through his brokers, and then on his own. The reason he does so is, first, to collect return-benefits from his clients, in this case the fruit of his vineyard. When his brokers are killed, he sends his son as a broker, assuming his clients will respect his son. Perhaps we are to conclude the son is sent not so much to collect the fruit as to set things right with the unruly clients, to restore them to loyalty, though the story does not hint at what the patron intends his son to do.
\nThe parable in the Synoptics implies that God has sent the Son to his unruly clients, who will end up rejecting and killing him. The parable implicitly depicts God as a patron taking the initiative to approach his clients, the Israelites. According to the parable, the son does not come to establish a patronal relationship with the clients, for that relationship has already been established. Likewise, the Israelites had long been clients of Yahweh, the ultimate patron. Rather the son is sent to rectify a situation in which the clients have rebelled and been unfaithful; the Israelites have breached their contract with God the patron. In the Gospel of John, the Son is also sent to his own (1:11), the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, to make God known (1:18), and presumably to bring these clients of God to loyalty. Unfortunately, God\u2019s clients reject him (1:11). But in coming to his own Jesus also makes the patronage of God available to \u2018the world\u2019 (3:16), which includes those who had previously not been God\u2019s clients. The sending of the broker Jesus opens up the opportunity for some \u2018out of the world\u2019 to be saved through him (3:17).
\nBy telling the disciples he \u2018sends\u2019 them in the same way he has been sent by the Father (20:21), Jesus establishes the disciples as subordinate brokers. The sending of the disciples in 20:22 is in conjunction with the bestowal of spirit that immediately follows. That Jesus breathed on the disciples as they received spirit from him bears significance. Several commentators agree that the reference to Jesus breathing on the disciples alludes to Gen. 2:7 where God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of the first man (see also Ezek. 37:9; Wis. 15:11). By drawing this connection between the creation of the first man and the bestowal of spirit upon believers, the Fourth Evangelist depicts the \u2018pneumatizing\u2019 of the disciples as a sort of new creation. He portrays the disciples as experiencing the \u2018rebirth\u2019 in spirit necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God (3:5). The rebirth of the disciples is made salient upon their receipt of spirit from Jesus and inaugurates their own mission as Jesus\u2019 subordinate brokers through spirit, for along with the conferring of spirit comes a commissioning of the disciples by Jesus.
\nThough a commissioning of the disciples upon the departure of Jesus marks the tradition underlying other Gospels (see Matthew and Luke), the Johannine commissioning coheres with the rest of John. However, because the business of forgiving \u2018sins\u2019 is rarely mentioned in John, and because the phrasing of the disciples\u2019 commission in John closely parallels Mt. 16:19 and 18:18, some scholars assert that the Evangelist has merely preserved his \u2018source\u2019 untouched (as does Lindars 1972: 611) and that the commission is aberrant within the Fourth Gospel (Bultmann 1971: 690, for instance). This conclusion is unnecessary. Though the Evangelist seems to be drawing on tradition here, he has, as expected, worked the commissioning into his own thought. Jesus tells his disciples they are being sent as his subordinate brokers (20:21). Just as Jesus brokers access to God, so the disciples will broker access to Jesus through the work Jesus will give them, that of releasing and retaining sins (20:21\u201323). The wording, \u2018As the Father has sent me, so I send you\u2019 (v. 21), manages to take the traditional commission and \u2018Johann-ize\u2019 it.
\nThe Evangelist may have used the traditional word \u2018sins\u2019 in 20:23, rather than replacing it with the more Johannine \u2018Sin\u2019, because Jesus had already \u2018taken away the sin of the world\u2019 on the cross. The disciples could not be commissioned to forgive \u2018Sin\u2019 for Jesus had already accomplished that. Still, there will be those who reject Jesus and remain subject to the evil one (17:15). They will continue to serve a different patron than God. Though the \u2018ruler of the world\u2019 is apparently exposed by Jesus\u2019 death (12:31\u201332), his influence perdures. And obviously those serving the evil one will continue to sin, acting out of their disloyalty to God. Jesus\u2019 subordinate brokers, then, are given the work of delineating who falls into this category. Their task is essentially \u2018boundary maintenance\u2019. If \u2018Sin\u2019 denotes unbelief and the external manifestations of unbelief, then the releasing of sins involves the acknowledgment of belief. The disciples \u2018forgive\u2019, or release, sins by acknowledging certain people to be \u2018believers in Jesus\u2019. On the other hand, they retain sins by deeming certain people to be \u2018unbelievers\u2019, and probably by excluding them from Christian fellowship. Just as Jesus does not take away sin by extirpating the guilt accrued because of certain misdeeds, so the disciples do not forgive sins by absolving guilt. Sin releasing and retention in John would be a matter of delineating the difference between those who believe in, or live faithfully to, Jesus and those who do not. Thus the disciples are given the task of designating who is in and who is out of the Christian community. Whether the Evangelist perceives this role to be for select disciples, or whether he considers it a function of all the disciples, we cannot know. Since key disciples, such as the Twelve, are not singled out in this narrative, we would not be justified in concluding that the work of \u2018forgiving and retaining sins\u2019 belongs to a certain group of elite disciples.
\nThe spirit passages in 19:30 and 20:22 fulfill John\u2019s declaration that Jesus would be the one to \u2018baptise in holy spirit\u2019 (1:33). Spirit is made available by Jesus at the cross, and then is conferred by Jesus to the disciples after his resurrection. The importance of the disciples\u2019 having spirit will become increasingly evident as we examine the meaning of spirit in the remainder of the Gospel. For now we note that in chs. 19 and 20 the disciples receive the status of children of God (20:17) at the same general time that spirit is released and then conferred to them. Their new status as possessors of spirit and children of God is accompanied by a commission to release and retain sins. This work involves delineating who is loyal to God in accepting Jesus and who is not, and extending fellowship only to those who prove faithful. In this sense, the disciples become subordinate brokers who provide access to Jesus and the benefits he brokers to those who appear to be worthy clients of Jesus. That they have the spirit legitimates them as children of God and subordinate brokers to Jesus. However, the spirit does not primarily serve a legitimating role for the disciples, as will be seen below. Rather, of first importance for them is the fact that the spirit opens up the possibility of their receiving the benefit of eternal life.<\/p>\n
b. Born of Spirit (3:3\u20138); He Gives the Spirit without Measure (3:31\u201336)<\/p>\n
1. John 3:3\u20138. \u2018Spirit\u2019 appears again in John in the one of the most perplexing passages in the Gospel, in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. In efforts to unscramble the meaning of their late-night t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate, scholars have found it crucial to understand the character of Nicodemus. Nicodemus is often thought to play a representative role in the narrative. He is introduced as \u2018an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (person) from the Pharisees\u2019, an unusual description, and as \u2018a ruler of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u2019. Furthermore, he is said to have come to Jesus because of the signs Jesus did. These descriptions are telling, for preceding them we read that many people had believed in Jesus because of his signs, \u2018but Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all \u2026 for he himself knew what was \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff4\u03c0\u1ff3 (in people)\u2019 (2:24\u201325). Therefore, from the outset of the narrative the Evangelist associates Nicodemus with those untrustworthy \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 who were attracted by Jesus\u2019 signs (Howard-Brook 1994: 87). What is perhaps even more provocative is the reference to Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night in v. 2, a point the Evangelist recalls to the reader\u2019s memory in 19:39 where Nicodemus bears the description of the one \u2018who had at first come to Jesus by night\u2019. Nicodemus\u2019s companion at the burial of Jesus in 19:38\u201342, Joseph of Arimathea, earns the description \u2018a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews\u2019 (19:38). Neither of the men are described in glowing terms. Moreover, the two descriptions of the men could be saying much the same thing, that both kept their interest in Jesus a secret, since, in the case of Nicodemus, cover of night probably intimates secrecy and fear. One other bit of evidence supports this conclusion, the Evangelist describes Nicodemus as \u2018a ruler\u2019 and connects him with the Pharisees, which could serve to link him with the rulers in 12:42 who \u2018believed in [Jesus]. But because of the Pharisees \u2026 did not confess it for fear they would be put out of the synagogue.\u2019 Nicodemus may also be implicated by the Pharisees\u2019 question in 7:48: \u2018Has any one of the [rulers] or of the Pharisees believed \u2026?\u2019 Whatever the relationship between the descriptions of Joseph and Nicodemus, Nicodemus\u2019s portrayal as the one who came to Jesus by night could not be favorable. Night and darkness play a symbolic role in John\u2019s Gospel, symbolizing incredulity and judgment, and the only other character in the Gospel directly associated with night is Judas Iscariot (13:30).
\nStill, we must be cautious not to jump to a definitive conclusion about Nicodemus\u2019s status in the Gospel too quickly. Nicodemus proves anything but a black-or-white character. As Jouette Bassler (1989) concludes at the end of her sedulous analysis of Nicodemus in John, the characterization of Nicodemus is fraught with ambiguity. This ambiguity seems to be the author\u2019s intention, for if Nicodemus represents any group, it is one that cannot fully be characterized as disciples, but which is not tightly bound to \u2018the world\u2019 either. It has one foot in and one foot out of the world (Bassler 1989: 645\u201346). Nevertheless, Nicodemus receives the kind of treatment due an outsider and remains an outsider to the end of the Gospel where he is depicted as \u2018binding\u2019 Jesus in burial clothes and loading him down with a ludicrous amount of burial spice (about one hundred pounds). The copious myrrh and aloes with which he and Joseph wrap Jesus\u2019 body were used to counteract the stench of a decaying corpse. This hyperbolic description of Nicodemus\u2019s burial activities leaves the reader with an unsatisfying portrait of Nicodemus as an undoubtedly reverent follower who has, nonetheless, no hope in Jesus as the \u2018resurrection and the life\u2019 (Meeks 1972: 55; de Jonge 1977: 34). And though the other disciples are confirmed at the end of the Gospel, this is the last word offered on Nicodemus.
\nAt the outset of the narrative, the Evangelist describes Nicodemus in collectivist terms indicative of the Mediterranean concept of personhood. We learn about him not from a detailed character sketch describing his personal experiences and his hopes, fears, and motivations or, in other words, his psychological profile, for such a description would be entirely incongruent with the concept of the person in Mediterranean culture. The individual in Mediterranean societies is a \u2018group-oriented\u2019 or collectivist person, a person who \u2018need[s] others for any sort of meaningful existence, since the image such persons have of themselves has to be indistinguishable from the image held and presented to them by their significant others in the family, village, city, or nation\u2019 (Malina 1993: 63). For a collectivist person, \u2018self\u2019 finds determination in what significant others deem one and expect one to be. Accordingly, one can only formulate a view of one\u2019s self in relation to others; one\u2019s own psychology is fairly irrelevant. Because Mediterranean persons are group-oriented, they are in fact \u2018known by the company they keep\u2019. Such persons are \u2018embedded\u2019 in groups of significant others, most importantly the family, and are rarely perceived as self-contained units. A collectivist person will be referred to and perceived in terms of the qualities of his or her specific group or category (Malina 1993: 69; Foster 1967). For example, Pliny commends one man with the following \u2018collectivist\u2019 description:<\/p>\n
He is a native of Brixia \u2026 He is son to Minicius Macrinus, whose humble desires were satisfied with being first in the rank of the Equestrian order \u2026 His grandmother on the mother\u2019s side is Serrana Procula, of Padua: you are no stranger to the manners of that place \u2026 Acilius, his uncle, is a man of singular gravity, wisdom, and integrity. In a word, you will find nothing throughout his family but what you would approve in your own (Pliny, Epistles 1.14).<\/p>\n
Nicodemus is a good example of a collectivist personality. He is embedded in various groups and categorized accordingly. The Evangelist associates Nicodemus with the Pharisees and the rulers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, and the \u2018rulers\u2019, like Nicodemus, receive an ambiguous treatment in the Gospel (7:26, 48\u201352; 12:42). These group-orientations define Nicodemus to the reader and should inform our interpretation of the ensuing narrative. Space does not permit us to conduct a thorough study of the Pharisees or the rulers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (instead, see Saldarini 1988; McLaren 1991). For our purposes it will be helpful simply to discuss one dominant feature of both groups: the Pharisees and the rulers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 were brokers (see Saldarini 1988: 154\u201356, 302; Yee 1989: 18\u201319). The Pharisees were brokers in the sense that they \u2018had great influence in Jerusalem and so some control of who was accepted as a Jew in good standing and allowed into the assembly (synagogue) \u2026 the Pharisees were an established force in interpreting Jewish law and life\u2019 (Saldarini 1988: 197\u201398). Pharisees in the Fourth Gospel fit this description. They mediate access to religious participation, and thus to right relationship with God, by either allowing or disallowing synagogue participation (9:13\u201323; 12:42\u201343). The role of the Pharisees in providing a means of access to God\u2019s patronage (i.e. through law observance and participation in the synagogue) would have gained force after the destruction of the Temple, when the Jerusalem cultus no longer functioned as a viable broker.
\nThe rulers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 were brokers of another sort. \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (the rulers) is one term among many used to designate a group of influential non-priestly elites who were active in the decision-making processes of Palestine around the first century CE. As James McLaren writes:<\/p>\n
We have \u2026 a large number of terms used in the sources to describe the influential laity. The \u2018first men\u2019, \u2018leading men\u2019, \u2018powerful men\u2019, \u2018elders\u2019, \u2018rulers\u2019, \u2018notable men\u2019, \u2018most powerful men\u2019 and \u2018the eminent\/distinguished\u2019 \u2026 \u2018the respected men\u2019 \u2026 refer to the same group of people. The variety of terms used probably refers to the specific author\u2019s preference and changes in style (1991: 205).<\/p>\n
As already mentioned in Chapter 1, this group of influential non-priestly elites functioned as key broker figures in political decision-making processes at the turn of the era. They were important negotiators who sometimes mediated between the Israelite people and Rome, as in the case of the petition regarding the height of the Temple wall in which a small group are sent to Rome to present the Israelites\u2019 case (see Josephus, Ant. 20.191; McLaren 1991: 145\u201348). They also mediated between the Israelite people and their local leaders, as in the case where influential non-priestly elites resolve a dispute between Israelites and Greeks in Caesarea by wielding influence over the procurator, Florus (see Josephus, War 2.286; McLaren 1991: 158\u201360). The group of men referred to by the aforementioned terms were uniquely qualified for service as brokers because of their status among both the Israelites and the Romans. They represented the interests of both sides. Since they were powerful and wealthy aristocrats, the Romans noted their utility in being capable of controlling the Israelite community. On the other hand, their influence among the people depended on whether or not they represented popular interests (McLaren 1991: 220). Nicodemus is portrayed as one of these important broker figures in Palestine during the first century. By describing Nicodemus in collectivist terms as a Pharisee and ruler the Evangelist fashions a picture of a man attached to human means of brokerage. To quote Saldarini again, \u2018The Pharisees, scribes, and Herodians, etc.\u2026 probably functioned as unofficial patrons and brokers for the people and perceived Jesus as a threat to their power and influence\u2019 (1988: 156). It is from this perspective that we take a look at the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.
\nThroughout John, we find Jesus engaging in challenge and response with rival brokers, representative individuals, groups or institutions who purport to facilitate access to God. In 3:1\u201322, we find such an instance of challenge and response. Nicodemus comes to Jesus calling him \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (a teacher who has come from God, 3:2), and commenting that he could not perform the signs he does \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f96 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u0313 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (unless God was with him). This is a positive challenge. And Nicodemus\u2019s loaded accolades set the stage for a long response from Jesus, fixed upon what it takes to see\/enter the kingdom of God. What is the significance of Nicodemus\u2019s challenge that on the surface appears to be unrelated to Jesus\u2019 response? Jesus\u2019 response seems to indicate that Nicodemus\u2019 estimation of him is inadequate, and that Jesus is seizing the opportunity to instruct Nicodemus on matters of salvation. But what kind of challenge is implicit in the comments of Nicodemus? Elsewhere in the Gospel Jesus himself claims to be from God (8:42; 13:3; 16:28), and claims God is with him (8:29; 16:32). Moreover, in 7:16\u201317 Jesus talks about his teaching and claims his teaching comes from God, paralleling Nicodemus\u2019s words in 3:2 quite closely.
\nJesus\u2019 words, however, are couched in the context of his claims to be the Son of God, to be \u2018from above\u2019 and not of the world, and to speak the words of God. Within this context, it is correct to assert that Jesus is a teacher sent from God and that God is present with him. Nicodemus\u2019s words are not spoken in such a context though, and may betray underlying assumptions that make Nicodemus incapable of understanding the full import of Jesus. The Pharisees\u2019 words to the blind man in 9:28\u201330 could provide a clue to those assumptions: \u2018Then they reviled him, saying, \u201cYou are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.\u201d \u2019 This passage suggests that it was possible to speak of a prophet, here Moses, in terms of his having come from God. Nicodemus\u2019s words to Jesus may therefore reflect the belief that human prophets come from God, and may merely affirm Jesus\u2019 status as a prophet, wonder-worker and teacher, without any acknowledgment of his status as the unique broker of God. Prophets and teachers, such as the Pharisees, were among the many broker figures in the Israelite religion who were relied upon to bridge the gaping divide between the Israelites and their God. Prophets brought the words of God to the ears of God\u2019s clients, and \u2018teachers of Israel\u2019 actualized the mediating power of the Torah by interpreting it and teaching it to the Israelites. Nicodemus likely viewed Jesus on the level of these other earthly broker-figures, and may even have included himself in their number. Nicodemus calls Jesus a \u2018teacher\u2019, but note that Jesus responds negatively to Nicodemus asking, \u2018Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?\u2019 (3:10), implying that Nicodemus presumptuously ranked himself on the same level as Jesus. In his \u2018positive challenge\u2019 to Jesus, Nicodemus challenges Jesus\u2019 significance, and this challenge instigates Jesus\u2019 speech.
\nIn response to Nicodemus\u2019s failure to recognize him as more than a mere earthly broker, Jesus launches into a discourse that centers on the necessity of human beings to pass from the merely earthly sphere into that of spirit before they can have eternal life. First, Jesus responds, \u2018Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above\u2019 (3:3). The ineptitude of Nicodemus to rise above the earthly plane is accentuated by his responses to Jesus throughout the narrative. His inferiority when compared with Jesus, the broker sent \u2018from above\u2019, is punctuated by his ignorance about things spiritual, or \u2018heavenly\u2019 (3:12), and by the way his focus perpetually remains on the transitory realm. The use of \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, with its two possible meanings: born again or born from above, functions for the author to this effect. Nicodemus, of course, chooses the \u2018temporal\u2019 meaning, born again, and takes it as a reference to physical birth (3:4). This sets the stage for Jesus to stress that entrance into the kingdom of God requires a \u2018spiritual birth\u2019. He rephrases his previous response, saying: \u2018Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit\u2019 (3:5). Here the replacement of \u2018born \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u2019 with \u2018born of water and spirit\u2019 qualifies the former, eliminating the possible meaning \u2018born again\u2019, since \u2018born of water and spirit\u2019 implies something more than a second physical birth, and makes clear that the type of birth Jesus intends is not attainable by human means. Nicodemus\u2019s question in 3:4, \u2018How can anyone be born after having grown old?\u2019 and his dull comment about one entering a second time into one\u2019s mother\u2019s womb demonstrates that Nicodemus fixates on what humans need to do to accomplish birth \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. In response, Jesus clarifies that he speaks of a spiritual birth, something impossible to achieve by human initiative.
\nBefore moving on, we should discuss the significance of \u2018water\u2019 in 3:5. Does \u2018born of water and spirit\u2019 equal \u2018born \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u2019, as if water and spirit are a unit? Or are water and spirit contrasted? Many commentators accept water and spirit as a unit, some noting that the two words are governed by a single preposition. According to this view, water and spirit somehow interrelate. It is common among those who espouse this view for water to be seen as bearing spiritual significance, perhaps signifying baptism. A further possible indication that water and spirit are related in 3:5 could be the fact that living water symbolizes spirit in 7:37\u201339 (cf. 19:34). However, in 7:37\u201339 living water is equated with spirit, and this is not the case in 3:5.
\nWater and spirit can also be viewed as contrasting, or as parallel but disconnected concepts. Specifically, water has been taken to symbolize natural birth, in contrast to spiritual birth. I find this interpretation most convincing for three reasons. First, the saying in 3:5 that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God immediately precedes a contrasting of fleshly birth and spiritual birth (3:6). Witherington contends 3:5 and 6 exemplify Semitic parallelism, where v. 6 explicates what is implied in v. 5 (1989: 155). Secondly, a key theme of Jesus\u2019 speech to Nicodemus centers on the futility of human initiative to attain access to God\u2019s kingdom, for \u2018What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of spirit is spirit\u2019 (3:6). In other words, Jesus stresses that humans (those born of flesh) are unable to bring about spiritual birth. Therefore, a contrasting of natural birth with spiritual birth in 3:5 would coincide well with the overall theme of the discourse. The point of 3:5 would thus be: human birth is not enough to enable one to have access to God\u2019s patronage, spiritual birth must accompany it.
\nLastly, the contrast between fleshly\/physical birth and birth from above\/of God is also presented in 1:13, in the Prologue. Now, the interpretation of water in 3:5 as a reference to natural birth has been countered with the argument that the phrase \u2018of water\u2019 was not used to describe physical birth in ancient sources. However, water is clearly a symbol for sexual relations at a few points in Song of Solomon and Proverbs (Song 4:13\u201315; Prov. 5:15\u201318; 9:13\u201317). The contrast in John 1:13 is between spiritual birth resulting from the will of God as opposed to natural birth resulting from \u2018the will of the flesh or the will of a man\u2019 (1:13). Both \u2018the will of the flesh and the will of a man\u2019 could allude to sexual relations (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 33). Therefore, it is possible that water is used as a symbol for sexual relations in 3:5 in order to effect the same sort of contrast that is found in 1:13. Further support for this suggestion lies in the fact that the Prologue of John and ch. 3 share many parallel themes.
\n\u2018Living\u2019 water symbolizes spirit at other points in the Gospel, specifically in 4:10\u201314, 7:39 and 19:34 (water that \u2018flows\u2019 is \u2018living water\u2019 [Brown 1966\u201370: I, 170]), while there exist several occurrences of water that are not symbolic. The fact that water contrasts with spirit in 3:5, though \u2018living water\u2019 symbolizes spirit elsewhere, may indicate that in 3:5 water is a pun, a literary device commonly employed by the Fourth Evangelist. \u2018Born \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u2019 can mean \u2018born from above\u2019, the author\u2019s intended meaning in 3:3, but it can also denote its opposite, a second physical birth (\u2018born again\u2019). Similarly, water has a double meaning in this passage. While in one sense it can symbolize spirit as in 4:10\u201314, 7:39 and 19:34, in another sense water symbolizes the opposite of spiritual birth, specifically birth \u2018of flesh\u2019, or birth resulting from human sexual relations. As with all puns, water here has two meanings. But the issue is whether the hearer understands the intended meaning. In 3:3 the author intends \u2018water\u2019 to symbolize a manner of birth that contrasts with spiritual birth, for the latter replaces the former as the prerequisite for entrance into God\u2019s kingdom just as the water of purification contrasts with the abundant wine of the messianic age (2:1\u201311), and is replaced by it.
\nIn 3:7\u20138 Jesus tells Nicodemus a word-play to illustrate the point he has made in 3:5\u20136 about the necessity of spiritual birth and the inability of human beings to attain it on their own:<\/p>\n
Do not be astonished that I said to you, \u2018You must be born from above\u2019. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (the wind\/spirit) blows\/breathes where it chooses, and you hear the sound\/voice of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (of the spirit).<\/p>\n
The saying emphasizes the mysterious nature of the spirit. Like the wind, human knowledge cannot master and understand it, but can only experience its effects. So too, human beings cannot effect a spiritual birth, but can only experience it. Throughout this passage Jesus uses the plural \u2018you\u2019, unlike in 3:3 and 3:5. Jesus therefore stresses \u2018You people must be born from above\u2019, and \u2018You people do not know where [the wind\/spirit] comes from or where it goes\u2019. The plural \u2018you\u2019 here likely addresses the plural \u2018we\u2019 in 3:2 where Nicodemus claims, \u2018We know that you are a teacher who has come from God.\u2019 Nicodemus speaks for his \u2018group\u2019 (or groups), which includes the Pharisees and the rulers of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 with whom he is associated. By addressing Nicodemus with the plural \u2018you\u2019, Jesus asserts that the group(s) Nicodemus represents is incapable of understanding the origins of spiritual birth and, furthermore, is completely dependent on divine mediation to bring it about. The Pharisees and rulers may be \u2018power brokers\u2019 when it comes to earthly matters, but when it comes to the spirit, they are powerless. Still, one concedes that this ineptitude characterizes all humanity, and not just Nicodemus\u2019s group. But when Nicodemus asks Jesus, \u2018How can these things be?\u2019 Jesus replies with a negative response, \u2018Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?\u2026 We speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet [you people] do not receive our testimony\u2019 (vv. 10\u201311). It is clear from this response that Jesus (or the Evangelist) is rather pointedly addressing a group of people represented by Nicodemus. They fail to understand even elementary truths about spiritual matters, and thus lack the ability to comprehend deeper truths (v. 12). This group stands against the \u2018we\u2019 of vv. 10\u201311, the only verses in the Nicodemus discourse where Jesus speaks in the plural first person. Jesus is likely being made to speak for the Evangelist and his group here, effecting group differentiation between that group, who \u2018know and testify\u2019 (21:24) to Jesus, and the group represented by Nicodemus that has not received them.
\nAfter completely discrediting Nicodemus and his group, Jesus begins a monologue on his own mission as broker of God, sent into the world to provide access to eternal life (3:13\u201321). This monologue at first appears to follow quite unnaturally Jesus\u2019 discussion with Nicodemus. But they are integrally bound together. The Nicodemus narrative is one of many contests between brokers found in John, where Jesus comes up against other persons, groups or institutions who purportedly provide access to the patronage of God. In 3:1\u201312 Jesus baffles Nicodemus and accuses his group of lacking understanding of spiritual matters. How can they broker access to God when they do not even realize that salvation, or entrance into the kingdom of God, requires divine mediation? If they do not even know that spiritual birth constitutes a prerequisite to salvation, how can they purport to be teachers of Israel (v. 10)? The incompetence of these earthly brokers is underscored at just the right point, directly before Jesus delivers a discourse on his mission as God\u2019s broker. He alone qualifies to mediate access to God because he alone has descended from heaven (v. 13). Jesus already has the spirit remaining on him and is thus the only genuine representative of the divine realm. He is the unique Son of God, set apart and legitimated by the presence of the Holy Spirit (1:32\u201334), and sent into the world so that those who accept him might have access to eternal life through him (v. 16). No human broker could fill this role.
\nIn 3:1\u201312, Nicodemus is portrayed as a benighted man, seeking out Jesus but finding him distant and incomprehensible. Nicodemus, as representative of all \u2018earthly\u2019 brokers, cannot conceive of a spiritual birth that somehow lies out of human control. All such brokers are bested in challenge and response by Jesus, as he is shown to be the only one suited to mediate between God and humanity.
\nAt this point, now that we have a clearer view of its context within the Nicodemus narrative, we can attempt to ascertain the meaning and significance of \u2018spirit\u2019 in our passage. Jesus\u2019 directive that one must be \u2018born of spirit\u2019 in order to enter the kingdom of God proves intriguing. It means that spiritual birth somehow facilitates access to God\u2019s kingdom. One must become a person of spirit, rather than merely a person of flesh, before one can participate in the patronage of God. Apparently, spiritual birth qualifies one to receive the benefits of divine patronage, most importantly eternal life. In 3:16\u201321 we read that only by believing in Jesus, the one sent from God, can one gain eternal life. Therefore, it would seem that belief in Jesus results in spiritual birth, which opens up the possibility of entering God\u2019s kingdom and eternal life. The verses found at 1:12\u201313, which provide a possible parallel for 3:5, support this conclusion: \u2018But to all who received [the Logos], who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.\u2019
\nThe possibility of being \u2018born of God\u2019, of becoming one of God\u2019s children, mentioned here seems to correlate with the \u2018born from above\u2019 and the \u2018born of spirit\u2019 found in ch. 3. And according to 1:12\u201313, it is only after one has believed in Jesus that such spiritual birth becomes a possibility. Therefore, the birth of spirit that makes possible an entrance into God\u2019s kingdom or birth into God\u2019s family is contingent upon belief in Jesus. This is because Jesus brokers spirit to believers (1:33; 7:37\u201339; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22). So Jesus\u2019 discourse in 3:13\u201321 expounds the meaning of his words to Nicodemus in 3:3\u20138, by explaining that only through belief in Jesus, the one sent from God, does spiritual birth become a possibility.
\nBut what does spiritual birth really mean, and why is it pivotal? Essentially, \u2018birth of spirit\u2019 implies being born into a new spiritual family, God\u2019s family, and receiving a new \u2018ascribed honor status\u2019 (see Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 81\u201382, 88\u201389). Within the Mediterranean cultural context one\u2019s honor status carries utmost importance. Honor is one\u2019s socially recognized claim to worth. It can be \u2018ascribed\u2019 by nature of one\u2019s birth (honor as social precedence), appointment to office by an elite, or consecration for sacred tasks, as well as \u2018acquired\u2019 (honor as virtue) through various honorable actions, such as excellence in military, athletic or artistic pursuits, or through the social contest of challenge and response. Non-elites tended to acquire honor via the latter means (Neyrey 1996: 117). All families share a collective honor status, and so to be born into an honorable family makes one honorable, whereas birth into a dishonorable family makes one dishonorable. Therefore, to be born into God\u2019s family, or born of spirit, would result in one bearing the honor status of God, who is honorable indeed. The claim in 1:12\u201313 of John, that belief in Jesus will result in the believer becoming one of God\u2019s children, means that Jesus\u2019 followers will be ascribed the ultimate honor status. And according to 3:5 entrance into God\u2019s kingdom demands no less. Only when one has been born of spirit, thus receiving an honor rating commensurate with divine birth, is one deemed worthy of the kingdom of God. Furthermore, a person\u2019s ascribed honor functions as a sort of social map dictating proper social interaction with that person (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 305). Consequently, a ramification of the Evangelist\u2019s claim that believers in Jesus have become \u2018children of God\u2019 would be that all those who treat them with contempt, as if they are of dishonorable origin, have widely missed the mark. For while honor status must be socially recognized, certain figures, most importantly God, have the power to determine a person\u2019s honor status absolutely.
\nBy emphasizing spiritual birth, or birth \u2018from above\u2019, as the prerequisite to eternal life, the Evangelist is setting up a dualistic structure, contrasting the earthly sphere with the \u2018God-sphere\u2019. Accordingly, Jesus contrasts himself with brokers who are merely \u2018of the earth\u2019 and touts himself as the only effective mediator between God and God\u2019s clients because he is \u2018from above\u2019. The Evangelist\u2019s dualistic structure presents Jesus as representative of the God-sphere. And in order for one to have eternal life, the ultimate benefit of God\u2019s patronage, one must believe in Jesus and thus become \u2018born of spirit\u2019 passing from the merely earthly sphere to the God-sphere, and receiving a new honor status as \u2018child of God\u2019.<\/p>\n
2. John 3:31\u201336. Many of the themes of the conversation\/discourse in 3:3\u201321 are reiterated in 3:31\u201336 (see Dodd 1960: 308; Brown 1966\u201370: I, 159\u201360). This has led to various theories about the original placement of the latter in relation to the former. For example, some scholars believe the two passages should be in succession, and have been interrupted by the placement of vv. 22\u201330 between them. But as Dodd argues, the shifting of vv. 31\u201336 to follow v. 21 raises as many problems as it solves (1960: 308\u2013309). It is reasonable then to attempt to explain the ordering of the passage as it stands. At issue, however, is whose voice one actually hears in vv. 31\u201336: the voice of Jesus, John the Baptist, or the Evangelist? If vv. 31\u201336 are a recapitulation of the conversation\/discourse found in 3:3\u201321, the intended speaker could be Jesus or the Evangelist. For in 3:12\u201321, as in many parts of the Gospel, Jesus\u2019 speech may trail off into a monologue by the Evangelist. On the other hand, if v. 31 follows v. 30, vv. 31\u201336 would logically be the words of John the Baptist.
\nFor our purposes, it is not necessary to solve this complexity. The discourse in vv. 31\u201336 appears very similar to the style of speech ascribed to Jesus in other parts of the Gospel (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 159), where the theology of the Evangelist no doubt comes through (see Dodd 1960: 308). Whether the words in vv. 31\u201336 belong to Jesus, John the Baptist or the Evangelist is less important for us than the fact that they cohere with the theology of the Evangelist as a whole.
\nThat vv. 31\u201336 echo the main theme of the Nicodemus narrative\/discourse, the incompetency of human brokers to mediate access to God and the unique ability of Jesus to do so, is apparent from the start:<\/p>\n
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things \u2026 [The one from above] testifies to what he has seen and heard \u2026 He whom God has sent speaks the words of God (vv. 31\u201334).<\/p>\n
While earthly brokers speak about earthly things, Jesus, the divine broker, mediates access to the words of God (v. 34), and ultimately to life (6:63). This passage and the verses following it constitute a fitting commentary on both the Nicodemus passage and the John passage that precede it. Both Nicodemus and John are presented as earthly broker figures who are shown to be incapable of brokering access to God. The words in v. 31, \u2018The one who comes from above is above all \u2026\u2019 calls to mind each of these men whose character functions as a foil for Jesus. While they are merely \u2018earthly\u2019, Jesus is \u2018from God\u2019.
\nSo the contrast between earthly brokers and Jesus again provides the context for a saying about the spirit. In vv. 34\u201335 we read: \u2018He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands.\u2019 The thrust of these verses centers on the total access to divine benefits that has been conferred to the Son. Because of God\u2019s love for Jesus, he has provided Jesus with all the benefits of God\u2019s patronage, thus making Jesus the only one able to broker those benefits to believers. But the meaning of \u2018he gives the spirit without measure\u2019 in v. 34b is not easy to discern. More pointedly, it is difficult to know whether God or Jesus is said to \u2018give the spirit without measure\u2019. Since the phrase precedes: \u2018[The Father] has placed all things in [the Son\u2019s] hands\u2019, it would seem logical that God is intended as the giver in v. 34b. But the subject of v. 34a is indubitably Jesus, and the subject does not seem to change in v. 34b where the subject is simply called \u2018he\u2019. Furthermore, gifts from the Father to the Son are as a rule expressed in the perfect (17 times) or aorist (8 times) tenses in John (with one exception being 6:37), not in the present as in v. 34b (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 158). Finally, if Jesus is the giver of spirit in v. 34b, it would follow that his words constitute the source of spirit: \u2018He \u2026 speaks the words of God, for he gives the spirit without measure\u2019 (v. 34). The association of Jesus\u2019 words with spirit also occurs at 6:63, and therefore might not be foreign within the Gospel.
\nUnderstandably, scholars are split as to the identity of the subject of \u2018he gives the spirit without measure\u2019. The meaning and significance of the phrase \u2018without measure\u2019 may shed light on the issue. Raymond Brown points out that one does not find \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 (without measure) anywhere else in Greek writings (1966\u201370: I, 158). Conversely, its antithetical parallel is common in rabbinic literature, and a saying of Rabbi Acha provides a striking parallel to the saying in Jn 3:34. The rabbi says, \u2018The Holy Spirit rested on the prophets by measure.\u2019 If a tradition similar to this lies behind Jn 3:34 and might have been known to the intended readers of the Gospel, then most likely the saying in v. 34b depicts a contrast between Jesus, who has limitless access to spirit, and the prophets, whose access was restricted. Given that the context of the saying (vv. 31\u201336) as well as the narratives about John and Nicodemus that it follows all place Jesus in contrast to earthly brokers, such a contrast in v. 34b would be fitting. According to this interpretation, God would be the subject of v. 34b, and Jesus the recipient of spirit. We concede one cannot know definitely whether the Evangelist knew of a tradition similar to that of Rabbi Acha. Still, the parallels between v. 34b and the rabbinic tradition at least provide one more bit of evidence in support of the view that God is the giver of spirit \u2018without measure\u2019 in v. 34b.
\nPertinent to this discussion is the notion of \u2018reciprocity\u2019, which shapes most forms of exchange in peasant societies. Reciprocity characterizes the relationship between individuals in all sorts of exchange relationships. Forms of reciprocity include: (1) generalized reciprocity; (2) balanced reciprocity; and (3) negative reciprocity (see Moxnes 1988: 34\u201335). Generalized reciprocity, as noted previously, refers to the mode of exchange between close kin, who are expected to share openly and graciously with one another, without expectation of reciprocation. Balanced reciprocity, on the other hand, befits exchange relationships between distant kin, fictive kin, and especially between patrons and clients. This mode of exchange demands that balanced or equal reciprocation be returned by someone whenever a benefit is conferred to him or her, though the benefits exchanged may be of a different nature. Finally, negative reciprocity characterizes relationships where one party receives benefits for which he or she does not reciprocate. In such relationships, common between outsiders, one strives to \u2018get something for nothing\u2019 (Moxnes 1988: 34). The way Jesus\u2019 relationship to the Father appears in 3:34\u201335 suggests that their relationship is one of generalized reciprocity between close kin members. This comes as no surprise to readers of the Gospel. But the important point being made in the overall context of the verses is the distinction between the Father\u2019s relationship to Jesus and the relationship of God to others. It is implied that others receive the spirit, and probably other benefits, only \u2018by measure\u2019. The relationship of persons other than Jesus to the Father could therefore be characterized more as one of balanced reciprocity. The author implicitly distinguishes between the true kinship relationship of Jesus to the Father and the patronal, or fictive kinship, relationship of God to others.
\nEven if God constitutes the subject of v. 34b, the role of Jesus as broker of spirit to believers, as the one who makes the spirit available to them (1:33; 7:37\u201339; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22), is not precluded. God gives full access to all things, including the spirit, to Jesus, but Jesus in turn confers the spirit to believers (20:22). Thus, in the end Jesus gives the spirit also, though nowhere do we read that believers are given limitless spirit. The point of this passage is the unique and pivotal position of Jesus as the one sent from God, with access to \u2018all things\u2019, and the necessity of belief in Jesus for salvation (v. 36). The fact that Jesus\u2019 \u2018limitless spirit\u2019 is accentuated in this context, suggests that the spirit legitimates Jesus. It evidences Jesus\u2019 origins in the God-sphere and thus his divine honor status. Though \u2018no one accepts his testimony\u2019 (v. 32), he still can claim to be the Son with access to all things from the Father, and the mediator of those benefits to believers. The spirit is a benefit that Jesus will broker to them from the Father. That Jesus will be the provider of spirit to believers can be viewed as of utmost importance by this point in the Gospel, for as we found earlier in John 3, spirit opens up the possibility of receiving eternal life.<\/p>\n
c. Worship in Spirit and Truth (4:21\u201324)<\/p>\n
John\u2019s narrative featuring a woman of Samaria in dialogue with Jesus bears some likenesses to the Nicodemus account. Signally, both Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman engage in conversation with Jesus and misunderstand. But the relationship between the two characters is more marked by the contrast between them than by the similarity. They seem to be juxtaposed in such a way as to highlight this contrast, as some scholars have noted. I will discuss this point more fully below. First, however, I suggest that a connection between the Nicodemus narrative and that of the Samaritan woman lies in a common theme they share. I propose that two main questions are addressed in 4:4\u201325: (1) to whom is God\u2019s patronage available; and (2) through whom or what is access to God\u2019s patronage mediated? The latter of these questions clearly features in the Nicodemus account, as discussed above. The answer to the first question emanates in part from the juxtapositioning of Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. The Evangelist characterizes Nicodemus as a ruler of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and a Pharisee, both descriptions grouping him with influential earthly brokers. In stark contrast to Nicodemus stands the Samaritan woman, who represents all that is deemed marginal and estranged from God. Curiously, though, Nicodemus appears baffled by Jesus, and his confidence in human means of brokerage is shown to be foolish and futile, whereas the Samaritan woman draws closer and closer to faith throughout the narrative, which culminates in the fruitfulness of her testimony about Jesus, namely, the conversion of many Samaritans (vv. 39\u201342). Through the juxtapositioning of Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, the Evangelist challenges the axiomatic beliefs of his day about who could and could not expect to find God\u2019s patronage available to them.
\nThree factors contribute to the portrayal of the Samaritan woman as a marginal person. First, she is a woman who outsteps the boundaries ascribed to women in ancient Mediterranean culture, and thus behaves dishonorably. The first detail we read about the woman tells that she came to draw water at midday (4:6\u20137). This seemingly innocuous bit of information actually sketches a picture of the woman coming alone to the well at a very unusual time, since women typically drew water in the mornings and evenings in the company of other women. By going to the well at this time the woman enters into public space, or male space. The ancient Mediterranean world was fairly strictly divided into two spheres, the public and the private, with the public sphere being the place for men and the private the place for women. Female space encompassed the home and, at certain designated times, public areas associated with domestic responsibilities, such as public wells and ovens. According to this arrangement, the social contact allowed women was almost entirely restricted to other women and related males. Male space, on the other hand, encompassed all areas of interaction between non-kin members, in other words all areas outside the home, with the exception of public wells and ovens during certain hours (Neyrey 1994: 79\u201382). This construct is vividly outlined in ancient texts, of which the following text from Philo represents a well-known example:<\/p>\n
Market-places and council-halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings where a large number of people are assembled, and open-air life with full scope for discussion and action\u2014all these are suitable to men both in war and in peace. The women are best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house (Philo 1937: 581, De specialibus legibus 3.169).<\/p>\n
The presence of the woman at the well at midday was enough to cast a shadow on her. But the fact that she engages in conversation with a non-related male while at the well confirms her status as \u2018of questionable repute\u2019, for it was considered shameful for a woman to have contact with men outside of the strictly circumscribed sphere of kinship and the home (Torjesen 1993: 119). Hence the indignation of the disciples when they return and find Jesus \u2018speaking with a woman\u2019 (v. 27).
\nA second characteristic making the woman marginal is the fact she is a Samaritan. As such she is defined in collectivist terms in relation to all Samaritans, who were considered by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 to be \u2018a mixed race of semi-pagans\u2019 (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 425). Relations between the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and Samaritans had been particularly antagonistic since the time of John Hyrcanus (135\u2013104 BCE), who conquered Shechem and destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim. It was not uncommon for violent episodes to erupt between the two groups (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 425). Moreover, according to Pharisaic purity laws in force at the time of John\u2019s composition, Samaritan women were reckoned perpetually unclean. Thus, as a Samaritan, the woman represented an enemy of the \u2018true people of God\u2019, and as a Samaritan woman, she represented unmitigated ritual impurity. Her assumed alienation from Jesus, and from the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 with whom he was identified, finds expression in her question addressed to Jesus: \u2018How is it that you, an \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?\u2019 (v. 9). Her shock betrays her knowledge of the customs which disallowed \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 to \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (use [vessels] in common with) Samaritans, a custom the Evangelist draws to the attention of the reader (v. 9).
\nFinally, the Samaritan woman is portrayed as a marginal character within the narrative because she is sexually dishonorable. The narrative brings out that she has had five husbands, and that the \u2018husband\u2019 she has now is not her own, which would suggest her present relationship is either one of adultery or concubinage. This scenario innately spells dishonor. To begin with, \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 considered it illicit for one to marry more than three times (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 433; Barrett 1978: 235). Furthermore, Mediterranean culture considered the honor of divorced or widowed women to be precarious since they were often no longer embedded within the honor of some male. In Mediterranean culture, the honor of a woman, namely, her sexual purity and exclusiveness, is embedded within the honor of the significant males in her life, specifically her father, brothers and\/or husband. Males bear the responsibility to maintain and protect the honor of their embedded females, while at the same time it is considered honorable for women to exhibit restraint, timidity and positive shame. The honor of a woman not embedded in a male lacks the protective covering of a significant male and is thought to be constantly under threat (see Malina 1993: 50\u201353). The precarious nature of the Samaritan woman\u2019s honor receives confirmation in the fact that her sexual purity stands compromised by her involvement with her current \u2018husband\u2019, who is not her own. The significance of the woman\u2019s dishonorable sexual history to her characterization is emphasized by repeated mentions of it throughout the narrative (4:17\u201318, 29, 39).
\nAll in all, the Samaritan woman was, according to her culture and social context, marginalized on the basis of her gender, ethnicity, ritual impurity and moral conduct. Precisely because of this characterization, Jesus\u2019 words to her about the abundant availability of living water and the imminent possibility of true worship of God resonate as radical.
\nThe dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at first centers on his ability to give her living water, which will never leave her thirsty (vv. 10\u201315). In v. 10 Jesus tells her, \u2018 \u201cIf you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, \u2018Give me a drink\u2019, you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.\u2019 \u201d Much like Nicodemus in 3:4, the Samaritan woman misunderstands what Jesus says and interprets his words to be about things concrete and earthly. Since \u2018living water\u2019 could mean running or flowing water as opposed to still (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 170), she thinks Jesus is purporting to have access to a well superior to the still-water well given to her people by the patriarch Jacob. So she asks Jesus, \u2018Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob?\u2019 (v. 12), a question mirroring that of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in 8:53, \u2018Are you greater than our father Abraham?\u2019 Both questions have a penetratingly ironical tone. The informed reader of the Gospel knows that Jesus is indeed greater than the patriarchs, for as one reads in 3:31: \u2018The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all.\u2019 Jacob may have provided the woman and her people with a well, but Jesus, as the one who has access to all things from the Father (3:35), can provide water that \u2018will become in them a spring of water [\u1f01\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u2018leaping up\u2019] to eternal life\u2019 (v. 14). Jacob\u2019s gift is earthly; Jesus\u2019 gift is \u2018from above\u2019. That the contrast between Jesus and Jacob is pivotal to the narrative becomes apparent early in the story when the location of the well receives detailed description, signaling to the reader the importance that the well had been given by Jacob, as well as in the Samaritan woman\u2019s ironic remark: \u2018Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob?\u2019 (v. 12) (Boers 1988: 155\u201356).
\nGenerally the living water that Jesus gives is interpreted as, primarily, a metaphor for spirit. The connections between spirit and life\/living water are salient in John\u2019s Gospel. In 6:63 Jesus tells the disciples that it is the spirit that gives life. And in 7:38\u201339 he promises to give believers \u2018living water\u2019, meaning spirit. Moreover, it will be recalled from the earlier discussion of 3:5 that \u2018birth of spirit\u2019 opens up the possibility of receiving the eternal life available through Jesus. Finally, I have argued that the water flowing from Jesus\u2019 side in 19:34 symbolizes spirit. Since \u2018living water\u2019 can have the meaning of flowing water as opposed to still, the water coming out of Jesus\u2019 side seems to coincide with other symbolic uses of \u2018living water\u2019 in John. Minor support for the interpretation of \u2018living water\u2019 as spirit may be found in the fact that the verb \u1f05\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, used in Jn 4:14 (\u2018a spring of water [\u1f01\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u2018leaping up\u2019] to eternal life\u2019), is also used in LXX to describe the action of the spirit of God \u2018leaping upon\u2019 Samson, Saul and David, though the connection may be tenuous. All in all, I conclude that the living water Jesus offers symbolizes spirit. Jesus is greater than Jacob because his gift is heavenly. It is the gift of spiritual birth. Furthermore, in portraying Jesus as the source of living water\/spirit, the Evangelist once again casts Jesus as the new Temple (see 2:21), since the Temple was to be the source of a great effusion of spirit in the last days (see the discussion on pp. 152\u201355).
\nThe spirit constitutes the \u2018living\u2019 water that Jesus will provide. This living water is not life itself, but the water which leads to eternal life (4:14). Just as literal water is not in itself life, but is a precondition to life, so the living water Jesus provides constitutes a precondition to eternal life. Likewise, having the spirit, or being \u2018born of spirit\u2019 does not equal eternal life, rather it allows access to the kingdom of God, or eternal life (3:5). Drinking of living water involves passing from the merely earthly realm into the God realm by being \u2018born of spirit\u2019, and thus becoming one of God\u2019s children. As we found in our discussion of ch. 3, where eternal life and spiritual birth are integrally related concepts, so here, where one reads that living water\/spirit will become \u2018a spring of water gushing up to eternal life\u2019 (4:14), we find that spirit denotes the life-producing water that Jesus makes available. This living water\/spirit Jesus brokers opens up the possibility of entrance into the realm of God and eternal life by allowing believers a new ascribed honor status as children of God.
\nDespite Jesus\u2019 explicit claim to provide a sort of water unlike any earthly substance (vv. 13\u201314), the woman\u2019s obtuseness persists (v. 15). In reaction to this Jesus abruptly changes the subject and discloses superhuman knowledge of the woman\u2019s life history (vv. 16\u201318). Some commentators believe that the intention of this detour is to allow Jesus to point the woman\u2019s attention to his divine status (Bultmann 1971: 187; Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 432; Botha 1991: 142\u201343) as a way of raising her sights above the concrete level of wells and drinking water. If this is Jesus\u2019 intention, he appears to be relatively successful, for the woman appears so impressed with his insight that she proclaims him to be a prophet (v. 19). At this juncture the parallels between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman diverge. Her misunderstanding begins to give way to insight, but only begins. Jesus is much more than an earthly prophet who has been given spirit \u2018by measure\u2019, but at least her scope is broadening.
\nThe woman\u2019s new-found confidence in Jesus\u2019 prophetic insight compels her to raise for discussion the most pressing issue known to Samaritans: whether God was to be worshiped in Jerusalem or on Mt Gerizim (v. 20). The issue was one of brokerage, and is integrally related to the portrayal of Jesus as giver of living water, or spirit, in this passage. The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 believed that access to the benefits of God\u2019s patronage were mediated through temple worship in Jerusalem, and, as mentioned above, that the spirit would abundantly flow from the Temple in the end time. Samaritans believed God\u2019s patronage was brokered through the temple at Gerizim, though it had been burned by the Judean high priest, John Hyrcanus, in 128 BCE (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 170; Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 425). Samaritans nonetheless continued worshiping on Mt Gerizim and refused to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: I, 434\u201335). At issue in the debate about the place of worship was who really had access to the benefits of God\u2019s patronage, in particular, God\u2019s spirit.
\nJesus responds:<\/p>\n
Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you [plural] will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem \u2026 the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (vv. 21\u201324).<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 answer to the woman first dispels the notion that true worship of God can be mediated by the earthly means of temple worship (v. 21). Allusion to this idea also appears in ch. 2 where Jesus implicitly claims to replace the Temple (2:19\u201321). His saying \u2018the hour is coming\u2019 in 4:21 must be read in conjunction with \u2018and is now here\u2019 in v. 23. This time construct, understood according to the Mediterranean concept of time, denotes a present event along with its eventual outcomes. The present event denotes the coming of Jesus; the forthcoming consequences of that event include the conferring of spirit (20:22) and the possibility of spiritual birth. Jesus claims that now true worship of God, via spirit and truth, has become a possibility for all who accept God\u2019s broker from above. Furthermore, he implies that the Samaritan woman\u2019s group will soon worship in this way (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u2018you people will worship\u2019, v. 21). The plural \u2018you\u2019 in vv. 21\u201322 likely refers to those people represented by the Samaritan woman, who are firstly Samaritans, but probably also those deemed marginal like herself. True worship in spirit and truth is available to all who believe in the one who provides access to the \u2018living water\u2019 of spirit, and is not demarcated along ethnic, gender or purity lines.
\nAs most commentators agree, worship in spirit and truth is not a matter of \u2018inward worship\u2019 (contrary to Johnston 1970: 45) as opposed to cultic worship. The contrast between temple worship and worship in spirit and truth relates to the contrast between the one who is \u2018of the earth\u2019 and the one who is \u2018from above\u2019 in 3:31. Jesus once again contrasts the earthly realm with the realm of God. Worshiping \u2018in spirit and truth\u2019 denotes worshiping as those whose status is \u2018born of God\u2019, or worshiping as those who are of the God realm and not the earthly realm. For God is \u2018spirit\u2019 (v. 24) and can therefore not be worshipped in ways that are merely earthly. God is like the wind\/spirit in the parable at 3:8: invisible and unknowable by human knowledge. Only those who have passed from the human, earthly realm to the realm of God are capable of worshiping \u2018truly\u2019. Only those with an honor status commensurate with divine birth are deemed \u2018true worshipers\u2019. The phrase \u2018worship in spirit and truth\u2019 should be interpreted in the light of 3:5. Such worship distinguishes those who have become a part of God\u2019s kin group.
\nAs our narrative progresses, we find that the Samaritan woman and her group are indeed brought into Jesus\u2019 \u2018fictive kin\u2019 group. Therefore, Jesus\u2019 prediction that the Samaritan woman\u2019s group would soon worship \u2018in spirit and truth\u2019 (vv. 21\u201323), or in a way appropriate for members of God\u2019s family, proves warranted. The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman progresses from being a socially suspect exchange between an unrelated male and female in public space to an intimate, \u2018private\u2019, conversation between Jesus and a disciple, or a member of his fictive kin group (Neyrey 1994: 87). Jesus\u2019 words about true worship motivate the Samaritan woman to raise the critical issue of the coming Messiah who \u2018will proclaim all things\u2019 (cf. \u2018all things\u2019 in 3:35) (Fr\u00fchwald-K\u00f6nig 1998: 137). Unlike Nicodemus whose incompetent responses to Jesus quickly trail off into silence, the Samaritan woman initiates dialogue with Jesus and reacts imploringly to his revelations of superhuman knowledge, providing opportunity for Jesus to draw her to greater depths of understanding. Their conversation concludes with Jesus disclosing to her his identity as the Messiah, in the form of an absolute \u2018I am\u2019 statement (v. 26). This is the first occurrence of the \u2018I am\u2019 formula in the Gospel and the absence of a predicate in this instance functions to recall the utterance of the divine name in the Old Testament (Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:10\u201311, 25; 51:12) (see Ball 1996: 177\u2013203). Jesus reveals to the woman his divine identity. She has been brought into the circle of Jesus\u2019 disciples and shares a privileged, if inchoate, knowledge of who he is. Still not completely grasping the magnitude of Jesus\u2019 claim (see v. 29), the woman rushes off to the city to tell her people about Jesus and to bring them to him. Her testimony facilitates the belief of many Samaritans, resulting in their becoming a part of Jesus\u2019 fictive kin group as well and foreshadowing their \u2018birth of spirit\u2019, which will make them true worshipers in \u2018spirit and truth\u2019. She initiates the harvest (of Samaritan followers) which the disciples are called to reap (4:35\u201338) (see Seim 1987: 67\u201370). The narrative closes with this marginalized group of people giving voice to the most exemplary confession in the Gospel thus far: \u2018this is truly the Savior of the world\u2019 (v. 42). Although, as Jesus states in v. 22, \u2018salvation is from the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u2019, certainly meaning Jesus himself is \u2018from the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u2019 since Jesus is curiously called an \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in our passage (see 4:9), that salvation, the ultimate benefit of God\u2019s patronage, is made available to all the world.<\/p>\n
d. The Spirit Is Life, the Flesh Counts for Nothing (6:60\u201363)<\/p>\n
The next spirit passage in John follows the long \u2018Bread of Life\u2019 discourse, which centers on Jesus\u2019 exhortation to work for \u2018the food that endures to eternal life\u2019 (6:27). Obviously, we are unable to canvass the full range of themes that are touched upon in this complex discourse, which in itself merits monograph treatment. And we will proceed with our analysis assuming the entire discourse, which ostensibly begins at 6:27 and ends at 6:58, constitutes an integrated and unified whole, despite the fact some scholars view vv. 51c\u201358 as later redaction (for example, Brown 1966\u201370: I; Bultmann 1971). The arguments in favor of a unified discourse are very strong, as effectively demonstrated by Peter Borgen and others. Common themes, terms and expressions solidly bind the two sections of the discourse, even if a new theme, namely, the linking of the \u2018bread of life\u2019 with Jesus\u2019 flesh and life-giving death, is introduced at v. 51c.
\nThe entire \u2018Bread of Life\u2019 discourse provides the context of Jesus\u2019 words on spirit in 6:63, and must delimit our interpretation of them. Accordingly, we begin our study of 6:63 by summarizing that discourse and highlighting its main themes. Essentially, Jn 6:27\u201363 poses a dichotomy, one between \u2018perishing bread\u2019 and life-producing \u2018bread\u2019, that is consonant with the dualistic perspective of the overall Gospel. The contrast constructed in ch. 6 is basically the same as that posed in the sections of John we have already studied: a contrast between what is representative of the earthly realm and what is representative of the God realm, and parallels closely the contrast in John 4 between living water and the unsatisfying water provided by Jacob. Throughout the Gospel, the assertion of Jesus\u2019 divine origins and unique ability to provide access to the benefits of God\u2019s patronage against the inadequacy of human attempts to access those benefits, sharply accentuates the distinction between the two realms. The Evangelist adopts this same strategy in ch. 6. Here again the chief benefit to which Jesus provides access is eternal life (6:27, 35, 40, 47, 50\u201351, 54, 57\u201358).
\nThe conversations and mini-discourses that comprise the larger discourse of 6:27\u201358 transpire in a Capernaum synagogue between Jesus and a group of hungry followers looking for another free meal. Jesus begins the discourse by telling the crowd not to \u2018work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on [this one] that God the Father has set his seal\u2019 (v. 27). This verse insinuates a contrast not only between food that perishes and that which endures, but more importantly between the Son of Man and other givers of \u2018food\u2019. The last sentence, which emphatically states that it is \u2018this one\u2019 (the Son of Man) who has the \u2018seal\u2019 of the Father, anticipates further explanation about those who do not have that legitimation. Indeed, this information follows shortly. In v. 32 we discover that Moses is among those being contrasted with the Son of Man. In fact the contrasting of Moses and Jesus, and the types of \u2018food\u2019 they gave\/give, is the skeleton upon which the entire discourse hangs. The following verses demonstrate how the debates and discourses in 6:27\u201358 turn on this issue:<\/p>\n
vv. 30\u201335b: \u2026 \u2018What sign are you going to give us then that we might see it and believe you? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, \u201cHe gave them bread from heaven to eat.\u201d \u2019 Then Jesus said to them, \u2018Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world\u2019. They said to him, \u2018Sir, give us this bread always\u2019. Jesus said to them, \u2018I am the bread of life\u2019.<\/p>\n
vv. 41: Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, \u2018I am the bread that came down from heaven\u2019. They were saying, \u2018Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, \u201cI have come down from heaven\u201d?\u2019<\/p>\n
vv. 45\u201346: [Jesus] \u2018It is written in the prophets, \u201cAnd they shall all be taught by God.\u201d Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone [i.e. even Moses!] has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father\u2019.<\/p>\n
vv. 49\u201351a: \u2018Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven\u2019.<\/p>\n
v. 52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, \u2018How can this man give us flesh to eat?\u2019 [probably echoing Exod. 16:8]<\/p>\n
v. 58: \u2018This [i.e. Jesus\u2019 flesh and blood given in death] is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever\u2019.<\/p>\n
The pivotal theme of the entire discourse centers on Jesus\u2019 ability to provide life-giving bread unlike the bread the group\u2019s ancestors ate and \u2018they died\u2019, along with the theme of Jesus\u2019 authority to give \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 because he \u2018came down from heaven\u2019. Both of the \u2018complaints\u2019 raised by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in the above verses deal with Jesus\u2019 qualifications to provide \u2018bread from heaven\u2019: how can he do so if he is the son of Joseph? (v. 42), or how can he give us flesh to eat like that which was given to our ancestors? (v. 52). This latter complaint exemplifies Johannine irony. The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 misconstrue Jesus\u2019 statement in v. 51 about giving his flesh, thinking he claims to be able to give them all meat to eat. They fail to comprehend Jesus\u2019 statement about his life-giving death.
\nJohn 6:27\u201358 portrays another contest of brokers. In this discourse, which some scholars believe is to be viewed through a Passover\/Exodus \u2018screen\u2019 (Olsson 1974:102\u2013109; Painter 1989; Saldarini 1988), Jesus is held up to Moses who, according to the crowds, gave their ancestors \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 to eat (v. 31). In response to the crowd\u2019s challenge to perform for them a sign, Jesus first dispels the notion that Moses had provided them with \u2018bread\u2019. It was not Moses who gave, but God who gives (v. 32)! Two points are made in this statement: (1) Moses did not give the ancestors bread to eat in the wilderness, for he was merely the broker of God\u2019s gift; and (2) the true bread from heaven was not given by God in the past, but is given by God in the present! Moses is simultaneously affirmed as an earthly broker of the manna in the wilderness, while being denied the status of heavenly broker, since he did not and does not broker the true bread from heaven. This echoes 1:17, where Moses is acknowledged as broker of the law, but not the broker of grace and truth. Jesus alone brokers the heavenly benefits of grace and truth.
\nThere are two dimensions to the word \u2018bread\u2019 in connection with Moses. First, of course, \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 denotes manna. The phrase \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 was commonly used for manna in the Hebrew Scriptures (Neh. 9:15; Ps. 105:40; Wis. 16:20; see also Exod. 16:4; Ps. 78:24). But it was not unusual to speak of God\u2019s Word, or Torah, as bread and food as well. Significantly, Isa. 55:10\u201311 refers to it thus. Since the Evangelist uses Isa. 54:13 in 6:45, he could have had Isa. 55:10\u201311 in mind when he composed the Bread of Life Discourse (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 274). In any case, it is likely that the \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 Moses purportedly gave the ancestors alludes to Torah as well as manna. John 6:46, \u2018Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God \u2026\u2019 seems to challenge the belief of the Israelites that Moses had ascended to heaven to receive the Torah and had \u2018seen\u2019 God. This polemical verse relates to 3:13, \u2018No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man\u2019, another instance where Jesus distinguishes himself from earthly brokers (note the mention of Moses directly following it). And in 1:18, after an overt comparison between the brokerage of Jesus and Moses (1:17), we find the identical assertion as in 6:46, that only Jesus has \u2018seen\u2019 the Father. Therefore, the reference to Jesus as the only one who has seen the Father in 6:46 should be read as a challenge to the belief that Moses had seen God when he received the Torah. The tacit allusion to Torah in this context, as well as the mention of \u2018the law\u2019 as that which \u2018was given through Moses\u2019 in 1:17, confirms as reasonable the view that the \u2018bread\u2019 that Moses gave the ancestors (and they died!) represents the Torah as well as manna in ch. 6. In comparison with the bread that Jesus gives (and is), this bread brokered by Moses is characterized as \u2018perishing\u2019.
\nIn a recent study of the Fourth Gospel, Marie-Emile Boismard (1993) investigates John and finds many allusions to Deut. 18:18\u201319, as well as to other Old Testament scriptures about Moses. He concludes that the theme of Jesus as Moses-like-prophet pervades the Gospel. Especially compelling are the similarities between Deut. 18:18\u201319: \u2018I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command\u2019, and God\u2019s commanding Jesus regarding \u2018what to say and what to speak\u2019 in Jn 12:49. Further reminiscences to Deut. 18:19 seem to lie behind Jesus\u2019 claim to \u2018do nothing on my own\u2019, and to speak only what the Father has instructed him in 8:28. We can accept that these are reminiscences. However, Boismard also sees in John many other references to Deut. 18:18\u201319 and parallels to Moses, some of which have left certain readers, including ourselves, unconvinced (e.g. Menken 1993b: 315\u201317; Schnackenburg 1995: 272\u201373). More importantly, Boismard\u2019s over-emphasis on the Jesus-Moses parallels in John in our view leads to a misassessment of Jesus\u2019 primary mission in the Gospel, and a softening of the polemical nature of the Moses passages. Toward the end of his essay \u2018Jesus, the Prophet Like Moses\u2019, Boismard concludes that Jesus was sent by God above all to transmit God\u2019s words (Boismard 1993: 61). We find this untenable. Upon a reading of the Gospel, it seems apparent that Jesus was sent above all to make available access to eternal life or spiritual birth, not to be God\u2019s communicator in a prophetic sense. Finally, though the Evangelist does seem to recall the work of God\u2019s broker in Deut. 18:18\u201319 when he portrays Jesus as speaking the words God has commanded him, he does not seem to view Jesus\u2019 brokerage mission as a reifying of the Mosaic mission, but as an entirely new thing. According to the Evangelist, Jesus brokers access to God in a way he alone, as the one sent from the realm of God, is able. This theme comes to the attention of the reader as early as the Prologue (1:17\u201318), but as we have seen, also surfaces in chs. 3 and 6 of John.
\nThe bread that the Son of Man will give \u2018endures for eternal life\u2019 (v. 27). Those who believe in the Son have eternal life (vv. 40, 47), for it constitutes the most important benefit he brokers. When we read in v. 35 that Jesus himself is the bread of life, and whoever comes to him will never hunger and thirst, readers of the Gospel should now understand the author\u2019s meaning: by believing in or accepting Jesus, symbolized by ingesting the bread of life, people receive eternal life, symbolized by the eternal cessation of hunger and thirst. Jesus once again purports to be the broker through whom access to eternal life becomes available. This claim persists throughout the entire discourse.
\nAt v. 51c, however, the perspective alters slightly. While up to this point, Jesus claimed to be the bread of life, at v. 51c we read that the bread he gives is his \u2018flesh\u2019, which he will give for the life of the world. The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 misunderstand this statement (v. 52), which allows Jesus to perseverate on the theme of his life-giving flesh and to expand on the corporeal imagery he has used. He adds the image of \u2018blood\u2019: \u2018Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you\u2019 (v. 53). This verse alludes to Jesus\u2019 sacrificial death. Several scholars have argued that \u2018flesh\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 indicate the eucharistic elements in vv. 51c\u201358. But the use of the first-person pronouns in vv. 56\u201357 indicates that the \u2018flesh\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 imagery of vv. 51c\u201358 qualifies and refers to the person of Jesus (Menken 1993a: 9). To speak of Jesus\u2019 flesh and blood is to speak of him in a particular sense, and need not point readers to the eucharistic elements. The sense in which Jesus speaks of himself using this flesh and blood imagery is in the sense of his death. Up to v. 51c, Jesus had spoken of himself as the \u2018bread of life\u2019. At v. 51c, one does not find a change of perspective, so that the bread that formerly denoted Jesus now denotes something different, namely, the eucharistic element, rather we find a qualification and intensification of the preceding theme. Jesus is still the bread of life in 51c\u201358, but we learn that he becomes that bread only by giving his body in death. The Evangelist probably recognized the eucharistic overtones of the eating\/drinking of flesh\/blood imagery in vv. 51c\u201358 and purposely employed the imagery for its metaphorical value in referring to Jesus\u2019 death, but nowhere do these verses suggest that Jesus calls people to partake of the eucharistic elements to receive life. Jesus exhorts the crowd to partake of7accept himself, and specifically his body given in death, not to do any literal eating and drinking (see Lindars 1972: 252\u201355; Painter 1989: 444\u201345). \u2018Flesh and blood\u2019 language was often used to refer to violent, shameful human death in both the New and Old Testaments (see Eph. 2:13\u201316; Col. 1:20\u201322; Ps. 79:2\u20133; Ezek. 32:5\u20136; also 4 Macc. 6:6), and was employed within the context of animal sacrifice (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 134). Furthermore, the word \u2018blood\u2019 often signifies violent human death in New Testament texts (see Mt. 23:35; 27:4, 6, 8, 24\u201325; Acts 5:28; 18:6; 20:26; Heb. 12:4; Rev. 6:10; 19:2). In Jn 6:51c\u201358 \u2018flesh\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 refer to Jesus\u2019 violent, shameful death as a sacrifice \u2018for the life of the world\u2019. The talk of \u2018chewing on\u2019 (verb, \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03c9) flesh and drinking blood should not be read literally, not even in the sense of literally chewing bread and drinking wine as symbols of Jesus\u2019 flesh and blood. The Evangelist utilizes graphic language to heighten the offense of what Jesus has been saying up to v. 51c: that he is the bread of life that people must eat (\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7) in order to have eternal life. The language the Evangelist employs beginning at v. 51c, \u2018chewing flesh and drinking blood\u2019, heightens the offense, just as Jesus\u2019 references to his violent, shameful death in vv. 51c\u201358 heighten the offense of what he has said thus far. Not only do people have to eat or partake of Jesus, the bread of life, in order to receive life, but they are expected to \u2018chew on\u2019 Jesus\u2019 slain flesh and spilled blood, alluding to Jesus\u2019 repulsive death on the cross. They are asked to partake of or accept Jesus as the one who mediates life to the world, but who does so as an executed criminal. What might such acceptance involve?
\nElsewhere in the Gospel, accepting Jesus, \u2018believing in\u2019 him, seems to necessitate understanding who Jesus is and where he has come from. Only those who understand the revelation of God through and in Jesus come to belief. Likewise, in the Bread of Life Discourse \u2018eating the bread of life\u2019 indicates the activity of those who understand Jesus and thus receive him. The Evangelist repeatedly strives to inculcate loyalty to and acceptance of Jesus, and he uses many metaphors to express this relationship. The metaphor of chewing Jesus\u2019 flesh and drinking his blood is one example. Those who understand Jesus\u2019 death as his glorification by the Father and as a sacrifice \u2018for the life of the world\u2019 and are not misled by its apparent repulsiveness, can partake of Jesus and receive eternal life. In a discourse redolent with the themes of \u2018believing in\u2019 Jesus, \u2018coming to him\u2019 and \u2018abiding in him\u2019, it is very likely that the eating and drinking metaphors signify the same interpersonal experiences characterized by \u2018coming\u2019, \u2018believing\u2019 and \u2018abiding\u2019, namely, acceptance of and loyalty to Jesus as the crucified Son of God sent from above. That the interpersonal experiences of \u2018coming to\u2019 Jesus and \u2018believing in\u2019 him are expressed via the metaphor of eating the \u2018bread of life\u2019 (Jesus) in vv. 27\u201351b (vv. 35, 47\u201351b), impels us to conclude that the \u2018eating\u2019 and \u2018drinking\u2019 in vv. 51c\u201358 point to the same sort of interpersonal experience. It is just being added that believing in Jesus must involve an understanding and acceptance of his violent, shameful death as the means by which Jesus brokers access to eternal life.
\nWith this understanding of the discourse providing the context of 6:63, we can begin to interpret what Jesus says about the spirit therein. After he has finished his teaching, we learn that many of Jesus\u2019 \u2018disciples\u2019 found it offensive and difficult to \u2018hear\u2019, or accept (v. 60). It seems likely that these disciples deem the entire discourse to be \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, rather than particular unspecified sayings. If the Evangelist does have particular sayings in mind, we cannot begin to know what they are, as he proffers no clues. But several of the issues breached in the discourse probably caused offense to Jesus\u2019 audience, which included \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, some of whom are probably among the defecting \u2018disciples\u2019 in vv. 60\u201366. For instance, Jesus claims in 6:50 to provide\/be the \u2018bread\u2019 that leads to eternal life. In 8:51\u201352 the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 accuse him of having a demon for making a similar claim. Furthermore, in 6:51c\u201358 Jesus purports to give his life for the world, the same sort of claim that earned him an accusation of demon possession in 10:17\u201320. And Jesus\u2019 assertion to have divine origins, clearly at issue in 6:41\u201342, constitutes a stumbling block for the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 throughout the Gospel (see 7:27\u201328). Finally, Jesus\u2019 exhortation to the crowd to accept his violent, shameful death would comport ill with many a hearer. The Israelites expected a Messiah who would \u2018remain forever\u2019 (12:34). How could they believe in and accept Jesus as the \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 if he was to die like every other human being, let alone to die the ignominious death of an executed criminal? All in all, Jesus\u2019 discourse provided his listeners with much that would challenge them, particularly the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 among them.
\nBut as has already been discussed, the theme of 6:27\u201358 revolves around the ability of Jesus, the \u2018bread of life\u2019, to broker eternal life to all who eat the bread of life, or accept him. The murmurings of the crowd in the passage center on Jesus\u2019 qualifications to broker eternal life. How could Jesus, a son of Joseph, be God\u2019s broker (vv. 41\u201342)? How could he give us \u2018flesh\u2019 to eat, like God gave to our ancestors (v. 52)? And one can imagine them thinking, How could a man who will die a violent, shameful death broker eternal life from God? All of these issues fall within the ambit of the overall theme of the discourse, which portrays a contest of brokers between Jesus and Moses. Moses, the most revered broker of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 is depicted in 6:27\u201358 as only brokering \u2018bread\u2019 that was perishing. \u2018Your ancestors ate it, and they died\u2019 (vv. 49, 58)! The \u2018bread\u2019 Moses brokered denotes both the manna in the wilderness, and the Torah. Jesus thus negates the ability of the Torah to provide access to life.
\nIn response to the murmurings of his \u2018disciples\u2019, Jesus says:<\/p>\n
Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (6:61b\u201363).<\/p>\n
Scholars debate about the nature of the apodosis corresponding to the protasis in v. 62: \u2018What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending \u2026?\u2019 Some conclude the apodosis would be something like \u2018\u2026 then you would really be offended and confused!\u2019 (e.g. Bultmann 1971). Others adopt a positive stance and believe the apodosis would imply that the disciples\u2019 offense would be removed. I concur with Barrett in his suggestion that these possibilities are not mutually exclusive (1978: 303). The dichotomy posed by the options of \u2018offense\u2019 or \u2018vindication\u2019 is a false dichotomy. For to those who understand and believe in Jesus, his \u2018ascension\u2019, which includes his \u2018lifting up\u2019 on a cross (see 3:13\u201315), serves to vindicate Jesus as the one he has claimed to be, the Son whose relationship to the Father exemplifies obedience and love (8:28; 12:27; 14:31; 18:11). But for those who are \u2018blind\u2019 and cannot understand or receive Jesus, his cross constitutes the ultimate scandal. The ascending of the Son of Man via a crucifixion appears preposterous to them. So the apodosis to v. 62 would have to encompass the conflicting reactions of those who believe and those who do not. This double reaction features in 6:66\u201369, where many \u2018disciples\u2019 turn away from Jesus to follow him no longer, and the Twelve, in their first appearance in the Gospel, are given an opportunity to prove their allegiance.
\nFor Jesus\u2019 true followers, seeing the Son of Man ascending to \u2018where he was before\u2019, an overt reference to the realm of God since Jesus has claimed throughout the discourse to be \u2018from heaven\u2019 (v. 38) and since the title \u2018Son of Man\u2019 in John points to Jesus\u2019 heavenly origins (Ashton 1991: 337\u201373), would vindicate Jesus as God\u2019s broker. Jesus asks these disciples to imagine what it would be like if they saw Jesus ascending and returning to God the patron, the one who sent him (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 137). Then they would see that he was the one through whom access to God\u2019s patronage and eternal life are mediated! They would see for themselves that Jesus is the Son of Man and would have no reason to doubt his ability to mediate access to the realm of God.
\nBut for the unbelieving crowd, whose murmurings throughout the discourse betray a reticence on their part to believe that Jesus qualifies to broker eternal life from God, seeing Jesus, the Son of Man, \u2018ascend\u2019 would heighten their incredulity. This is because the Evangelist uses the language of \u2018ascending\u2019 and \u2018lifting up\u2019 to signify indirectly Jesus\u2019 crucifixion, though it primarily refers to Jesus\u2019 exaltation. The Fourth Evangelist, more than any other, blurs the distinction between Jesus\u2019 ignominious crucifixion and his entrance into glory. And the Johannine vision of the paradoxical crucifixion\/glorification closely aligns with the title \u2018Son of Man\u2019, a title linked with the suffering Jesus in Synoptic tradition (Ashton 1991: 364). In his efforts to blend Jesus\u2019 crucifixion with his exaltation, the Evangelist employs a title inextricably bound together with Jesus\u2019 rejection and crucifixion and meshes these shades of meaning with overtones of majestic glory, while stressing the latter. But unbelievers are \u2018blind\u2019, and thus unable to see past the shameful element of Jesus\u2019 \u2018ascension\u2019 in order to grasp its full meaning. The offensive teaching to which these disciples were reacting in v. 60 encompasses all of what Jesus has said about being the one who can provide \u2018bread from heaven\u2019 that one can eat and never die. Those offended by this teaching would be doubly offended by the notion that this \u2018living bread\u2019 is to be brokered by one who must himself die dishonorably.
\nJesus then says, \u2018It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless\u2019 (v. 63). This saying becomes intelligible when read in light of the contest of brokers staged in 6:27\u201358. Throughout the discourse, Jesus has defended his ability to broker the bread of life by claiming to be \u2018from heaven\u2019 (vv. 38, 51), to be the only one who has seen the Father (v. 46), and to be sent from the living Father (v. 57). These assertions function to distinguish Jesus, the Son of Man and true representative of the God realm, from all other brokers and especially Moses. As in ch. 3 where the dualism between flesh and spirit stands out starkly, the Evangelist here constructs a dualism according to which Jesus is of the heavenly sphere and all other brokers are of the earth. So following his statement about the Son of Man ascending to heaven in 6:62, it should not come as a surprise to find a dualistic contrast between the spirit and flesh. The contrast posed in v. 63 could even be viewed as the climax to the entire Bread of Life Discourse, which is markedly dualistic. In saying \u2018the spirit gives life; the flesh is useless\u2019, Jesus alleges that only the Son of Man, the one who has descended from the spiritual realm and will return there, can mediate access to life. The flesh, or those of the realm of the flesh, are incapable of brokering life. Only Jesus possesses the legitimation of \u2018spirit\u2019, because he alone has come down from heaven; he alone has the \u2018seal\u2019 of the Father (v. 27b). Moses and all other earthly brokers cannot purport to be representatives of the spiritual realm, or heaven. They are of the flesh, and can only broker fleshly benefits, such as manna and Torah, which the ancestors \u2018ate\u2019 and died. What they broker proves \u2018useless\u2019 insofar as it is not conducive to life. \u2018Life\u2019 is not a benefit to which \u2018fleshly\u2019, or earthly, brokers can provide access. It is only available to those who have experienced spiritual birth and passed from the earthly realm to the realm of God, a consequence of loyalty to and acceptance of Jesus.
\nSignificant for our interpretation of v. 63a is whether or not we read \u2018the spirit gives life\u2019 as a reference to \u2018the Spirit\u2019, with a capital \u2018S\u2019, or as \u2018the spirit\u2019 uncapitalized. Reading it \u2018the Spirit\u2019 suggests that the personified \u2018Spirit\u2019 confers life. But such an interpretation cannot be warranted. The word \u2018spirit\u2019 is presented as the antithesis of \u2018flesh\u2019 in v. 63a. Since \u2018the flesh\u2019 surely should not be capitalized and personified, neither should the spirit. Furthermore, \u2018spirit\u2019 is coupled with \u2018life\u2019 in v. 63b, and the two seem to be interrelated. Again, since \u2018life\u2019 in v. 63b appears uncapitalized and unpersonified, neither should spirit be capitalized and personified. \u2018The spirit gives life\u2019 does not mean that \u2018the Spirit\u2019, a divine person similar to the Paraclete found in Farewell Discourses, gives life. In the Fourth Gospel \u2018life\u2019 is a gift from God to all who believe in Jesus. It means that Jesus, the one who is \u2018of spirit\u2019 as opposed to those \u2018of flesh\u2019, alone can mediate access to life.
\nThe dualistic nature of the terms spirit and flesh in v. 63 are undeniable. Yet the use of \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be (flesh) in 6:51c\u201358 to describe Jesus\u2019 body given in death, raises certain quandaries. Does \u2018flesh\u2019 in vv. 51c\u201358 have the same dualistic meaning as in v. 63? If so, then it would seem Jesus\u2019 life-giving flesh in these verses constitutes the antithesis of \u2018spirit\u2019 that gives life. Obviously that would be a fundamental contradiction. This has led some scholars to conclude that \u2018flesh\u2019 in vv. 51c\u201358, as a way of describing Jesus\u2019 body given in death, does not carry the dualistic overtones it does in v. 63 (e.g. Lindars 1972: 271; Odeberg 1974: 269; Menken 1993a: 25). The \u2018flesh\u2019 Jesus gives for the life of the world does not oppose spirit, for Jesus is the \u2018spiritual man\u2019, the Son of Man descended from the God realm, and his broken body mediates access to eternal life. As I have already argued, Jesus\u2019 \u2018flesh\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 function as ways of speaking of Jesus himself, who represents the spiritual realm. With reference to Jesus, \u2018flesh\u2019 denotes the Word taking on flesh in order to dwell among humanity (1:14), and the \u2018enfleshed\u2019 Word is no ordinary flesh! The Evangelist, then, uses \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be (flesh) in a different sense in vv. 51c\u201358, with reference to Jesus\u2019 body, than the typical dualistic sense in which it is used in v. 63 (and in 3:6). Therefore, he can say in v. 63b \u2018the flesh is useless\u2019 without implying that Jesus\u2019 flesh is useless. For his flesh is unique.
\n\u2018Flesh and blood\u2019 language, traditionally used to describe violent and shameful human death, was useful in vv. 51c\u201358 for describing Jesus\u2019 giving of his body for the life of the world. But the use of \u2018flesh\u2019 in vv. 51c\u201358 might also be intended as ironical. The \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 misconstrue what Jesus said in v. 51c about giving his \u2018flesh\u2019 for the life of the world. They think he plans to give them \u2018flesh\u2019, that is, meat. Double meanings and the misunderstandings they produce feature prominently in the Evangelist\u2019s style. Thus the juxtaposition of two different meanings of \u2018flesh\u2019 in vv. 51c\u201358 and in v. 63 should not constitute an insurmountable problem for interpreters. When Jesus speaks of his \u2018flesh\u2019, which gives life, he ironically refers to that which is spiritual, yet those in the audience whom the Father has not \u2018drawn\u2019 (v. 44, cf. vv. 37, 39), cannot see beyond the corporeal meaning of the word to grasp its spiritual intent. In speaking of his \u2018flesh\u2019 Jesus speaks of his death, which is the event by which spirit is made available to believers. It is a \u2018spiritual\u2019 event.
\nFinally, Jesus tells the disciples, \u2018The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life\u2019 (v. 63b). Jesus uses the emphatic \u2018I\u2019 in this statement. Therefore, it would seem that Jesus contrasts the words he has spoken with the words of others that apparently are not spirit and life. Within the context of the entire discourse, the words spoken by Moses, the Torah, the \u2018perishing bread\u2019 Moses had provided, are likely implied (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 297). As the manna mediated by Moses in the wilderness contrasts with the life-giving words of God in Deut. 8:3, so here the Evangelist contrasts Jesus\u2019 words with the \u2018bread\u2019 Moses provided. Jesus\u2019 words are spirit and life.
\nIt is important to understand the metaphorical quality of Jesus\u2019 statement in v. 63b. Jesus does not somehow equate spirit with his spoken words, as Porsch suggests (Porsch 1974). Nowhere else in the Gospel does the Evangelist imply that Jesus\u2019 words and spirit are coterminous, and whether or not that notion emanates in this verse is certainly debatable. Jesus has just finished contrasting the descending\/ascending Son of Man, the representative of the spiritual realm, with representatives of the fleshly realm. And in v. 63b he (or the Evangelist) intends to contrast his words with the words of others. He evokes that contrast by characterizing Jesus\u2019 words as superior, as \u2018other\u2019. Jesus\u2019 words are superior because they are from the spiritual realm, they are the \u2018words of God\u2019 (3:34). His words mediate life because those who believe in Jesus and accept him as the one he claims to be are given access to eternal life. Saying Jesus\u2019 words are \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018life\u2019 metaphorically describes Jesus\u2019 words with reference to the known nature of \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018life\u2019 in the way that saying Jesus is a door metaphorically describes Jesus with reference to the known nature of a \u2018door\u2019. What we know about the nature of \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018life\u2019, according to the dualistic perspective of John, is that it comes from God. Hence, the metaphor \u2018Jesus\u2019 words are spirit and life\u2019 means that Jesus\u2019 words are not fleshly words, like the words of the \u2018earthly\u2019 one in 3:31 or of Moses, for Jesus\u2019 very words have come from the realm of spirit and life. To the extent that the Evangelist characterizes Jesus as the bringer of revelation from God, he depicts Jesus as the bearer of \u2018spiritual\u2019 words. The association of Jesus\u2019 words with \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018life\u2019 legitimates his claims to be God\u2019s broker. His words have offended his disciples, many of whom are about to turn away from him rather than accept them. In the face of this rejection of his \u2018teaching\u2019, Jesus purports to have the authority to speak as a representative of the God realm, to speak spiritual words which mediate access to life.<\/p>\n
e. Rivers of Living Water (7:37\u201339)<\/p>\n
Following Jesus\u2019 discourse in John 6 and its results, namely, the abandonment of Jesus by many disciples and the confession of Peter as representative of the Twelve, Jesus \u2018secretly\u2019 goes to Jerusalem for the Festival of Sukkoth, or Tabernacles. The beginning verses of ch. 7 warn the reader that the opposition to Jesus by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 had heightened: \u2018the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 were looking for an opportunity to kill him\u2019 (7:1), thus explaining Jesus\u2019 surreptitious behavior. Verses 7:12\u201313 indicate that even the crowds at the festival were cowed by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9; they would not speak openly about Jesus. But despite the heated atmosphere in Jerusalem, Jesus goes to teach in the Temple midway through the Festival. Predictably, this only goads the festering hostility of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and after a couple of vituperative speeches in which Jesus accuses the audience of not keeping the Mosaic law (v. 19a), of seeking to kill him (v. 19b) and of not knowing God (v. 28b), there transpires another division among the crowd. Some try unsuccessfully to arrest Jesus (v. 30), and others come to belief (v. 31). In such a contentious setting, Jesus acts provocatively in standing up to make a public proclamation on the last day of the Festival (Neyrey 1996: 108\u2013109). But before dealing with the words of that proclamation, in which Jesus speaks of the spirit, we must set the stage with background information about the Feast of Tabernacles.
\nOddly, John is the only Gospel to mention this festival, though it was purportedly the most popular of the Jewish pilgrimage feasts (Josephus, Ant. 8.101; Knapp 1997: 112). Information about the festival is found in the Old Testament, as well as in intertestamental and rabbinic literature. It probably originated as an agricultural festival, celebrating the harvest with a marked degree of conviviality (Exod. 23:16) (Yee 1989: 71), but later developed into a formal religious occasion (Lev. 23:39\u201343). By the first century CE the festival lasted for eight days (Josephus, Ant. 3.247) on which those in attendance at the festival would live in humble tents, or \u2018tabernacles\u2019, constructed out of branches, in memory of the wilderness wanderings of their forefathers (Lev. 23:39\u201343) (see Yee 1989: 72\u201373; Pedersen 1940: 424). Besides this \u2018remembrance\u2019 element, the festival also looked forward to the day when \u2018the Lord will become king over all the earth\u2019 (Zech. 14:9). When this day came, all the nations would go to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles and prostrate themselves before Yahweh, or no rain would fall on them (Zech. 14:16\u201319). Water rituals and prayers for rain dominated the festival by the first century CE (Pedersen 1940: 425), although prayers for rain were likely a feature of the earliest agricultural festival as well (Pedersen 1940: 424; Yee 1989: 73).
\nOn each day of the Feast of Tabernacles a procession led by priests and singing Levites and accompanied by a crowd of observers would go down to the Pool of Siloam to gather water in a golden container (Moloney 1996: 67). This procession would return to the Temple through the Water Gate, which in rabbinic tradition was associated with the south gate of Ezek. 47:1\u20135, through which the waters of life would flow out from the threshold of the Temple when the kingdom of God had come. When the joyous procession reached the altar of the Temple the designated priest would pour the water into one silver bowl upon the altar, and wine into another. These were then poured out on the altar as offerings to God (m. Suk. 4.9). This water ritual seems to have had several functions. First, it was bound up with the prayers for rain that were a prominent feature of the festival. Associated with the remembrance element of the festival, it served to bring to mind the \u2018water from the rock\u2019 that God had provided through Moses to the Hebrew people during their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness (Exod. 17:1\u20137) (Grigsby 1986: 107). Additionally, the rite anticipated the \u2018river\u2019 of living water that would flow from the Temple when the kingdom of God had come (Ezek. 47:1\u201312) (Grigsby 1986: 105\u2013106; Beasley-Murray 1987: 114). Certain rabbinic and Old Testament traditions linked such an outpouring of water in the messianic age with the effusion of God\u2019s spirit (see Isa. 44:3 [a scripture read at Tabernacles]) and it is likely that the pouring out of water at the Feast of Tabernacles presaged that gift (Knapp 1997: 110). According to one rabbinic source, the Festival\u2019s \u2018Place of Drawing\u2019 was so named because it was where the people \u2018drew the holy spirit\u2019 (m. Suk. 5.5a; cf. Pes. R. 1.2; Gen. R. 70.8). Finally, it was believed that in the end time a messiah, \u2018the latter redeemer\u2019, would cause water to rise from the great well of God, the Torah, and so repeat the gift of water by Moses, \u2018the former redeemer\u2019.
\nBesides the water rite, a ceremony of light was conducted at the Feast of Tabernacles (m. Suk. 5.1), involving the lighting of four menorahs in the center of the Temple\u2019s \u2018court of the women\u2019. Singing, dancing and celebration surrounded the lights throughout each night of the festival, and the light from the menorahs purportedly reached to every courtyard in Jerusalem. This rite may have been connected with the remembrance of God\u2019s provision of a pillar of fire to the Hebrew people in the wilderness (Exod. 13:21), and the belief that this pillar would return when the kingdom of God had come (Isa. 4:5; Bar. 5:8\u20139) (Moloney 1996: 69).
\nThis background information about the water and light rituals at the Feast of Tabernacles makes clear that Jesus\u2019 proclamations at the festival, calling people to \u2018come to him\u2019 for drink and claiming to be \u2018the light of the world\u2019 (8:12), were provocative statements. In 7:37 we read that Jesus made these statements on the last day of the festival, the \u2018great day\u2019. Whether the Evangelist refers to the seventh day of the festival, when the water ritual was especially elaborate, or the eighth day, a day of rest following the culmination of the rites, is inconsequential for this study. Either way the meaning and weight of Jesus\u2019 words are the same. And it can probably be taken for granted that these proclamations of Jesus are made in the Temple, since Jesus\u2019 other teaching at the festival takes place in the Temple (see 7:14) (Bultmann 1971: 302). Jesus cries out, \u2018Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, \u201c\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (out of his belly) shall flow rivers of living water\u201d \u2019 (7:37\u201339). In a characteristically Johannine aside, the Evangelist then explains that Jesus was referring to the spirit. Jesus\u2019 call to those who \u2018thirst\u2019 could, on one level, be understood literally, especially in the context of the festival prayers for rain. But John\u2019s intended meaning is figurative (cf. ch. 4). \u2018Thirst\u2019 was used metaphorically by Old Testament and intertestamental writers to describe a longing for God and spiritual sustenance (Pss. 42:2; 63:1; 143:6; Sir. 51:24; 1 En. 48.1).
\nThe verses at John 7:37\u201338 have occasioned voluminous analysis by biblical scholars. The Greek wording of Jesus\u2019 proclamation (\u1f18\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c8\u1fb6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) is ambiguous and its meaning can be altered depending on how one chooses to punctuate it. Two options are usually presented: (1) one can place a full stop after the word \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 (let him drink), or (2) one can place the full stop after \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad (the one believing in me). If one adopts the first option, the following sentence begins with \u2018the one believing in me\u2019, which then functions as a nominative absolute, in other words, as the subject of the following scripture quotation. On the other hand, if one places the full stop after \u2018the one believing in me\u2019, the participle would then seem to be the subject of the preceding verb \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 (let him drink). Or one could view the phrase \u2018the one believing in me\u2019 as an interpretive or explanatory aside, bearing no syntactical relationship to the clause preceding it. According to this view, proposed by Blenkinsopp, the aside functions as a pesher, or interpretation, of Jesus\u2019 logion (Blenkinsopp 1959\u201360: 96), much like the interpretive aside in Jn 2:21. Thus \u2018the one believing in me\u2019 explains or interprets who gets to \u2018drink\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9), without being the actual subject of that verb.
\nThe consequences of the two main options are substantial for the interpretation of 7:37\u201339. Option 1 suggests that the believers are the subject of the scriptural quotation in v. 38 and thus the source of living water (and spirit, v. 39) to which Jesus (and the Evangelist) refers. Option 2 suggests that Jesus intends the scriptural quotation to refer to himself as the source of living water (and spirit). Blenkinsopp\u2019s alternative avoids the dichotomy (though he holds that the believers are intended as the source of spirit in v. 38 [1959\u201360: 98]) yet we will see that his view is not without its own difficulties.
\nI will now outline the arguments in favor of the main options (see also Brown 1966\u201370: I, 320\u201321; Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 153\u201354). Arguments presented in favor of option 1, which is first found in Origen and has the support of P66 as well as several patristic writers (who seem to have been influenced by Origen), are:<\/p>\n
1. Nominative absolutes are a fairly common grammatical construct in John (6:39; 8:45; 15:2; 17:2) (Moulton 1920: 424; Barrett 1978: 326).
\n2. Option 2 would require that Jesus shift from referring to himself as \u2018me\u2019 in v. 37 to referring to himself as \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (him) in v. 38.
\n3. The commentary on the scriptural quotation in v. 39 centers on the believers\u2019 receiving of the spirit rather than the Messiah\u2019s giving of it (Fee 1978: 116).
\n4. The phrase \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad (the one believing in me) is commonly found at the beginning of a sentence in John and is never elsewhere found at the end (Lindars 1972: 299).<\/p>\n
Still, of these arguments, 2, 3 and 4 are not without problems. Regarding 2, Jesus\u2019 use of the pronoun \u2018him\u2019 in v. 38 can be explained by the fact that his words are supposed to be a quote. Regarding 3, though the Evangelist\u2019s commentary in v. 38 centers on the believers rather than the Messiah, it is not even vaguely suggested in the comment that the believers will be a source of the spirit. The issue is clearly when the believers would receive the spirit, obviously from some implied source. And regarding 4, though the phrase \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad commonly occurs at the beginning of a sentence in John, never elsewhere is it the anticipated subject of a scriptural quotation (Kilpatrick 1960).
\nThe arguments in favor of Option 2, which was first advocated by Justin in the second century and boasts the support of many patristic writers, are as follows:
\n(1) When a full stop is placed after \u2018the one believing in me\u2019, parallelism is maintained in v. 37, to the effect:<\/p>\n
If anyone thirsts, let him come to me;
\nAnd let him drink who believes in me.<\/p>\n
A saying very similar to this is present in Jn 6:35: \u2018He who comes to me will never hunger; And he who believes in me will never thirst\u2019, where \u2018coming\u2019 and \u2018believing\u2019 constitute the parallelism. Though the wording differs between the two sayings, the saying at 7:37 also seems to present \u2018coming\u2019 and \u2018believing\u2019 as related actions (see Dodd 1960: 349; Hooke 1962\u201363: 372). The strongest criticism against Blenkinsopp\u2019s proposal is that it disregards this parallelism (Hooke 1962\u201363: 373; Brown 1966\u201370: I, 321). Moreover, his proposed \u2018sense\u2019 of the passage seems forced. The remaining arguments in favor of Option 2 are not grammatical, but contextual, for it is the context of the verses that must ultimately decide our interpretation (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 154).
\n(2) Nowhere else does the Evangelist depict the believer as a source of living water\/spirit to others. Believers are always the recipients of living water\/spirit\/drink in John, with Jesus consistently portrayed as the one who confers it (4:10; 6:35; 14:16; 19:34; 20:22). The reference in 19:34 proves especially pertinent, for as we have argued, it is likely intended as a fulfillment of 7:37\u201339. Some scholars adduce Jn 4:14 as evidence of the believer\u2019s becoming a source of living water\/spirit (e.g. Blenkinsopp 1959\u201360: 98), however there is no suggestion of this within the verse (Brown 1966\u201370: I, 321).
\n(3) The division among the crowd resulting from Jesus\u2019 words in 7:37\u201339 suggests that Jesus\u2019 claims were apparently messianic. \u2018This is really the prophet\u2019, some say; others, \u2018This is the Messiah\u2019. Such responses support the notion that Jesus had asserted himself to be the giver of living water\/spirit and the fulfillment of the Scripture quoted in 7:38 (Moloney 1996: 88). The crowd\u2019s reaction becomes understandable if Jesus\u2019 statement augured his fulfillment of expectations associated with the messianic age, such as the expectation that in the age to come a Moses-like prophet would provide a second gift of \u2018water\u2019 from the great well of God, or the expectation that in the messianic age abundant living water\/spirit would flow out over all the people.
\n(4) My final point corresponds to the last. John\u2019s Gospel is redolent with the theme of fulfillment\/replacement. Jesus fulfills\/replaces many of the motifs from the Old Testament and from Israelite religion. Several passages portray this contrast between the old order and the new (see Hooke 1962\u201363: 376). In ch. 2 Jesus replaces the waters for purification with abundant wine, and tacitly purports to be the new Temple. In ch. 4 he contrasts himself with the water provided by the patriarch Jacob and claims to provide water which brings eternal life. Further, he foretells of the replacement of temple worship by worship \u2018in spirit and truth\u2019. In ch. 5 the Evangelist contrasts Jesus\u2019 power to heal with the otiose waters of the Bethzatha pool. In ch. 6 Jesus proffers the crowd a new \u2018bread from heaven\u2019, which, unlike the manna (and Torah) Moses provided, brings eternal life. Skipping over ch. 7 for the moment, ch. 8 depicts Jesus as the \u2018light of the world\u2019 in contrast to the festival lights, which are temporary and futile against spiritual darkness. Jesus even usurps the role of Abraham in 8:31\u201359. Significant for the interpretation of 7:37\u201339, in ch. 9 Jesus effects healing through the medium of the waters of Siloam, giving supernatural power to the mundane waters used in the rites at Tabernacles. And throughout the predicated \u2018I am\u2019 sayings Jesus is portrayed as the fulfillment of Old Testament themes or \u2018types\u2019. As Ball writes, \u2018Jesus claims to be the Bread of which the Old Testament spoke, the Light of which Isaiah spoke, the Shepherd of whom Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke, and the Vine of which many Old Testament passages spoke\u2019 (1996: 259). In claiming to be \u2018the Way\u2019 Jesus may be taking on the Isaianic concept of \u2018the way of the Lord\u2019. Though this list is not exhaustive, it makes clear that throughout John, and especially in the earlier portion of the Gospel, the Evangelist fashions a picture of Jesus as the fulfillment and replacement of the Israelites\u2019 valued traditions and expectations. Within such a context, it is extremely likely that Jesus\u2019 words in 7:37\u201339 depict Jesus as the source of the living water\/spirit and the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations associated with the Feast of Tabernacles (see also Burge 1987: 91).
\nAll in all, the contextual arguments in favor of Option 2, and in some cases, the parallelism of vv. 37\u201338, have convinced many modern scholars to avow support for that interpretation. I concur with their judgment. In 7:37\u201338 Jesus invites believers to come to him and drink, then he quotes a scripture that foretells that rivers of living water will flow from \u2018his\u2019 belly. In light of the overall context of the passage, Jesus apparently intends the scripture to refer to himself and asserts himself as its fulfillment for all believers.
\nSeveral scriptural passages have been proposed as possible sources for the quotation in v. 38, however, no passage has been found that exactly matches the Johannine wording. The Fourth Evangelist commonly renders Scripture loosely (cf. 6:45; 7:42; 12:15; 19:36) (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 155), and seems to have done so here. Perhaps he has conflated different scriptures especially connected with Tabernacles (Beasley-Murray 1987: 116). Or, as in 6:31, he could be referring to a midrashic quotation (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 155). Either way, the scriptural passages to which v. 38 might refer are many. Certain passages from Isaiah are frequently presented as possibilities, especially Isa. 12:3 and 44:3 (cf. Isa. 55:1), the latter of which was read at the Feast of Tabernacles. Moreover, both of these passages were understood, according to rabbinic traditions, as references to an outpouring of spirit (Knapp 1997: 110). Zech. 14:8 (cf. Zech. 13:1) tells of living waters pouring out from Jerusalem \u2018on that day\u2019 and likewise was read at Tabernacles (Hooke 1962\u201363: 378) and interpreted by rabbinic authors as an allusion to spirit (Knapp 1997: 110). Most convincing as a possible passage behind Jn 7:38 is Ezek. 47. It tells of a \u2018river\u2019 of water flowing forth from the Temple and Jerusalem in the end time. Interestingly, Jerusalem was sometimes referred to as the \u2018navel\u2019 of the Earth (Ezek. 38:12; Jub. 8.19; b. Sanh. 37a) and the Temple was commonly thought to be at the center of Jerusalem. Therefore, Jesus\u2019 use of a scriptural quotation that portends \u2018rivers\u2019 of living water\/spirit flowing from \u2018his belly\u2019, and the fulfillment of that prediction in 19:34, implies that Jesus constitutes the fulfillment of Ezekiel\u2019s prophecy about the effusion of a living water to all the world, although in John, the navel or \u2018belly\u2019 of the world is Jesus rather than the Temple.
\nIt is also possible the scriptural quotation in v. 38 carries allusions to God\u2019s provision of water from the Rock at Horeb via the brokerage of Moses (Exod. 17), especially since the Rock at Horeb had, by the first century CE, acquired a relationship to the flowing waters of the messianic age. In this case, Ps. 78(77):16, rendered in the Targums: \u2018He made streams of water come from the rock and caused them to come down like rivers of flowing [i.e. \u2018living\u2019] water\u2019, or Neh. 9:15 may underlie the quotation. Grelot asserts that both the tradition about the rock in the wilderness and the expectation of waters from the Temple in the end time were integrated and esteemed elements of the Tabernacles celebration.
\nThe Old Testament references that Jn 7:38 recalls indicate the richness of Jesus\u2019 statements in vv. 37\u201338. Standing in the Temple on the \u2018great day\u2019 of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus proclaims himself to be the fulfillment of all the longings and expectations wrapped up in the prayers and rituals of the festival. By inviting all who thirst to come to him for drink, Jesus offers himself as the answer to their prayers for rain, although the water he provides is of a spiritual nature. And by quoting a Scripture that alludes to one or more of the Old Testament passages about God\u2019s provision of water, either from the rock in the wilderness, or as rivers of living water\/spirit flowing out from the Temple of the new Jerusalem, Jesus purports to provide true fulfillment for spiritual thirst, and to be the realization of the Israelites\u2019 hopes for abundant \u2018water\u2019 in the messianic age (Grigsby 1986: 108). In so doing, he diverts attention from literal to spiritual \u2018water\u2019, just as he does in ch. 4 of John. Further, as in Jn 2:19\u201322, Jesus depicts himself as the \u2018new Temple\u2019, the new source of \u2018rivers\u2019 of living water (Ezek. 47) (see Fr\u00fchwald-K\u00f6nig 1998: 175\u2013216).
\nAnother theme behind Jesus\u2019 words in 7:37\u201338 should be familiar to us from our study of chs. 3 and 6 of John. In these verses, the Evangelist portrays Jesus as superseding Moses. Moses had mediated the provision of water to the Hebrew people in the wilderness, and Jesus here offers to provide believers with \u2018living water\u2019. The similarity of this contrast to that of ch. 6, between the \u2018bread of life\u2019 that Jesus provides and the manna mediated by Moses in the desert, is striking. The Evangelist juxtaposes Jesus\u2019 offer of \u2018true\u2019 bread (ch. 6), water (ch. 7) and light (ch. 8). Bread (manna), water (from the Rock at Horeb) and light (the pillar of fire) are precisely the benefits to which Moses was believed to have provided access during the wilderness wanderings of the Hebrew people. These three \u2018gifts\u2019 of Moses were closely associated in certain Old Testament passages (Neh. 9:12, 15; Ps. 105:39\u201341). Furthermore, rabbinic tradition held that the \u2018latter redeemer\u2019, or Messiah, would repeat these gifts of Moses, the \u2018first redeemer\u2019. It is not possible to know for certain whether this tradition was known during the first century (see Martyn 1979: 108 n. 161), but if it was, it is of particular relevance to our discussion. Martyn cites the following passage that signals the expectation that the \u2018latter redeemer\u2019 will be like Moses, providing bread and water:<\/p>\n
h. Rabbi Berekiah said in the name of Rabbi Isaac: \u2018As the first redeemer was, so shall the latter Redeemer be. What is stated of the former redeemer? And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass (4:20). Similarly will it be with the latter Redeemer, as it is stated, Lowly and riding upon an ass (Zech. 9:9). As the former redeemer caused manna to descend, as it is stated, Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you (Ex. 16:4), so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend, as it is stated. May he be as a rich cornfield in the land (Ps. 72:16). As the former redeemer made a well to rise, so will the latter Redeemer bring up water, as it is stated, And a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim (Joel 3:18) (Qoh. R. 1.8).<\/p>\n
It seems that a similar tradition was known to the Evangelist when he chose to portray Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of Moses\u2019 gifts of bread, water and light in chs. 6\u20138 of John. Such a tradition would explain the precise conjunction of these images. Incidentally, 2 Bar. 29.8, roughly contemporary with John, confirms the view that a second gift of manna was expected in the new age.
\nIn 7:37\u201338 Jesus presents himself as the giver of \u2018living water\u2019 from his belly. Then in 19:34 he is struck and blood and water flow out from his side. This effusion of water from Jesus\u2019 side may build on the image of the water issuing forth from the Rock at Horeb after it had been struck by Moses, an interpretation popular among patristic authors (Glasson 1963: 52\u201354). Two rabbinic traditions about the Rock at Horeb discussed by Glasson substantially bolster this view (Glasson 1963: 54\u201355). Exod. R. interprets Ps. 78:20 to suggest that blood, then water, issued from the rock when struck by Moses. And the Palestinian Targum on Num. 20:11 says, \u2018\u2026 and Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod struck the rock twice: at the first time it dropped blood; but at the second time there came forth a multitude of water\u2019 (quoted by Glasson 1963: 54). Though these writings are later than the Gospel of John, the parallels with John are astonishing and suggest an early dating for this tradition. Furthermore, John\u2019s affinities with this tradition could shed light on the connection between 7:37\u201338 (where living water\/spirit is promised in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles), 7:39 (where the Evangelist explains that this living water\/spirit could not be given until after Jesus\u2019 glorification) and 19:34 (during Jesus\u2019 glorification, where Jesus is struck and blood and water flow from his side). As I have already said, the messianic waters flowing forth from the \u2018navel\u2019 of the world, Jerusalem, in the end time had come to be viewed as a reiteration of the water from the rock in the wilderness. Therefore, in 19:34 where blood and water flow from Jesus\u2019 belly, Jesus seems to replace the Rock at Horeb, just as he replaces Moses (Grigsby 1986: 107\u2013108). Verses 7:37\u201338 recall Moses\u2019 great water miracle in the desert in succession with a recollection of his manna miracle in ch. 6, and in both cases Jesus supplants Moses\u2019 greatest \u2018gifts\u2019.
\nVerse 39 of our passage is an explanatory aside, not uncommon in John (2:22; 12:16). As Fee argues, the stylistic features of the verse are thoroughly Johannine, so one need not attribute the comment to a later redactor (1978: 117). In v. 39 the Evangelist offers the reader a \u2018helpful hint\u2019 in an effort to guard against misunderstanding (Ashton 1991: 546). He explains that the \u2018rivers of living water\u2019 that were said to flow from \u2018his\u2019 belly in the Scripture Jesus had just quoted, referred to spirit. The living water Jesus claims to provide is spirit just as the messianic waters of the end time, which were at the core of the longings expressed in the festival rites, were interpreted as spirit (see Isa. 44:3) (Knapp 1997: 110). Yet the Evangelist then goes on to write that as yet there was no spirit, for Jesus had not been glorified (v. 39b).
\nThis comment presents yet another snag in a notoriously tricky passage. Does the Evangelist mean to suggest that the spirit of Old Testament tradition, the Spirit of Yahweh that empowered prophets among others, was not in existence? Does he mean to suggest that the spirit of which Jesus has spoken throughout his ministry did not yet exist because Jesus had not been glorified? Most likely not. How could the Evangelist say the spirit did not exist when the spirit had descended upon Jesus at the Jordan and was said to \u2018remain\u2019 on him? (Jn 1:32\u201333). Apparently the Evangelist believes the spirit was in existence. So what is meant by his words \u2018as yet there was no spirit\u2019? Since these words are spoken with reference to the believer\u2019s reception of the spirit (v. 39a), they probably refer solely to the believer\u2019s experience of the spirit. After Jesus\u2019 glorification, those who put their faith in him were to experience the spirit in an entirely new way, but not until then. As far as Jesus\u2019 audience in 7:37\u201339 is concerned, the spirit was not yet, at least not in the plenary sense they were to experience it after Jesus\u2019 glorification. In relationship to Jesus, the Son of God who bears the \u2018seal\u2019 of the Father, the spirit was very much present and active. It was \u2018abiding\u2019 with him throughout his entire ministry until, at the cross, it was released and made available to believers. But only when it was conferred to the disciples after Jesus\u2019 resurrection could the disciples experience it in the new way afforded by Jesus\u2019 brokerage. The issue at the heart of the Evangelist\u2019s comment in v. 39b is the stark contrast between the sporadic and selective activity of the Spirit of Yahweh in the Old Testament and the availability of spirit to all Jesus\u2019 disciples after his glorification (20:22). Compared with the inchoate experience of the spirit before Jesus\u2019 glorification, the believers\u2019 experience of the spirit would be an entirely \u2018new thing\u2019. This new thing \u2018was not yet\u2019 when Jesus spoke his words at the Feast of Tabernacles. Interestingly, the spirit-passage at 7:37\u201339 represents continuity with the Spirit-Paraclete passages in the Farewell Discourses that say the Paraclete could not come until Jesus had gone away (esp. 16:7) (Porsch 1974: 71).
\nAccording to our view, Jesus\u2019 offer of spiritual birth and living water is proleptic, anticipating Jesus\u2019 glorification, which from the post-Easter perspective of the Evangelist is \u2018present\u2019. In 3:5, the association of spiritual birth with the kingdom of God stresses the proleptic, soteriological nature of spiritual birth, and in the same discourse, in 3:14\u201315, attention is directed to the event of the cross and its role in making eternal life available to believers. And in 4:21\u201323, in the context of Jesus\u2019 conversation with the woman at the well where he offers \u2018living water\u2019 to her, we find the phrase \u2018the hour is coming and is now here\u2019. This time construct, when understood with reference to the Mediterranean view of time, implies a present event with forthcoming outcomes. The gift of living water\/spirit and the \u2018worship in spirit and truth\u2019 promised in 4:23 are outcomes of Jesus\u2019 coming into the world to make the patronage of God available to believers, but they will not be \u2018received\u2019 until after Jesus\u2019 glorification, as 7:39 makes clear.
\nAt 7:37\u201339 spirit is again called living water. This living water is not life itself, but the water that leads to eternal life (cf. 4:14). Just as literal water is not in itself life, but is a precondition to life, so the living water Jesus provides constitutes a precondition to eternal life. Likewise, having the spirit, or being \u2018born of spirit\u2019 does not equal eternal life, rather it allows access to the kingdom of God, or eternal life (3:5). As I have argued, 6:63 does not equate spirit with life, but expresses that only the one from the spirit realm can provide access to that realm that is eternal life. Jesus provides living water in the mode of a broker. Though the recipient of this benefit must \u2018go through the broker\u2019 by coming to Jesus and believing in him, the benefit of living water ultimately issues from God. Drinking of living water involves passing from the merely earthly realm into the God realm by being \u2018born of spirit\u2019, and thus becoming one of God\u2019s children. As we found in our discussion of ch. 3, where spiritual birth opens up the possibility of receiving eternal life, and as in ch. 4, where one reads that living water [spirit] will become \u2018a spring of water gushing up to eternal life\u2019 (4:14), and as in ch. 6 where the spirit is called the \u2018life giving one\u2019 and Jesus speaks the words of one who represents the realm of \u2018spirit and life\u2019, so here we find that spirit denotes the life-producing water to which Jesus provides access. This living water\/spirit Jesus brokers qualifies believers for entrance into the realm of God and eternal life by allowing them a new ascribed honor status as children of God.
\nIt is significant that a clear foreshadowing of Jesus\u2019 gift of spirit to believers occurs at the point in the Gospel where the lines are being starkly drawn between those who support Jesus and those who seek to kill him. Here we see the dualism of acceptance and rejection just beginning to heighten, though Jesus has not ceased to proclaim his message to the crowds (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 152). In the context of a festival where the Israelites are celebrating and recalling Moses\u2019 water miracle in the desert, and looking forward to the abundant waters to be provided by a future messiah who will repeat Moses\u2019 greatest miracles, Jesus sets himself up as the replacement of Moses and the fulfillment of all the Israelites\u2019 thirsts and longings. This leads to further division among an already divided crowd (7:12, 43\u201344). In contrast to those who pledge their allegiance to Moses and await a future reiteration of his water miracle, those who remain loyal to Jesus are promised \u2018rivers of living water\u2019 in the present age, an outpouring of spirit. The Evangelist presages that those who are remaining faithful to Jesus despite the mounting opposition of \u2018the world\u2019 will be rewarded with spiritual birth and the benefit of eternal life.<\/p>\n
f. Baptism, Water and Spirit<\/p>\n
In 1:33 we read that Jesus \u2018baptizes with the holy spirit\u2019, which seems to foreshadow a conferring of spirit to others by Jesus. But picturing how this activity of baptizing with spirit might happen proves difficult. Perhaps 7:38 could illuminate the meaning of 1:33. Essentially, Jesus proclaims himself as the fulfillment of a scriptural prophecy that \u2018rivers of living water will flow out of his belly\u2019. I have argued that the fulfillment of this prophecy is portrayed at 19:34, where \u2018water and blood\u2019 flow out of Jesus\u2019 pierced side, making spirit available to believers. Then after his resurrection, Jesus confers the spirit to the disciples for the first time (20:22). Could this progression of the \u2018pouring out of the spirit\u2019 by Jesus be the \u2018baptism with spirit\u2019 that 1:33 references? It does seem to be. \u2018Baptism\u2019 appears to be employed metaphorically in 1:33 as a way of describing Jesus\u2019 giving of living water\/spirit to believers. Jesus is pictured baptizing at one point in the narrative (3:22), although 4:2 contradicts this. Yet even if it was clear Jesus had a baptizing ministry in John, 7:39 would rule out the possibility that Jesus literally conferred the spirit through baptism. There the Evangelist clearly states that spirit was not available to the believers until after Jesus\u2019 glorification. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that \u2018born of water and spirit\u2019 (3:5) does not mean spiritual birth comes through, or in association with, literal baptism. I conclude that \u2018baptism\u2019 in 1:33 metaphorically symbolizes the effusion of living water, or spirit, which Jesus was to pour out for believers. Water and the activity of \u2018pouring out\u2019 were commonly employed metaphors for spirit (see Isa. 44:3; Gen. R. 70.8; 1QS 4.20). Therefore, in a narrative where John\u2019s baptism contrasts with Jesus\u2019 outpouring of spirit to believers, baptism (like \u2018living water\u2019 elsewhere) presented itself as an apt metaphor for Jesus\u2019 \u2018gift\u2019. Thus, the prediction in 7:38\u201339 of \u2018rivers of living water\u2019 flowing from Jesus\u2019 belly, its fulfillment in 19:34, and the conferring of spirit to the disciples in 20:22 after Jesus\u2019 resurrection, together function as the confirmation of the words of 1:33, that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the holy spirit. Rather than associating the bestowal of spirit with the occasional event of baptism, either by Jesus or believers, the Evangelist depicts the bestowal of spirit as a once-for-all gift from Jesus. In John, Jesus never grants his disciples the ability to confer spirit to others. At the cross Jesus made spirit available to believers in a way never before experienced, and after his glorification he breathes on the disciples and they receive holy spirit. Clearly the Fourth Evangelist envisioned a community of believers in which all members had equal access to spirit. Still, the disciples of Jesus are given the task of \u2018boundary maintenance\u2019, of releasing and retaining sins and thereby delineating who is in and who is out of the community (see p. 104 for an exegesis of 20:22). The implications of this sort of boundary maintenance prove far-reaching, for if a person is excluded from the community of the spirit, one is essentially cut off from the spirit as well. At least this constitutes the most obvious conclusion and probably that of those who took on the task of \u2018forgiving and retaining sins\u2019. But as we will see in our study of 1 John, where there are secessionists who seem to claim possession of the spirit, it was possible for persons to dissent against such a system.<\/p>\n
g. Why Is Spirit Not Mentioned after 7:39 until the Farewell Discourses?<\/p>\n
Before we conclude this chapter on the spirit sayings in John exclusive of the Farewell Discourses, we are compelled to ask this question: Why is spirit not mentioned in John 8\u201313? This absence presents a challenge, for it is always easier to account for why writers say what they do say than to account for their silences. Still, we wish to venture an answer to this question. Chapters 7\u20138 of John do signal a cusp in the career of Jesus. Verse 5:18 is the first allusion to the desire of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 to kill Jesus. Yet their bellicosity does not become a focal point until ch. 7, where it begins to escalate. In 7:1 we are told Jesus did not wish to go to Judea because of the plot of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 to end his life; in v. 7 Jesus informs his brothers that the world hates him; in v. 19 Jesus accuses the crowd of looking for an opportunity to kill him, a plot that receives confirmation in v. 25; in v. 30 it is said that \u2018they tried to arrest him\u2019 but failed; in v. 44 some in the crowd \u2018wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him\u2019; and in vv. 45\u201349 the chief priests and Pharisees excoriate the temple police for not taking Jesus when they had their chance. All of these verses evidence a culmination of resentment toward Jesus in Jn 7, a culmination that reaches its climax in 8:59 when, after Jesus\u2019 provocative statement, \u2018Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am\u2019 (v. 58), the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 make their first attempt to stone him.
\nChapters 7\u20138 of John signal a decided stiffening of opposition to Jesus. Concomitantly, at this stage in the Gospel, one senses a polarization of Jesus\u2019 enemies and his followers (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: II, 151\u201352). While chs. 1\u20137 of John feature scenarios in which Jesus explains his mission and wins followers, the focus in chs. 8\u201313 progressively shifts, and the rejection of Jesus, along with his slow march toward Golgotha grip the reader with foreboding and anticipation. The sayings on the spirit preceding ch. 8 deal with the new reality believers will experience as those who are born of spirit. It could be, then, that mention of the spirit trails off at ch. 8 because there the focus begins to shift from Jesus\u2019 proclamation of the new reality he makes possible to his fate at the hands of those hostile to the realm of God. By ch. 8 Jesus has already made his offer of salvation to those who will receive him as God\u2019s broker, and his offer has been rejected by the world. The rejection of the world becomes the focus in chs. 8\u201313 (though Jesus continues to draw disciples here and there [9; 10:42; 11:45]), therefore, the spirit, a key benefit Jesus will broker only to his followers, prescinds into the background. Similarly, the primary benefit Jesus brokers, eternal life, receives mention only three times in chs. 8\u201313 (10:28; 12:25, 50), and the word \u2018life\u2019, where it means eternal life, only three times (8:12; 10:10; 11:25), though these terms appear redundantly (27 times) earlier in the Gospel. I conclude that the spirit does not appear in chs. 8\u201313 because the focus in those chapters is more on the smoldering opposition to Jesus than on his offer of benefits from God. Understandably, then, when the narrative advances to focus directly on Jesus and his followers in the Farewell Discourses, the spirit comes back into view.<\/p>\n
2. Summary<\/p>\n
In the spirit sayings we have studied, the spirit predominantly designates that which is of the realm of God (4:23\u201324); spirit associates certain figures in the Gospel with God and serves a purpose of legitimation. The spirit abides on Jesus, signifying him as God\u2019s own Son (1:34) and as the bearer of the benefit that his potential clients need, namely, spirit. Jesus will be the one who confers it (20:22). In contrast to John who baptizes in water, he baptizes in spirit (1:33; 7:37\u201339; cf. 19:34). Spirit plays a role in the contrasting of Jesus as the one who has come from the spirit realm with earthly brokers like John and Moses who can only speak about \u2018earthly things\u2019 (3:31\u201334), and who have never seen God (1:18; 6:46). One such broker is Nicodemus. To him Jesus proclaims the necessity of divine means of brokerage. Spirit birth is what opens up the possibility of receiving the benefit of eternal life (3:5), and this is made possible as a benefit\/gift from God brokered through the Son, who has descended from heaven (3:11\u201316; 6:63). People cannot attain spiritual birth, and thus eternal life, on their own, for fleshly birth itself does not qualify one to enter into a patronal relationship with God (3:6\u20138; 4:23\u201324). Summarily, in John\u2019s spirit sayings outside of the Farewell Discourses: (1) spirit legitimates certain persons, especially Jesus, by associating them with the God realm; (2) spirit is a benefit that Jesus confers to those who believe in him; and (3) those who receive spirit are born anew as God\u2019s children, and are thus able to receive the full range of benefits of God\u2019s patronage.
\nThe use of brokerage as a tool of analysis in our study of the spirit passages in John outside of the Farewell Discourses has helped us to appreciate fully the competitive context of John\u2019s spirit sayings up to this point. What distinguishes Jesus in the Gospel is not primarily his words, or revelation, as Porsch\u2019s work suggests, but his unique ability to provide access to eternal life to all who receive him because he is the true representative of the spirit realm. This is a competitive claim. We have found little to suggest that Jesus\u2019 words are the source of spirit, or that spirit is encountered in those words, contrary to Porsch (1974: 200\u2013201). Rather the abiding presence of the spirit with Jesus serves to legitimate him as the only one who can proffer heavenly benefits, which include heavenly words, but also eternal life, healing and spirit itself. Burge seems to follow Porsch in his interpretation. He opines, \u2018Jesus is a revealer who has seen into and exposed the very heart of God. The experience of this revelation brings spirit and life\u2019 (Burge 1987: 110). We would agree with this statement if Burge was saying that spirit and life are benefits, ultimately from God, to those who accept Jesus as the one who makes God known. But Burge does not clearly distinguish between the spirit and Jesus. Burge goes on to blur the distinction between them, writing:<\/p>\n
The Spirit is the life of Jesus. As in John\u2019s eschatology, where the Spirit assumes the features of Christ, so here, Christ is \u2018spiritualized\u2019. This relation obscures the distinction between Jesus and the Spirit such that pneumatology almost gets lost in christology, but the message that emerges is one of expectation \u2026 Jesus\u2019 own Spirit awaits release through the cross (1987: 110).<\/p>\n
Exegesis of the spirit passages outside of the Farewell Discourses does not, however, indicate that spirit and Jesus are coterminous, or that the spirit is \u2018Jesus\u2019 own Spirit\u2019. These claims are unwarranted with reference to the spirit sayings in the Gospel proper.
\nUnderstanding Jesus as a broker competing with other brokers has been of assistance in sorting out the relationship between Jesus and the spirit in these sayings, a relationship that remains unclear in the aforementioned interpretations. The spirit is not Jesus\u2019 own spirit, but is the divine spirit, or the spirit given from God (1:32\u201333; 3:34), which rests on Jesus as a signifying presence and is the benefit that Jesus\u2019 potential clients will need in order to enter the realm of God. The spirit and Jesus are distinguishable. Furthermore, understanding the brokerage element in John helps one to appreciate how having access to spirit sets Jesus apart from earthly brokers. Since spirit birth is necessary for one to be able to receive the benefit of eternal life or entrance into the kingdom of God (3:5), it is clear why it was critical that Jesus be able to confer spirit. But Jesus also brokers the other benefits of God\u2019s patronage which are available to those who have undergone spiritual birth. Prominent among those other benefits is eternal life. This proves to be good news for those who have accepted Jesus, and, furthermore, means that all other avenues of brokerage to God are ineffectual. John\u2019s pneumatology in this portion of the Gospel thus also serves the function of legitimating the Johannine Christians against their opponents with their alternate, \u2018earthly\u2019 means of brokerage to God.<\/p>\n
Chapter 4<\/p>\n
THE PARACLETE IN JOHN<\/p>\n
1. The Meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/p>\n
a. Pre-Johannine Usage of \u2018\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2019<\/p>\n
The word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 surfaces rarely in the Greek corpus prior to the Fourth Gospel. The verbal and adjectival forms of the word prove more common, though even the adjectival forms are sparingly employed. My goal in this section is to investigate the meaning of the noun \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the Greek literature prior to its usage by the Fourth Evangelist. For this reason I will largely confine my inquiry to the references from the few centuries prior to John\u2019s composition. I will not consider the use of the term by early Christian writers because of the influence that John\u2019s usage of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 may have had on them. I am concerned with what the word could have meant to the Fourth Evangelist when he alighted upon it and embraced it to convey his unique understanding of the spirit in the Farewell Discourses.
\nAn occurrence of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Job 16:2 (LXX) constitutes the only biblical example of pre-Johannine usage of the word. There \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 is used in rendering the Hebrew word \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05d9. The NRSV translates the term \u2018comforters\u2019. It appears in a passage where Job addresses his \u2018friends\u2019, who are supposed to be supporting and helping him in his time of need and are failing miserably at the task. Here the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 has a non-forensic connotation of one who comforts and helps another in a general sense.
\nThe earliest known usage of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 turns up in Demosthenes, an Athenian orator from the fourth century BCE (Demosthenes 1971: 247). In a speech before a jury of Athenian citizens, Demosthenes encourages the jurors not to be swayed by the \u2018party spirit\u2019 of \u2018the people who were accosting and annoying\u2019 them earlier at the jury selection proceedings (\u2018the casting of lots\u2019) in hopes of using \u2018private entreaty and personal influence\u2019 to pressure them into deciding the case in the defendant\u2019s favor. He appeals to their sense of justice, reminding them:<\/p>\n
\u2026 justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil-doers.<\/p>\n
The word \u2018\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u2019 here denotes individuals mediating on behalf of the defendant, Aeschines, attempting to win him leniency with the jury. Though the context of the passage is forensic, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 who strive to use personal influence on behalf of Aeschines, do not play a formal forensic role. Their influence, that of \u2018private entreaty\u2019, lies outside of the courtroom. It is useful to note that when Demosthenes does talk of someone as an \u2018advocate\u2019, a formal forensic role, he uses the words \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. According to Demosthenes, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 in our passage seek to occlude the course of justice by persuading the jurors to decide the case before the trial even begins. Demosthenes avers that the \u2018party spirit\u2019 of these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 is antithetical to justice and truth. These individuals appear to function as brokers for the defendant, seeking to win Aeschines, their client, the benefit of clemency from the jury. As a parallel scenario, consider Pliny\u2019s remarks when he is recounting the difficulties of a particular case: \u2018You will easily conceive the fatigue we underwent in speaking and debating so long and so often, and in examining, assisting, and confuting such a number of witnesses; not to mention the difficulties and annoyance of withstanding the private solicitations, and public opposition of the defendants\u2019 friends\u2019 (Epistles 3.9).
\nIf we are to assert that Demosthenes\u2019 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 function as brokers, we must address the argument of Paul Millett (1989), who posits that in democratic Athens (c. 462\u2013322 BCE) patronage was \u2018a minor social phenomenon, with minimal political and economic implications\u2019 (1989: 36). While his argument that poor citizens were less reliant on patrons for support in democratic Athens than elsewhere may be valid, he does not succeed in demonstrating that patronage was \u2018avoided\u2019 in classical Athens in general. His definition of \u2018personal patronage\u2019 seems to be limited to the financial dependence of the poor upon the wealthy. Yet studies of patron-client relations show that the benefits of patronage range wider than mere financial survival. Millett\u2019s own study provides several examples of people who seek benefits from those who have access to the benefits they are seeking. Such a seeker might be called a \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03be (a flatterer) or a \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (a friend). However, Millett does not view the presence of \u2018flattery\u2019 and \u2018friendship\u2019 as evidence of widespread patronage. But the line between friendship and patronage is usually blurred. Even reciprocal exchanges between friends of completely equal social status often evolve into unequal \u2018friendships\u2019 (or patron-client relationships) where one party is seen to be indebted, and thus inferior, to the other. Finally, Millett does not account for the plight of non-citizens in Athens, who surely would have benefited from patronage to a marked degree and whose stories would not be represented in our sources.
\nAnother use of the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 appears about one hundred years after Demosthenes. It occurs in a saying of Bion Borysthenes (third century BCE), recorded by Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 4.50.3\u20135. Bion is recorded as telling \u2018an importunate talker who wanted his help\u2019: \u2018I will satisfy your demand if you will only get \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 and stay away yourself.\u2019 In other words, Bion wanted this presumably irritating supplicant to send intercessors or mediators to come retrieve his assistance rather than the supplicant himself. It appears these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 would be acting as brokers on behalf of Bion\u2019s client, helping him to attain access to the benefits of the patron, Bion.
\nA reference from Heraclitus, Allegories of Homer 59.9, again characterizes a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 as a broker. In a story in which Hermes, the personification of eloquence, accompanies Priam on a visit to Achilles in which Priam must dispel the anger of Achilles, Heraclitus writes: \u2018\u2026 so strongly prevailed the logos, interpreter of the passions, which Homer sent to Priam as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of his entreaty \u2026\u2019 In this story, the logos that is sent to Priam as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 plainly serves as a help to Priam. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 functions to facilitate the relationship between Priam and Achilles, and the meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 again has no forensic flavor. The help of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, logos, enables Priam to attain what he needs from Achilles. The logos brokers the deal as \u2018\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of his entreaty\u2019. Significant in this passage is the association between the logos, a divine mediator, and the term \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The Fourth Evangelist fashions this same kind of association.
\nDionysius Halicarnassus (first century BCE) provides a tragic account in his Roman Antiquities of a litigation to decide the fate of a girl who had become the obsession of the magistrate, Appius Claudius. Appius, desperate to gratify his pernicious desire for the girl, calls on his client Marcus Claudius to do him a favor. In collusion with Appius, Marcus Claudius claims the girl was born to one of his slave women while she was in the service of his late father. Since he is now the owner and master of the slave woman, he demands custody of the girl, whom he asserts should also be under his control. He does so in order to apprehend the girl for his patron, Appius. The girl\u2019s family and friends, indeed many of the citizens of Rome who can see through Marcus Claudius\u2019s insidious story, demand justice for the girl. Following a speech of the magistrate, Appius, in which he argues in favor of Claudius,<\/p>\n
all who were unprejudiced and ready to be \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 for those who plead the cause of justice held up their hands to heaven and raised an outcry of mingled lamentation and resentment, while the flatterers of the oligarchy uttered their rallying cry that was calculated to inspire the men in power with confidence (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 11.37.1).<\/p>\n
In this passage, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 is used to denote people standing in support of another, in this case, the girl. They express their outrage at Claudius\u2019s demand for her, and Appius\u2019s support of Claudius. Furthermore, they are \u2018ready to be \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 for those who plead the cause of justice\u2019, indicating they strive to use their collective voice to influence the ruling of the magistrate. These \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, the crowd, include the girl\u2019s family and \u2018friends\u2019, who voice their anger and grief on behalf of the victim. Here the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 does not have a forensic meaning, though it is used in a forensic context. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 are identified as a collectivity, a crowd, precluding the characterization of these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 as formal court officers. Neither does the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 have a blatantly patronal connotation, although the crowd is contrasted in the passage with the clients of Appius, who are obligated to applaud his decision and voice their approbation. The crowd could function as a broker for the girl in the sense that they attempt to use their \u2018pull\u2019, in this case public pressure, to sway the decision of the magistrate on her behalf. It could be significant that the girl\u2019s \u2018friends\u2019 are mentioned, since \u2018friend\u2019 often bears a patronal connotation. However, brokers usually represent some of the interests of both parties between whom they mediate, which is not the case here. In this passage the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 are said to endorse the side of justice, rather than the side of injustice as in the speech by Demosthenes. Incidentally, the story has a disastrous ending. Appius predictably grants Claudius permission to take the girl. So her father pleads to have one last embrace of his daughter while she is still a free woman, and to do so in private. When this request is granted, he steals her away to a nearby butcher shop and plunges a knife into her heart, crying, \u2018I send you forth free and virtuous, my child, to your ancestors beneath the earth\u2019 (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 11.37).
\nThe remaining uses of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 all appear in Philo. Significantly, the word occurs in no less than ten passages from Philo. Moreover, in many of those passages, the brokerage connotations are explicit. This proves especially important considering the oft-noted affinities between Philo and the Fourth Evangelist, who were contemporaries of one another. The usage by both authors of some of the same symbols, such as light, water and shepherding forms one of the most striking similarities between Philo and the Fourth Evangelist (see Dodd 1960: 54\u201373).
\nIn his De Opificio Mundi Philo writes, \u2018Now God, with no \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 to help Him (who was there beside Him?) determined that it was meet to confer rich and unrestricted benefits upon that nature [of the universe] which apart from Divine bounty could obtain of itself no good thing\u2019 (Philo, Op. Mund. 23). The meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 in this passage recalls the meaning of the passive participle form of the word, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which means \u2018having been called alongside of\u2019. God does not need to call someone alongside of him for help in creation. The thoroughly non-forensic meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 here denotes a helper or supporter.
\nIn another passage from De Opificio Mundi Philo uses the noun \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 more specifically. Here \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is directly linked with persuasion. Philo explains, in language characteristic of his highly patriarchal culture, how Pleasure has control over women, who are governed by the senses, rather than over men, who are governed by Reason. Consequently, it is Eve who becomes the prey of Pleasure and who, subsequently, \u2018cheats with her quackeries the sovereign mind\u2019 of Adam. Philo elucidates how this is accomplished, writing,<\/p>\n
\u2026 for when each sense has been subjugated to [Pleasure\u2019s] sorceries, delighting in what she proffers, the sense of sight in variegated colours and shapes, that of hearing in harmonious sounds, that of taste in delicate savours, and that of scent in the fragrance of perfumes which it inhales, then all of them receive the gifts and offer them like handmaids to the Reason as to a master, bringing with them Persuasion to plead that it reject nothing whatever [\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u1f7c \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd]. Reason is forthwith ensnared and becomes a subject instead of a ruler (Philo, Op. Mund. 165).<\/p>\n
Here the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Persuasion, acts not only as an assistant of the senses but as an influential force between the seductive senses and the prey, Reason. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 functions to \u2018persuade\u2019 Reason to give the senses what they want. In this sense Persuasion, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, serves as a broker. However, as in the Dionysius Halicarnassus passage, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 does not represent the interests of both parties, since the subjugating of Reason by the senses through the assistance of the Persuasion cannot be viewed as serving the interests of Reason. This is a non-forensic passage in which a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 performs the tasks of a rhetorician, and in a limited sense, those of a broker.
\nThe connotation of brokerage is overt in our next example of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Philo. Philo tells the story of Joseph\u2019s fortuitous meeting with his brothers in Egypt in his text De Josepho. In this familiar story, instead of disclosing his identity to his brothers immediately, Joseph strings them along for some time in order, according to Philo, to test their loyalty to their youngest brother Benjamin. Finally, however, when the brothers\u2019 affections for Benjamin prove to be fervent, the time comes for Joseph to reveal who he is. Astonished and speechless at the discovery of Joseph\u2019s identity, the brothers fall to the ground, presumably in fear. But Joseph consoles them, saying, \u2018Be not downcast \u2026 I forgive and forget all that you did to me. Do not ask for any other \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. Of my own free, unbidden judgment I have voluntarily come to make my peace with you\u2019 (Philo, Jos. 239\u201340). The brothers do not need a mediator between themselves and Joseph, for he willingly absolves them and, in so doing, extirpates the gulf between them. Joseph\u2019s assumption that the brothers will feel they need a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is indicative of a cultural understanding that estranged parties must have a broker to mediate between them. Interestingly, one of the chief functions of a wasta, or broker, in contemporary Middle Eastern society is providing mediation between the families of victims and perpetrators of accidents or crimes, and this outside of legal proceedings (Cunningham and Sarayrah 1993: 8\u20139). Brokers generally represent the interests of both parties, facilitating an exchange of resources to the benefit of both sides. In this passage, Joseph freely gives to the brothers the resources they need, forgiveness and peace. It was not necessary for another individual to broker the deal. Here the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 has an unambiguous brokerage connotation. The meaning and context is non-forensic.
\nThe next passage is of great consequence in relation to the Gospel of John. Philo describes the high priest as needing \u2018the Father\u2019s Son\u2019 as a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Now the notion of sonship was used in speaking of the Logos, for the Logos is that which issues forth from God in the way a son issues from his father (Dodd 1960: 67\u201368). And in Philonic thought, the Logos functions as the mediator of access to God. As Dodd explains:<\/p>\n
[The Logos] is the agent of God\u2019s gifts \u2026 to the world \u2026 In all respects the Logos is the medium of intercourse between God and this world. As some of the later Old Testament writers sought to avoid saying that the transcendant God had direct dealing with men, and spoke of His angel or His name, so Philo calls the Logos by such biblical terms as \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) and \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. It is this that mediates between God and our world (1960: 68).<\/p>\n
In our passage Philo insinuates that the Logos, the Father\u2019s Son who brokers access to God, is a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The full passage reads:<\/p>\n
For he [the high priest] who has been consecrated to the Father of the world must needs have \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 (as a Paraclete) that Father\u2019s Son with all His fullness of excellence to plead his cause [\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2], that sins may be remembered no more and good gifts showered in rich abundance (Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.134).<\/p>\n
In more than one way this non-forensic passage hints at brokerage. Here the Logos, \u2018the Father\u2019s Son\u2019, is depicted as critical to the exchange of resources between the Father [God] and the high priest. The brokerage of the Logos proves essential to the acquisition of the good gifts and to the forgiveness of sins. The Father and humanity appear to be disconnected and estranged; they are of disparate spheres that must be mediated. Brokerage best characterizes the role of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Logos, in the exchange of resources between these spheres. And it should be noted that the Logos in this passage does not merely work as a messenger for God, bringing God\u2019s word to humanity; rather the Logos actively represents the interests of the high priest. Finally, in relation to John, it is fascinating to note the characterization of the Logos as son of God and broker of God in Philo.
\nAnother instance of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 appears in Philo\u2019s De Specialibus Legibus, where Philo conveys the lawgiver\u2019s directions for a person who has intentionally deceived another or committed robbery, lied under oath by claiming innocence and then been let off by his accusers, but who later feels guilty for his sin and seeks to rectify his actions. Philo outlines various prescriptions including the following:<\/p>\n
And when he [the wrongdoer] has thus propitiated the injured person he must follow it up, says the lawgiver, by proceeding to the temple to ask for remission of his sins, taking with him as his irreproachable \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd the soul-felt conviction [\u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd] which has saved him from a fatal disaster, allayed a deadly disease, and brought him round to complete health (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.237).<\/p>\n
Here the \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd of the sinner serves as a mediator between himself and God, procuring him salvation from further disaster because of his sin. His \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd is his irreproachable \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, a broker allowing him to come before God and offer him a sacrifice in exchange for the resource he needs, which is the remission of his sins. The sinner is not brought before God in a trial context. Rather he comes to seek forgiveness from God because of his own conviction, which spares him facing judgment in the courtroom of heaven. Though the context of the passage is a legal discussion about the consequences of wrongful action, the lawgiver recommends that this particular scenario be dealt with out of the courtroom. The offender must prove his repentance by propitiating the injured person and then by going to God and offering propitiation. Both means of reparation are social and not forensic. They indicate the avoidance of legal proceedings, not the use of them.
\nIn De Praemiis et Poenis, Philo uses \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 as a mediator between God and the Israelites. In this case Philo speaks of three \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 who mediate on behalf of the dispersed children of God as they return to the land of Palestine. \u2018Three \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 they have\u2019, he says, \u2018to plead for their reconciliation with the Father.\u2019 The first of these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 is the kindness of God, the second the holiness of their race, and third is \u2018the reformation working in those who are being brought to make a covenant of peace\u2019 (Philo, Praem. Poen. 166). In this passage the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 function to bring Israel back to right relationship with God. The sense of the passage is social, not forensic.
\nThe word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 occurs five more times in Philo, all within his text entitled In Flaccum. Space does not allow me to delineate the complex story of Flaccus so as to provide a full context for the relevant passages. However, I can offer the information necessary for a general understanding of the passages. Flaccus became prefect of Alexandria during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Upon Tiberius\u2019s death, and during the fifth year of his prefectship, Gaius Caesar (\u2018Caligula\u2019) took over as Emperor. Flaccus feared Gaius and sought assistance through his \u2018friendship\u2019 with Macro, who was \u2018all-powerful with Gaius\u2019, since it was largely due to Macro\u2019s praises of Gaius that Tiberius had spared Gaius\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
Deceived by these [Macro\u2019s] representations Tiberius unwittingly left behind him an implacable enemy [Gaius] to himself, his grandson, his family, Macro the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 and all mankind (Philo, Flacc. 13).<\/p>\n
Shortly after becoming Emperor, Gaius\u2019s loyalties for Macro soured and he had his entire household killed, an action not uncharacteristic of the increasingly obdurate ruler. Flaccus also became a target of Gaius\u2019s prolific hatred. Therefore, after learning of Macro\u2019s death, Flaccus became more and more debilitated by his terror, to the point of irrationality. It was in this state that his \u2018counselors\u2019 decided to use his power and instability to carry out an abhorrent plot against the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 of Alexandria. They told Flaccus:<\/p>\n
Lost are your prospects from the boy Tiberius Nero, lost too the hope that you had next to him in your comrade Macro, and your expectations from the Emperor are anything but favorable. We must find you a really powerful \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd to propitiate Gaius [the Emperor]. Such a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is the city of the Alexandrians which has been honoured from the first by all the Augustan house and especially by our present master; and intercede [\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] it will if it receives from you some boon, and you can give it no greater benefaction than by surrendering and sacrificing the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (Philo, Flacc. 22\u201323).<\/p>\n
So to win the support of the leaders of Alexandria before Gaius (Box 1939: xxxix), Flaccus acquiesced in their proposal and proceeded to launch a campaign against the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in which many were viciously murdered. But Flaccus came to be punished for his crimes. He was stripped of all possessions and honor and was exiled, paraded out of Rome in disgrace.<\/p>\n
For [Flaccus] was to be exiled to the most miserable of the Aegean islands, called Gyara, had he not found a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 in Lepidus who enabled him to exchange Gyara for Andros, the island which lies nearest to it (Philo, Flacc. 151\u201352).<\/p>\n
Gaius\u2019s enmity for Flaccus continued to boil, however, even despite his absence:<\/p>\n
[Gaius] hated Flaccus especially, so much so that in his dislike of his name he looked askance at all who shared it with him. He was often seized with regret that he had condemned him to exile instead of death and censured his \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd Lepidus, in spite of the respect which he had for him (Philo, Flacc. 180\u201381).<\/p>\n
Gaius devised a plan by which he could sate his lust for revenge against Flaccus. He declared that banishment of criminals was too light a sentence for some, for it was no more a punishment than \u2018living abroad\u2019. So he made a list of the most notable criminals in exile, and ordered that they be found and put to death. Flaccus\u2019s name topped the list, and he was indeed hunted down and murdered in a most brutal way.
\nThe passages in In Flaccum prove highly significant for an understanding of the meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Philo. In In Flaccum Philo calls different individuals, as well as the city of Alexandria, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, and we believe it should be clear, in reading these passages, that these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 function as brokers. They win access to certain benefits from a patron on behalf of their client. On certain occasions their persuasive ability was powerful enough even to shunt the actions and instincts of the Caesars. These \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 are not court officials who represent the interests of a defendant in a forensic setting. Rather they have connections to both the patron and the client and use their connections and influence to get the client what he needs from the patron.<\/p>\n
b. The Meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/p>\n
In the various occurrences of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 prior to the Gospel of John the term usually carries a connotation of \u2018mediator\u2019 or \u2018broker\u2019, with the glaring exceptions being the passages in Job and Philo\u2019s De Opificio Mundi, sec. 23, where the term bears the meaning of \u2018helper\u2019 or assistant. In the passages in Dionysius Halicarnassus and Philo\u2019s De Opificio Mundi 165, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 do function in a limited sense as mediators, but their role does not match up with the model of brokerage in that they seem to serve the interests of only one party. Still, the majority of the texts we have studied reveal that the function of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is essentially mediatorial. In several of the texts, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 stands in the gap between two parties, where one party possesses some sort of benefit to which the other party needs access. And in most of the passages, the element of inequality between the two parties stands out. Furthermore, in these texts it is the function of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to bridge the divide between the more and less powerful, facilitating access to the benefits required by the less powerful party, while not disrupting the balance of the relationship between the two parties. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 bridges the divide between them while still maintaining separateness. The qualities of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 in those texts where the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 represent the interests of both parties, reflect those of a broker. In the majority of our texts, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 seeks to provide access to different kinds of benefits, but the issue of mediating access to something is the common thread running through all the texts studied, with the exception of Job and Philo, De Opificio Mundi 23. Therefore, there is relative continuity in the meanings of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the Greek usages of the term antedating John.
\nOften \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 persuade potential patrons to make certain resources available to their clients. Yet the persuading done by these \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 has a non-forensic sense. The task of persuading is encompassed within their role as broker, since the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 must persuade the more powerful party to make certain benefits available to the \u2018deprived\u2019 party. This sort of persuasion constitutes a crucial part of what brokers do. Moreover, as our \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 texts have demonstrated, a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 can represent the side of either truth or falsehood, and can use either truth or falsehood in efforts to persuade a patron to make certain benefits available to his or her client. Perhaps this is why the Evangelist deemed it necessary to align bluntly the Spirit-Paraclete with the side of truth, calling it the \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019. In so doing he distinguishes the Spirit-Paraclete from certain other \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, who supposedly represent falsehood.
\nThe ancient authors we have read do not seem to give \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 a forensic meaning. Even where the context of the narrative is forensic, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 does not play a formal forensic role. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 are not portrayed as advocates in the court but as persons striving to use their connections and \u2018influence\u2019 to sway those involved in the formal court proceedings. Even though it was not uncommon for patrons to represent clients in court, such activity is not depicted in these passages. In Demosthenes, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 denotes powerful individuals among the crowd striving to persuade the jurors to decide in favor of their client before the trial has even commenced. In the passage from Dionysius Halicarnassus, the crowd serves as supporters for the victimized girl in trying to exploit public pressure to persuade Appius Claudius to halt his malicious plot.
\nI submit that in most of the texts we have studied the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 would be best translated \u2018mediator\u2019 or \u2018broker\u2019. A final decision on whether or not this translation is appropriate in John\u2019s Farewell Discourses must be deferred until our exegesis of the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth passages is complete. But the usage of the word antedating John certainly does not predispose one to translate the word with a legal term like \u2018advocate\u2019. Considering that there is actually no evidence of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 being used as a formal forensic term prior to the Gospel of John, it is amazing how long New Testament scholarship has taken for granted that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 has a juridical sense. Though many of these scholars concede this meaning is not evident in each occurrence of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in John, they generally assume the Evangelist (or, less likely, Jesus) took up a primarily forensic term and used it in a broader sense (e.g. Behm 1964\u201376: IV, 803\u2013804; Burge 1987: 7, 30; Wijngaards 1988: 55, 61). Because most scholars assume the Greek term \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 had legal overtones, and because they also recognize that most of the Johannine usages of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 do not bear a forensic meaning, many have been forced to conclude that the title and tasks of John\u2019s Paraclete are not analogous.
\nThis has resulted in a tendency toward other, non-linguistic, means of analyzing the Johannine Paraclete. The focus of such endeavors has been on the \u2018concept\u2019 of the Paraclete, as delineated by John, and its religious-historical origins. For example, Bultmann, developing the theory of Bauer, found the Paraclete to be based on the Mandaean \u2018helper\u2019, who descended from the \u2018place of light\u2019 to provide enlightened persons with spiritual guidance and assistance. Bultmann qualified Bauer\u2019s theory by suggesting that the Paraclete parallels Yawar, the most eminent of the Mandaean helpers, of which there are many (Bultmann 1971: 570\u201372).
\nBornkamm, an opponent of Bultmann\u2019s theory, believes the Paraclete to be the glorified Jesus in the role of the Old Testament fulfiller or perfecter, who fills the void left by the departure of a significant figure (Bornkamm 1967: 71). Examples of such successors\/fulfillers would be Joshua, who succeeded Moses, and Elisha, the successor of Elijah. Significant for the study of John is the centrality of spirit in these forerunner-fulfiller relationships. Both Joshua and Elisha receive spirit from their forerunners (Deut. 34:9; 2 Kgs 2:9\u201315). Bornkamm asserted that the relationship between John \u2018the Baptist\u2019 and Jesus, as well as that between Jesus and the Paraclete was based on the Old Testament typology of the forerunner and fulfiller.
\nMowinckel (1933) locates the origins of the Paraclete concept in the Israelite concept of divine intercessors or mediators. He notes that in later Israelite tradition such a figure was associated with the spirit (T. Jud. 20:1\u20132; Wis. 1:7\u20139) (Mowinckel 1933:104\u2013109). In drawing on the divine intercessor concept for his depiction of the Spirit-Paraclete, the Fourth Evangelist ascribed to the spirit both revelatory and forensic tasks (Mowinckel 1933: 124\u201330).
\nAccording to M\u00fcller (1974), Israelite \u2018farewell discourses\u2019, in which prominent Israelite leaders would settle the affairs of their offspring before their deaths, provided a paradigm for the First Farewell Discourse in John. In Israelite \u2018farewells\u2019, which M\u00fcller located mainly in intertestamental literature, the departing party often leaves behind a spirit-filled representative to teach, exhort and comfort those remaining. M\u00fcller believes the Paraclete constitutes such a figure (1974: 52\u201365, 75).
\nOther religious-historical perspectives on the Paraclete include that of Betz, who asserts that the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth is the archangel Michael, so prominent in Qumran literature (1963:154). The Qumran documents feature a struggle between light and darkness (1QS 3:18\u201319), with all humanity falling on either side. Those of the light follow the Spirit of Truth, while the Spirit of Falsehood governs those of darkness. In the War Scroll, the archangel Michael leads the forces of light while Belial steers the forces of darkness (1QM 13.9\u201312; 17.6\u20138), suggesting to Betz the identification of Michael with the Spirit of Truth in John (Betz 1963: 113\u201314, 147\u201360). According to Betz, the Fourth Evangelist took up this Spirit of Truth\/Michael association and applied it to Jesus, the ultimate mediator between God and God\u2019s children. After Jesus\u2019 glorification, the Spirit-Paraclete replaces him as the believer\u2019s advocate in the battle between truth and falsehood.
\nAgainst this view, Johnston contends the Evangelist knew certain people were connecting the angel Michael with the Spirit of God and, further, that they were allowing Michael to usurp the supremacy of Jesus; therefore the Evangelist decidedly combats this notion by closely aligning the spirit with Jesus (Johnston 1970: 119\u201322). Johnston understands the spirit to be an empowering force for believers, who in turn function as \u2018paracletes\u2019 (Johnston 1970: 127\u201348, esp. 128; see Chapter 2).
\nAlternatively, some scholars have opted to understand the Johannine Paraclete with reference to its functions. Boring (1978\u201379), for instance, notes that the tasks of the Paraclete are all speech-oriented. He therefore concludes that the Spirit-Paraclete has been cast in the role of a prophet who passes along the words of Jesus to believers (Boring 1978\u201379). More specifically, Boring believes the Spirit-Paraclete is conceptualized as the empowering force behind prophets active in the Johannine community. Along similar lines, Barrett examines the Paraclete in terms of the cognate words, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (though these words do not appear in John), and decides that the Paraclete is the \u2018Spirit of Christian paraclesis\u2019, or Christian preaching, who declares to the church \u2018the things of Jesus\u2019 (Barrett 1950: 12\u201315, esp. 14).
\nPorsch stresses the continuity between the Gospel\u2019s portrayal of spirit as revelation and the characterization of the Paraclete. As discussed earlier, the Paraclete\u2019s functions of teaching and reminding are central for Porsch (1974: 257\u201358, 299\u2013300). He understands \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to be a forensic title, and believes that, in the Farewell Discourses, the spirit assumes the role of Paraclete for the time following Jesus\u2019 departure. The Spirit-Paraclete both witnesses inwardly to believers on behalf of Jesus, and serves as support for the disciples. According to Porsch, the Spirit-Paraclete\u2019s forensic title and function are integrally related to his teaching and reminding, or \u2018revelatory\u2019, functions, for when the Paraclete witnesses for Jesus he is providing Jesus\u2019 revelation to his followers (Porsch 1974: 322\u201324).
\nAccording to Raymond Brown, the Paraclete is an expression of the Fourth Gospel\u2019s \u2018realized\u2019 eschatology, since the Paraclete functions as the presence of Jesus with believers after his return to the Father (Brown 1966\u201367: 126\u201332). Brown believes the figure of the Paraclete addresses the problems of the Beloved Disciple\u2019s death and the delayed parousia (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 1142\u201343). In lieu of these challenges to the faith of the community, the Fourth Evangelist compelled his followers to see the return of Jesus as a present reality through the person of the Paraclete. Like Brown, Burge finds the \u2018christological\u2019 paradigm of the Paraclete to be central. In his view, the person of Jesus dictates both the character and activity of the Paraclete to the point that an encounter with the Spirit-Paraclete becomes an encounter with the risen Christ (Burge 1987: 41; see Chapter 2).
\nIn a recent study on the Paraclete, Franck notes how the majority of Paraclete studies single out one specific background from the history of religions against which to understand the Paraclete, as is evidenced above. Franck cites this as a major error of these studies (1985: 10). He takes an integrative approach in seeking to explain John\u2019s Paraclete, an approach I will describe in more detail. Franck sees a hiatus between the Paraclete\u2019s functions and the title \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which he understands to have forensic affiliations though he believes interpreters have overstressed that it is a technical forensic term. However, he believes the trial motif running throughout the Gospel establishes coherence with the forensic title. His approach in interpreting the Paraclete integrates this forensic dimension with a didactic\/revelatory dimension and a dimension coming out of the Israelite farewell-discourse tradition (Franck 1985:19\u201321). And like Barrett he adduces the meaning of the words \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 to delineate the meaning of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in John, concluding that the Paraclete integrates the functions of comforting, teaching\/preaching, and prophecy (Franck 1985: 19\u201329, 36).
\nWhat is of most interest about Franck\u2019s study is his insistence that these functions derive from the Paraclete\u2019s role as mediator to Jesus (see Franck 1985: esp. 42, 48, 67\u201368, 83, 138). Still, when he addresses the question of where this characterization of the Paraclete as mediator came from, he finds his explanation in one specific background, in the synagogal figure of the Methurgeman (Franck 1985: 132), seemingly committing the same error he found in other studies. While he concedes that it cannot be proven that this figure was the actual historical background for John\u2019s Paraclete, he does hold that the Methurgeman represents the synagogal way of interpreting Scripture and the synagogal mode of mediation, and that this constitutes the actual historical background of John (Franck 1985:133). Finally, he asserts that the functions of the Paraclete are experienced through certain disciples who perform those functions, and that the Beloved Disciple represents and embodies the Paraclete to the Johannine community (Franck 1985: 95).
\nLastly we mention Malina and Rohrbaugh. Though theirs is not a study of Johannine pneumatology, and though the interpretations of the Paraclete in their commentary are by no means elaborated on, their work deserves mention. These authors note the importance of brokerage both to the characterization of Jesus (e.g. see Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 115\u201321), as well as to that of the Paraclete. They view the Spirit-Paraclete as continuing Jesus\u2019 role as broker for the Johannine community, linking them to Jesus as Jesus links them to God (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 241). Since they opt not to expound on this relationship in their commentary, there is ample space for a study such as ours that does.
\nIt is apparent that John\u2019s Paraclete has prompted multifarious interpretations and little scholarly consensus. This study will differ from many of the studies mentioned, in that the focus will not be on the specific origin of the Paraclete figure or concept, but on its function for the author and his audience, and on the meaning of the Paraclete in their socio-cultural context. Scholars who have argued that the Johannine Paraclete originated with a specific figure or specific figures in the history of religions, such as the Mandaean helper(s) or the angel Michael, have not been widely convincing. This study will show how the Paraclete functions as a broker, and how the characterization of the Paraclete as a broker can account for the various tasks attributed to him, without necessitating a dichotomy of functions, with revelatory tasks on one hand and forensic tasks on another. This study challenges the view that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is a forensic title, a view that has lead to an assumption of discontinuity in the title and tasks of the Paraclete. Still I take the title seriously and do not resort to explaining the noun \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 by using verbal or adjectival forms of the word. Furthermore, the use of the brokerage model will prove to be helpful in explaining the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete more clearly than past studies have done.<\/p>\n
2. Exegesis of the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth Passages in the Johannine Farewell Discourses<\/p>\n
a. The First Farewell Discourse<\/p>\n
Scholars generally agree that the \u2018Farewell Discourses\u2019 of John, which arguably run from 13:31 to 17:26, belong to a later stage of the Gospel\u2019s composition. Less agreement prevails, however, with regard to the structure and composition of the various sections constituting the Farewell Discourses. The curious \u2018seam\u2019 at 14:31 compels most scholars to somehow distinguish the composition of 13:31\u201314:31 from that of chs. 15\u201317, especially since Jn 18 would follow naturally upon 14:31. I agree with these general conclusions. But theories about the structure and composition of the discourses will not receive extensive attention in this study. My goal is to exegete the discourses containing spirit sayings, while being attuned to ways in which the various discourses coincide or contrast with one another. I will now examine issues of structure and composition as it becomes necessary in the course of this exegesis.
\nThe words \u2018Do not let your hearts be troubled\u2019 in 14:1 and 14:27 constitute an \u2018inclusio\u2019 bracketing the first Farewell Discourse, with vv. 13:31\u201338 forming an introduction and vv. 14:28\u201331 a summary. The theme of Jesus\u2019 departure and return dominates the entire Farewell Discourses, and that theme is articulated most forcefully in 14:1\u201328a. Jesus\u2019 impending physical absence drives the discourse (Segovia 1991: 81), and the exhortation to \u2018believe!\u2019 sums up Jesus\u2019 words to the disciples, or to those who believe he will return. That the Evangelist devotes so many words to the distress caused by Jesus\u2019 departure, and to placating the disciples\u2019 fears, signifies that the physical absence of Jesus had developed into a monumental issue for the Evangelist and his community. In the following we will discuss possible reasons for this concern. At any rate, the first Farewell Discourse, like many Johannine discourses, follows a pattern of \u2018statement-misunderstanding-clarification\u2019 (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 229\u201330) with the disciple\u2019s obtuse questions propelling the discourse as Jesus moves toward greater clarity.
\nJesus begins the discourse by reassuring the disciples that though he is going away they need not be troubled, for he will come again and take them to himself. He goes to \u2018his Father\u2019s house\u2019, a traditional allusion to heaven, and will prepare \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 (dwellings) for the disciples there. The language employed by Jesus in 14:1\u20133 is widely recognized as traditional language originally denoting heaven and referring to the parousia when Jesus would return to take the disciples to a heavenly home. There are three reasons for this: (1) Not only does \u2018his Father\u2019s house\u2019 allude to heaven, but the word \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 can connote heavenly rooms in Israelite literature (1 En. 39.4; 2 En. 61:2; T. Abr. 20:12\u201314 [A]). (2) Synoptic eschatology expresses notions similar to those of Jn 14:2: disciples can expect to receive heavenly \u2018habitations\u2019 (Lk. 16:9) or heavenly \u2018thrones\u2019 (Lk. 22:29\u201330; cf. Mk 10:40). (3) The wording of 14:3, \u2018I will come again and will take you to myself\u2019, seems to echo Paul\u2019s language in 1 Thess. 4:17, a passage probably expressing the current belief about Jesus\u2019 return and reunion with his disciples at the time of its composition (Dodd 1960: 404). Paul writes, \u2018Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.\u2019 These resonances of traditional eschatological formulations in 14:1\u20133 lend credence to the putative view that a traditional saying lies behind the passage.
\nYet scholars are equally convinced that the Fourth Evangelist, in adopting the saying, has extensively reworked it. Early in John, in 2:16\u201321, Jesus uses the phrase \u2018my Father\u2019s house\u2019 to refer to the Temple, which is then immediately reinterpreted as \u2018the temple of his body\u2019. For the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus is the locus of God\u2019s presence on Earth, both as the true temple, and as the way in which disciples can \u2018dwell\u2019 with God on Earth, in anticipation of their heavenly dwellings (see 1:14). Likewise in 14:23 we find that the Evangelist reinterprets traditions about the Father\u2019s house to the effect that Jesus and the Father will make a home with the disciples while they are still in the world. The Evangelist also reinterprets the concept of \u2018parousia\u2019. Jesus does promise to \u2018come again\u2019 (14:18, 23), but not in order to usher his disciples to heaven. He comes to be present with them on Earth. The traditional nature of the saying at 14:1\u20133, along with the extensive and original development of the saying in the direction of a \u2018realized eschatology\u2019 warrants the interpretation that the Evangelist has stated and then reworked a traditional saying in this first Farewell Discourse.
\nBut if the Evangelist so liberally reworks the statement in 14:1\u20133 about the traditional expectations of the parousia and the future dwelling of the disciples in heaven, why does he bother to use the traditional saying at all? This question defies a sure answer. Still, it seems reasonable to conclude that he would not have used it if he disagreed entirely with the notion of a \u2018future eschatological\u2019 return of Jesus and the notion of heavenly dwellings for the disciples. Therefore, we postulate that the Evangelist may have included the saying, while reinterpreting it, as a way of confirming the traditional view, while, in the subsequent discourse, shifting attention to the way in which Jesus (along with the Father) would return to the disciples and dwell with them immediately after his departure. The Evangelist desires his readers to understand that Jesus is still, in a significant sense, present with them even after his departure, that he has \u2018returned\u2019 to them already. But this does not demand that he no longer accepts traditional beliefs about the parousia and heaven (Porsch 1974: 249). He merely wishes to shift their focus to the present reality. Similarly, in 11:24, Jesus attempts to shift Martha\u2019s focus from the final resurrection to his own status as the already present \u2018resurrection and life\u2019. In doing so, he (or the Evangelist) is not denying that there will be a final resurrection. Interestingly, Jn 5:28\u201329 and 6:39\u201340 seem to express quite clearly a belief in such a resurrection.
\nA further issue we must consider is that the reinterpretation of Jesus\u2019 \u2018coming again\u2019 could have two dimensions. Some scholars have argued that Jesus refers to his resurrection as the point at which he will come to the disciples (v. 18) (Bultmann 1971: 617\u201319; Barrett 1978: 464). Yet the phrase \u2018I will not leave you orphaned\u2019 in 14:18 implies a more permanent presence with the disciples than the resurrection appearances. Though Jesus does indeed come back to them after his departure\/death at the occasion of his resurrection, and the disciples \u2018see\u2019 him as promised, the evanescent nature of his presence with the disciples following the resurrection suggests that Jesus has something more in mind. Jesus\u2019 return involves him and the Father coming and \u2018making dwellings\u2019 with the disciples (v. 23). The same word used for \u2018dwellings\u2019 here was used in 14:2. This implies that the traditional saying in 14:1\u20133 about heavenly dwellings has been reinterpreted along the lines that Jesus \u2018prepares a place for the disciples\u2019 and \u2018takes them to himself\u2019 (v. 3) by coming and making a permanent dwelling with them soon after his departure (v. 23). This could not point to the resurrection alone (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 646), though Jesus\u2019 return to the disciples (from his departure\/death) is inaugurated with that event. Jesus\u2019 promises to return to the disciples and, along with the Father, to make a home with them, are fulfilled in quite another way. According to the majority of interpreters, the advent of the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth initiates the fulfillment of these promises.
\nOne can adduce many parallels between Jesus and the Paraclete, to the point it appears that Jesus and the Paraclete are one and the same. This has caused some scholars to more or less collapse Jesus and the Paraclete into one character, or to describe the Paraclete as \u2018Jesus\u2019 Spirit\u2019. But, as we will see, their relationship is more nuanced than a simple equivalence. Brown has charted the following parallels between what is said in 14:15\u201317 about the coming of the Paraclete, and what is said in 14:18\u201321 about the return of Jesus (1966\u201370: II, 644). See Table 4.1. below.<\/p>\n
Table 4.1. Coming of Paraclete\/Return of Jesus.<\/p>\n
vv. 15\u201317
\nvv. 18\u201321
\nNecessary conditions: love Jesus; keep his commands
\n15
\n21
\nGiving of Paraclete; coming back of Jesus
\n16
\n18
\nWorld will not see Paraclete or Jesus
\n17
\n19
\nDisciples will recognize Paraclete and see Jesus
\n17
\n19
\nParaclete and Jesus will dwell in the disciples
\n17
\n20<\/p>\n
Burge expands on these parallels and demonstrates how the activities of the Paraclete mentioned throughout the Farewell Discourses align with those of Jesus throughout the Gospel (1987: 141). See Table 4:2. below.<\/p>\n
Table 4.2. Activities of Paraclete\/Activities of Jesus.<\/p>\n
The Paraclete
\nJesus
\n14:6
\ngiven by the Father
\n3:16
\n14:16\u201317
\nwith, in, by the disciple
\n3:22; 13:33; 14:20
\n14:17
\nnot received by the world
\n1:11; 5:43; (12:48)
\n14:17
\nnot known by the world (only believers know him)
\n16:3; 8:19; 10:14
\n14:7
\nnot seen by the world (only believers see him)
\n14:19; 16:16\u201317
\n14:26
\nsent by the Father
\ncf. chs. 5, 7, 8, 12
\n15:26; 16:7, 13
\nhe comes (from the Father into the world)
\n5:43; 16:28; 18:37
\n15:26
\ngives testimony
\n5:31\u201347; 8:13\u201320; 7:7
\n16:8
\nconvicts the world
\n(cf. 3:19\u201320; 9:41; 15:22)
\n16:13
\nspeaks not of self but of what is heard
\n7:17; 8:26\u201328; 14:10
\n16:14
\nglorifies the Sender (Jesus\/Father)
\n12:28; 17:1, 4
\n16:13\u201315:
\nreveals, discloses, proclaims
\n4:25; (16:25)
\n16:13
\nleads into the fullness of truth
\n18:37; 14:6
\n15:26; 14:17
\nis the Spirit of Truth; Jesus is the Truth
\n14:6; 16:13
\n14:16 (etc.)
\na Paraclete
\n(14:16); 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>\n
These compelling parallels between Jesus and the Paraclete indicate the two figures share a functional unity. Many of the functions of the Johannine Paraclete are at some point in the Gospel ascribed to Jesus. And the resemblance between vv. 15\u201317 of ch. 14 and vv. 18\u201321 of the same chapter strongly reinforces the idea that the Paraclete\u2019s coming fulfills Jesus\u2019 promise to return or is, at the very least, portrayed as a stage in that fulfillment. The continuity between Jesus and the Paraclete is the most dominant feature of the Paraclete passages.
\nIn the context of reassuring his disciples about his impending departure, Jesus promises to send his followers \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (another Paraclete) (v. 16), apparently intending himself as the other Paraclete. The Paraclete whom Jesus will send fills many of the same functions as Jesus (see Table 4.2.). But it is not said that Jesus will cease to be a Paraclete, though most interpreters assume this to be the case. The functional unity of Jesus and the Paraclete has led many to conclude that the Paraclete takes over the tasks Jesus did while on Earth, since Jesus will obviously not be able to continue his earthly ministry once he has returned to the Father, and therefore, that Jesus ceases to be a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. We will examine this assumption further as this study proceeds. But for now note that the Paraclete continues the work and presence of Jesus (see esp. Brown 1966\u201370: II, 643; Burge 1987). This characterization of the Paraclete must be pivotal in our assessment of the spirit in the Farewell Discourses.
\nAt 14:6, in response to Thomas\u2019s remark that the disciples do not know the way to where Jesus is going, Jesus responds, \u2018I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.\u2019 He further explains that all those who know him, know the Father. This latter statement, which implies a oneness between the Father and Jesus, like other such statements in the Gospel (8:19; 10:30; 14:8\u201311; 16:15; 17:11, 21; cf. 5:17\u201318), does not evince a trinitarian theology like that delineated centuries later at the Council of Chalcedon. The Fourth Evangelist expresses the oneness of Jesus and the Father in terms of their relationship to humanity, and does not primarily construct a metaphysical formulation (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 632). Because Jesus does the works of the Father (5:19\u201321, 36; 9:3\u20134; 10:25, 32, 37\u201338; 14:10\u201311, 31; cf. 5:17) and speaks God\u2019s words to humanity (3:34; 8:28, 38; 12:49\u201350; 14:10, 24; 15:15; 17:8), people can experience and know God through him. From the perspective of humanity, to know Jesus is to know God, since Jesus essentially brings God to people. Yet this oneness of God and Jesus does not imply an ontological equivalence (see Kuschel 1992: 388\u201389), as the stress throughout the Gospel on Jesus\u2019 obedience to the Father makes clear (8:28; 10:18; 12:27, 49\u201350; 14:31; 18:11). In John, Jesus is the Son who shares an unrivaled closeness with the Father, God. This closeness allows Jesus to provide the faithful with unrivaled access to God. Still, Jesus exists apart from and must be obedient to the Father. When one views Jesus\u2019 oneness with the Father from the perspective of believers\u2019 access to the patronage of God through Jesus, certain christological conundrums appear less problematic. For example, the oneness of Jesus and the Father, and the submission of Jesus to the Father are not as incongruous as sometimes assumed.
\nBefore moving on with the exegesis, I must discuss another way that scholars have attempted to explain these elements in the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. John\u2019s christological construction and \u2018sent-language\u2019 has been viewed by some scholars with reference to Israelite conceptions of \u2018agency\u2019. Such authors as B\u00fchner, Borgen and Harvey attempt to show that the Evangelist was familiar with the technicalities of the Israelite practice of agency, and drew directly on this practice in characterizing the relationship between Jesus and God, the Father. The principles of \u2018agency\u2019 as outlined in halakic literature (200 CE) include (1) the unity between agent and sender, for the agent acts as a representative of the sender to the extent that people experience the sender in their interactions with his or her agent; (2) the subordination of the agent to the sender; (3) the obedience of the agent to the will of the sender; (4) the task of the agent in representing the sender\u2019s interests in court; (5) the return of the agent to the sender; and (6) the appointing of other agents as an extension of the agent\u2019s mission in time and space (see Borgen 1987: 172\u201376). Most of these features of an agent according to halakic literature align well with Jesus\u2019 characterization in the Gospel. Yet we wish to add to this discussion by arguing that the Israelite agent is often times a broker, in that the agent provides a connection between a patron and client. And brokerage in the Mediterranean world during the Early Roman Empire extended far beyond Israelite \u2018agency\u2019, which constituted but one expression of it. Noting that Jesus in many ways appears to be like an agent as agents are described in halakic literature does not necessitate that the Evangelist either directly or indirectly derived his Christology from Israelite agency. The aforementioned features of the Israelite \u2018agent\u2019 likely fit many brokers throughout the Mediterranean cultural context. I submit that the Evangelist characterizes Jesus as a broker based on his knowledge and experience of brokerage, which he would have shared with other members of his culture. The Evangelist may indeed have known and experienced brokerage in the form of Israelite agency. But it is likely any person in Mediterranean culture during the Roman period was familiar with the workings of brokerage in many forms and in a variety of relationships. We cannot with any certainly assign the Evangelist\u2019s conception of Jesus as a broker to a specific expression of brokerage in Israel when it is probable that the aforementioned features of Israelite agent-sender relationships were not unique among broker-patron relationships throughout the Mediterranean world during our period. One characteristic that does seem to have distinguished the Israelite agent-sender relationship is that this broker generally functioned as a messenger, proffering authoritative words from his sender. If Jesus were mainly characterized as a messenger in John, with his words being the main benefit he brokered, perhaps it would be more clear that the Evangelist envisioned him as an \u2018agent\u2019. But though Jesus\u2019 words are an important benefit that he brokers from the Father, Jesus brokers many benefits besides messages from God. He brokers eternal life, living water\/spirit, healing, the \u2018works\u2019 of God, light (8:12), a place in the Father\u2019s house (14:3), answers to requests (14:13\u201314; 15:7\u20138, 16; 16:23\u201324) and peace (14:27). These are not the tasks of a \u2018messenger\u2019. Jesus is not primarily a messenger in John, he is \u2018the way\u2019 to the full range of benefits from the Father.
\nMoreover, the brokerage model as outlined in this study constitutes a better heuristic tool of analysis than does the model of agency as derived from halakic literature because it has been more extensively investigated. Brokerage has been widely observed by anthropologists throughout Mediterranean culture, as well as being detectable in ancient literature from that region. The examination of this data provides the basis for anthropological models of brokerage. Relationships and expectations can be more precisely delineated by brokerage than by agency because of its more developed and multi-faceted nature. For example, while agency illuminates the relationship between the sender and agent to a degree, brokerage can account for and explain a greater number of relationships and the complexity of those relationships. Significantly, brokerage allows clients to play a key role in the relationships under examination. Clients figure as critically into the patron-client model, of which brokerage is a variation, as do patrons and brokers. The interests and motivations of clients in seeking brokerage of certain benefits are accounted for, as are the interests and motivations of patrons in making those benefits available. Brokerage also improves on the model of agency as delineated in halakic literature because of the multifarious nature of brokerage \u2018networks\u2019. Many brokers may be involved in any transaction between a patron and his or her clients. Brokerage networks incorporate many brokers, each of whom can provide many clients with access to many different benefits from many different patrons (though, of course, brokerage relationships can also be much more simplistic than this) (see Boissevain 1966: 24\u201325, 31; Davis 1977: 139). While agency includes the aspect of \u2018successor\u2019 agents who continue the mission of the first agent, it fails to account for the complexity of relationships involved in brokerage networks. A broker may indeed come to be succeeded by another broker after she can no longer provide the client with access to the right patron. A broker may even appoint a successor before his departure, as do Moses and Elijah. But since it does not benefit the broker much to appoint a successive broker, he would do this for the benefit of his clients or his patron. During his brokerage career, a broker would not want another broker to be able to provide access to his patron, for this would place the other broker in competition with him and could serve to render him redundant and unnecessary from the perspective of the client. As mentioned above, one of the key features of brokerage is exclusivity.
\nAs stated in Chapter 3, the explanation of John\u2019s sent-language using the model of \u2018agency\u2019 results in an overemphasis on the authorization of the agent, and on the message. Yet the focus of John\u2019s sent-language is on the intimacy between God and Jesus and on the fact that Jesus originated from the God realm (Schnackenburg 1995: 253\u201358). Related to this last point, we have found John\u2019s sent-language to be competitive language, used in the setting of contests between brokers. In these contests, Jesus is not portrayed as the only \u2018agent\u2019 who bears the authority of the sender, nor as the only one who brings words from God. Rather, he is portrayed as far superior to Moses or Jacob or Abraham because of his closeness to God, the closeness of a son to his father, and because of his origins \u2018from above\u2019, from God. Because of his origins, and because of his intimacy with God, Jesus is the only one who can provide access to God. The most glaring flaw of the agency model is that it cannot account for or explain this competition in the way the brokerage model can, nor does it explain the debate over who ultimately provides access to God. \u2018Access\u2019 is a key theme of John\u2019s Christology. Since the brokerage model shows that a broker must make available exclusive access to a certain patron, and must represent both the interests of the client and the patron, must represent both \u2018realms\u2019, we are better equipped to understand the significance of Jesus\u2019 characterization as the only one who has seen the Father and been sent \u2018from above\u2019, and as the only one who can be called God\u2019s \u2018Son\u2019. Furthermore, the brokerage model makes clear why the claim that God has sent Jesus is repeatedly made in the context of a debate over who provides access to God. Jesus is the only one who can provide access to the realm of God because he is the only one who was sent from that realm. The Johannine sent-language is integrally bound up with this issue of access, an issue that is not adequately addressed by the agency model. For this reason, among others, the brokerage model proves to be a more helpful heuristic tool.
\nFinally, brokerage is more useful a model than agency for helping interpret the Gospel of John, not only because it more precisely describes the relationship between God and Jesus, but it also illuminates the role of figures like John and the Paraclete. In the Gospel they are allowed to be subordinate brokers in providing clients with access to Jesus, but are barred from providing ultimate access to God. The model of brokerage helps one to comprehend how their \u2018missions\u2019 as brokers differ from Jesus\u2019 and how the Evangelist can characterize John and the Paraclete as subordinate brokers while preserving Jesus\u2019 exclusive role as broker to God. The \u2018exclusivity\u2019 principle of brokerage demands that a broker be the only way for his clients to receive access to a particular patron. Yet other brokers can provide access to the broker who provides access to the patron. This is how brokerage networks function. Not only is the presence of subordinate brokers allowable by the \u2018top\u2019 broker but it is felicitous to his work, for it allows him to extend his network of clients far beyond what he would otherwise be able. The role of the Paraclete as subordinate broker facilitates Jesus\u2019 work as broker in that the Paraclete makes Jesus available to a vast number of clients after Jesus has departed and become separated from them in time and space.
\nThis takes us back to our investigation of the first Farewell Discourse. At 14:6, Jesus calls himself \u2018the way, and the truth, and the life\u2019. \u2018The way\u2019 apparently dominates the phrase, since it features in Thomas\u2019s question in v. 5 and lies at the heart of Jesus\u2019 words in vv. 4, 6b\u20137 (Morris 1972: 641). Since the stress of the saying \u2018I am the way, and the truth, and the life\u2019, is on Jesus\u2019 being \u2018the way\u2019, what is the relationship between \u2018the way\u2019 and the other nouns in v. 6, \u2018the truth\u2019 and \u2018the life\u2019? Some interpreters interpret v. 6 to be saying: I am the way, that is, the truth and the life. According to this view, Jesus is the way to the Father because he reveals the truth (\u2018I am the truth\u2019) and mediates salvation (\u2018I am the life\u2019). Others take v. 6 to mean Jesus is the way that leads to truth and life. Barrett expounds on this notion, writing, \u2018because Jesus is the means of access to God who is the source of all truth and life he is himself the truth and the life for men\u2019 (1978: 458). It seems to me that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but express very similar ideas. The first interpretation mentioned essentially propounds the idea that Jesus mediates truth and life, as does the second. Still, I believe the second interpretation to be less convoluted. Jesus reveals \u2018truth\u2019 and brokers access to \u2018life\u2019, but ultimately both have their source in God, not in Jesus. Jesus is first \u2018the way\u2019, and only as the way, or as God\u2019s broker sent from above, does he provide the truth and the life. Yet from the perspective of humanity, who can only know God and participate in God\u2019s patronage via Jesus, Jesus is truth and life (Bultmann 1971: 605\u2013606). Verse 14:6 is a description of Jesus in his relationship to humanity and does not convey information about his ontological \u2018essence\u2019.
\nThe Fourth Evangelist stresses the insurmountable divide between God and humanity more than any other Evangelist. For him, \u2018God is simply inaccessible in his transcendence\u2019 (Haenchen 1984: II, 124, 143). He makes certain to the reader that no one has ever seen God except the Son, sent from above (1:18; 6:46). In so doing he accentuates the dualistic division between the higher and lower \u2018orders\u2019, or between the realm of God and the realm of humanity. As we have seen throughout the Gospel, Jesus is portrayed within this context as an ideal broker between the higher and lower orders. And in the Farewell Discourses, where the theme of Jesus\u2019 departure\/return to the Father dominates, Jesus\u2019 brokerage role is boldly reasserted. In proclaiming to be the only way to the Father, Jesus topples all other purported means of attaining access to God. Indeed Jesus\u2019 brokerage role is not only underscored in 14:6, but throughout the Farewell Discourses. Jesus tells his disciples that those who believe in him (love him, keep his commandments, abide in him) will receive many different benefits from the Father, even after his departure: the Father will send them the Paraclete (14:16, 26; cf. 15:26, 16:7b), the Father will love them (14:21, 23), the Father will help them to bear fruit (15:2b), the Father will give them whatever they ask in Jesus\u2019 name (15:16; 16:23).
\nThis emphasis on Jesus\u2019 being the only way to the Father, in the midst of a discourse dealing with Jesus\u2019 impending departure and the subsequent anxiety of the disciples, may suggest something about the situation behind the first Farewell Discourse. It may suggest that there were people in the Evangelist\u2019s community who were questioning whether Jesus could still function as the way to the Father after he had departed. The Evangelist\u2019s restatement of Jesus\u2019 role as exclusive broker to God seems to address such a concern. He seems to be reassuring his audience that Jesus would continue in his role as \u2018the way\u2019 to God even after he had returned to the heavenly realm. This will be explored more below.
\nThe first Paraclete saying in the Farewell Discourses appears at 14:16. In the preceding verses Jesus has been reminding the disciples, specifically Philip, that the Father has been made visible in him, that \u2018I am in the Father and the Father is in me\u2019 (v. 10). His focus then shifts to the benefits they will receive for believing in him: the disciples will be able to do the works he does, even greater works, and that requests made in his name will be granted. The promise that the disciples will do greater works than Jesus presents obvious problems for interpreters. How can it be said the disciples will do greater works than the Son of God who raised the dead and miraculously fed 5,000 men? Verse 12b has been viewed by one interpreter as a contradiction of the Evangelist\u2019s own view of Jesus as far superior to all other persons.
\nBut the greater works the disciples will do must be viewed in light of the next verse (v. 13), which states that Jesus will do what the disciples ask in his name. The disciples\u2019 \u2018greater works\u2019 are therefore the works Jesus will accomplish upon their request after he has gone to the Father (in fulfillment of the \u2018greater works\u2019 presaged in 5:20?). Just as the Father accomplishes his work through Jesus so that Jesus\u2019 works are the Father\u2019s work (10:37\u201338), so the disciples\u2019 \u2018greater works\u2019 are the works Jesus will accomplish through them (Bultmann 1971: 611; Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: III, 72). The issue is not one of succession or hierarchy (against Woll 1981: 80\u201381), but of brokerage. Jesus\u2019 works are not really his own, but are the works of God accomplished through God\u2019s broker (Ensor 1996: 240). Likewise, the works Jesus will accomplish at the disciples\u2019 request are in actuality God\u2019s works that Jesus brokers for them (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: III, 72), as a comparison of 15:16 and 16:23, 26\u201327 with 14:13\u201314 bears out. The fact that Jesus\u2019 works are ultimately God\u2019s works also explains why Jesus appeals to the disciples to believe in the unity between himself and God on the basis of his works (14:11). Elsewhere Jesus also appeals to his works as a basis for belief, not because he is encouraging disciples to have an inchoate \u2018signs faith\u2019, but because the works themselves point to Jesus\u2019 position as God\u2019s broker (see 5:36; 10:25, 38) (Ensor 1996: 240\u201341). Since God accomplishes his work through Jesus, people should see and believe Jesus\u2019 claims to be the broker of God, sent from above.
\nJesus makes a further promise to the disciples:<\/p>\n
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you (14:15\u201317).<\/p>\n
In John, to love Jesus and keep his commandments, or words (see 8:51\u201355; 15:20; 17:6), means to believe in him, to believe he is who he has claimed to be (Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: III, 74; Segovia 1985: 485, 489\u201390). Such faithfulness and loyalty are essential within the patron-client relationship. Those who exhibit such faithfulness to Jesus will be privileged with many benefits from the Father. But those who do not are disqualified from participating in the patronage of God and are thus incapable of experiencing its benefits. The Paraclete, or Spirit of Truth, introduced in 14:16, constitutes one such benefit. Verse 14:16 functions to distinguish the disciples, God\u2019s clients to whom the Paraclete will be sent, from the world who, because of their unbelief, cannot receive him.
\nJohannine dualism between the realm of God and that of the world, which is epitomized at certain points in the Farewell Discourses, may provide the origin of the \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 title used in association with \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the Paraclete passages (M\u00fcller 1974: 43). Though the title is found in 1QS 4.21, where it identifies an agent of purification, and in 1QS 3.18 where the \u2018spirits of truth and injustice\u2019 denote angelic figures who accompany and influence human beings during their time on Earth, attempts to explain the Johannine title with reference to Qumran have not been convincing (e.g. Betz 1963; Johnston 1970). The Johannine Paraclete-Spirit of Truth is not an agent of cleansing, but primarily a mediator to Jesus, and is not characterized as an angel (Barrett 1978: 463). However, John does evince some similarity of thought with the community at Qumran, most notably in their shared dualistic perspective. That the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 is first employed in conjunction with the phrase \u2018whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor know him\u2019 signifies that the Spirit of Truth stands alienated from the world, the realm of falsehood. The Paraclete receives the qualifier \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 because he represents the realm of God, as distinguished from the world (Berg 1988: 134). The Spirit of Truth is the spirit-representative of that realm who stands opposed to the spirit-representatives of the realm of the world. In this sense, the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 functions as a competitive claim against other spirits, those which are false. Though the Gospel of John does not feature \u2018spirits of falsehood\u2019, it does feature God\u2019s spiritual nemesis, characterized as \u2018the ruler of this world\u2019 (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), \u2018the devil\u2019 (8:44; 13:2; cf. 6:70) and Satan (13:27). And Judas, who is under the influence of Satan (13:2, 27), is characterized as a devil (6:70).
\n\u2018Truth\u2019 plays a role in delineating between the world and the realm of God elsewhere in the Gospel, and it is the Gospel\u2019s dualistic context that best accounts for the description of the Paraclete-Spirit as \u2018of truth\u2019, or as \u2018the true spirit\u2019. In speaking against the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, who represent \u2018the world\u2019 throughout much of John, Jesus rails:<\/p>\n
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father\u2019s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God (8:43\u201347).<\/p>\n
Truth and falsehood are used in this passage to classify those who are from God and those who are from the devil. Jesus\u2019 word is truth because he speaks the words of God; the words of the devil are lies. It is against this backdrop that we should understand the Evangelist\u2019s use of the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019. Calling the Paraclete the \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 constitutes a competitive claim, characterizing the Paraclete as a representative of the God realm against the spiritual representatives of \u2018the ruler of the world\u2019. In the terms of our model, the Spirit of Truth is the good Paraclete, the true broker, in comparison with the faulty brokers of the world, who are unable to provide access to truth because they are not of God.
\nFurthermore, as will be seen in 16:13, the Spirit of Truth will guide the disciples \u2018into all the truth\u2019 (16:13). The Paraclete receives the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 not only because he represents truth in opposition to the false spirits of the world, but because he provides believers with access to \u2018truth\u2019. And the truth to which he provides access is Jesus, who said of himself \u2018I am the truth\u2019 (14:6), and concomitantly, Jesus\u2019 teaching, which for the Fourth Evangelist is the essence of \u2018truth\u2019 (see de la Potterie and Lyonnet 1986). However, the Paraclete saying at 16:13, which will receive full attention in the next section, follows a passage in which the Paraclete confronts the world\u2019s falsehood. Therefore, the Paraclete\u2019s work of \u2018leading the disciples into truth\u2019 has markedly dualistic overtones. He does not simply \u2018teach\u2019 the disciples, but he \u2018guides\u2019 them away from the falsehood of the world into the direction of truth.
\nThat the Paraclete is indeed the spirit is disclosed by the use of the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 and \u2018Holy Spirit\u2019 in conjunction with him (Kremer 1977: 254). There is no indication that the Paraclete could be a significant person, such as the Beloved Disciple, who is conceived of as Jesus\u2019 successor. Still, the Paraclete figure proves somewhat distinct from spirit elsewhere in John, as the introduction of the peculiar term \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 portends. Nonetheless, I have noticed a point of continuity in the way the Paraclete represents the realm of God in the context of Johannine dualism. In this feature, the portrait of the Paraclete accords with that of spirit throughout John. The Evangelist employs spirit in the Farewell Discourses to differentiate between that which is of the earthly realm and that which is of God, as he does throughout the Gospel. An attribute of the Paraclete that distinguishes the Spirit in the Farewell Discourses from spirit elsewhere in John is the fact that the Paraclete is personified. Male pronouns are used consistently for the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth, even in 16:13 where the neuter \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Spirit of Truth) appears without the male-gendered \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The personification and gendering of the spirit in the Farewell Discourse issues from the integral union between Jesus and the Paraclete in these passages (Brown 1966\u201367: 126\u201328; Burge 1987: 142), and from the Paraclete\u2019s anthropomorphic role as a broker\/client.
\nLittle is said about the Paraclete\u2019s activities in 14:16\u201317. This passage focuses on the disciples, who, unlike the world, \u2018know\u2019 the Spirit of Truth, because he abides with them and will be in them. The saying parallels vv. 18\u201321, where Jesus promises to reveal himself to the disciples, and constitutes its fulfillment. Jesus will be revealed in the Paraclete. But why does Jesus say the Paraclete \u2018abides with\u2019 them (present tense) though the spirit is not actually available to them until after Jesus\u2019 glorification (7:39)? Probably this is due to the fact that the spirit abides with Jesus (1:32); therefore, the Paraclete abides with them in the present because Jesus abides with them, and will pass on the spirit to them. And Jesus\u2019 promise in v. 20, \u2018You will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you\u2019, relates to Jesus\u2019 promise that the Spirit of Truth will be in them. The preposition \u1f10\u03bd in 14:17 should be translated \u2018in\u2019 rather than \u2018among\u2019 because of this correspondence with v. 20.
\nWhat does it mean for Jesus to be in the Father, the Father in Jesus, Jesus in the disciples, and the Paraclete in the disciples? Modern authors frequently use the word \u2018indwelling\u2019 to denote this network of relationships, but the term proves vague and the meaning of the concept is seldom explained in detail. This \u2018indwelling\u2019 seems strangely elusive. Sometimes the term even appears in conjunction with the word \u2018mystical\u2019 or \u2018mysticism\u2019, which conjures up a variety of images to a variety of different people. What does the Fourth Evangelist mean? Is he referring to a mystical union, a sort of esoteric inner presence, or, as Dodd suggests, to the most intimate of relationships, one characterized by love? (Dodd 1960: 199\u2013200). Does he have in mind a type of spiritual \u2018possession\u2019, where a spiritual presence actually invades and takes over a person? Or does he apprehend the network of \u2018being in\u2019 relationships between God, Jesus, Spirit and believer from a practical point of view?
\nElsewhere in the Gospel where the relationship of \u2018oneness\u2019 between Jesus and the Father features, the focus falls on Jesus\u2019 unity with the Father in doing his works (10:37\u201338; 14:11), and further, on the way Jesus\u2019 works should testify to his relationship with the Father. As was explained earlier, the functional unity of a broker and patron from the viewpoint of the client is the issue here. The \u2018oneness\u2019 theme and John\u2019s \u2018being in\u2019 language seem to be related (17:21\u201323). Yet John\u2019s \u2018being in\u2019 notion seems to express more than a merely functional unity. In 17:11b, Jesus prays that God would protect the believers \u2018so that they may be one, as we are one\u2019. Apparently Jesus asks God to protect them from forces (\u2018the evil one\u2019, 17:15) that would cause disunity or disloyalty among them, a key concern in Jesus\u2019 prayer. And in 17:21\u201323, he prays:<\/p>\n
As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.<\/p>\n
Jesus here addresses the Father concerning the disciples\u2019 testimony to the world. He prays that they would remain united to himself and the Father, that the disciples would be \u2018in them\u2019, so that the world might know Jesus came from the Father. Here it would seem Jesus prays for the disciples to remain faithful, or loyal, as a way of avowing Jesus\u2019 claims about himself. Moreover, he remarks that the honor given him by the Father he passes on to the disciples so that they might be \u2018one\u2019 in the way he and the Father are \u2018one\u2019 (\u2018I in them and you in me\u2019, 17:23a). Again, it seems the disciples\u2019 unity may result in the world recognizing that Jesus was sent by God and that both the disciples and Jesus have the love of the Father. Apparently the honor Jesus gives to them, the honor of having God as their patron, will encourage loyalty among them, perhaps working as an incentive to adhere to the group. And the loyalty of the believers to one another and to Jesus will be a testimony to the world.
\nIn these passages, the \u2018being in\u2019 dynamic of the relationships between God, Jesus and the disciples, which goes hand in hand with the \u2018oneness\u2019 motif (17:22b\u201323a), bears a decidedly pragmatic connotation. It has the nuance of \u2018loyalty\u2019 and \u2018unity\u2019 within relationships, which equips those relationships to withstand the destructive pressures of outside forces. It is not a \u2018mystical\u2019 indwelling that is in mind, but faithful adherence to another person no matter what happens. The patronal overtones in Jn 17 are heavy (see Piper 1998), therefore the stress on \u2018protection\u2019, \u2018loyalty\u2019 and \u2018love\u2019 in Jesus\u2019 prayer are most relevant. These are all distinctive of the patron-client relationship. Jesus\u2019 concern in the prayer (or the Evangelist\u2019s concern voiced by Jesus) centers on the maintenance of the group and of their patronal ties to Jesus and the Father in lieu of outside threats. Jesus\u2019 (or the Evangelist\u2019s) strategy is not to encourage an abstruse \u2018mutual communion\u2019 of Father and Son and believers, but a practical adhering to one another in faithfulness, loyalty and love. And the benefits consequent upon such \u2018being in\u2019 are not, according to the Evangelist\u2019s focus, inward benefits, but outward practical benefits: Jesus does the works of God (10:38; 14:11), Jesus and the disciples \u2018live\/will live\u2019 (14:19\u201320), the disciples will bear fruit (15:4\u201310), the disciples will be a testimony to the world that Jesus came from God (17:21\u201323).
\nFamily imagery is employed on occasion in the first Farewell Discourse, and it could be that the ideals of family relationships are behind the \u2018being in\u2019 language of that discourse (see Segovia 1991: 102 n. 79). There are the parallel sayings that Jesus will take the disciples to the Father\u2019s house or, more precisely, family (14:2\u20133), and that Jesus and the Father will come and make their \u2018home\u2019 or \u2018dwelling\u2019 with them (14:23); and there is Jesus\u2019 comment that he will not leave the disciples orphaned, but will come to them (through the Paraclete) (14:18). These all recall the family imagery of 1:12 (cf. 3:5\u20136), where is it said that Jesus gave believers power to become God\u2019s children, a \u2018spiritual\u2019 family. Arguably, the most dominant ideal associated with Mediterranean kinship, whether actual or \u2018fictive\u2019, is family loyalty, maintaining family honor and staying \u2018connected\u2019. In light of this, it seems likely the emphasis in the Farewell Discourses on \u2018being in\u2019 with respect to relationships between God, Jesus, the Paraclete and the disciples addresses a concern for group cohesion. As with earthly families, it is crucial that the \u2018spiritual family\u2019 of God stay connected to, or \u2018abide in\u2019, one another in order to stay healthy and fecund (15:1\u201311). Familial concerns and concerns for group maintenance and unity lie at the heart of the \u2018indwelling\u2019 language of Jn 14\u201317, not concerns about an interior \u2018communion\u2019 of a mystical variety.
\nSayings to the effect that the disciples will \u2018see\u2019 Jesus after his departure (14:19; 16:16) are interpreted by commentators Malina and Rohrbaugh as indications of altered state of consciousness (ASC) experiences, in which the disciples will actually \u2018see\u2019 Jesus (1998: 231\u201332, 242, 282\u201385). They interpret Jesus\u2019 appearance to the disciples in John 20 as an ASC experience. Furthermore, they conclude that Jesus\u2019 promised \u2018return\u2019 through the Spirit-Paraclete who \u2018facilitates the continued presence of Jesus\u2019 refers to the disciples\u2019 ASC experiences (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 231\u201332). ASC experiences have been widely observed by anthropologists in most cultures and were very common in ancient Mediterranean culture. But though seeing the alternate reality is indeed a central element in the experience of ASCs as observed by anthropologists (Goodman 1988: 44\u201346), a reference to \u2018seeing\u2019 Jesus does not in itself warrant an interpretation of an experience as an ASC. The sayings predicting the disciples\u2019 experience of Jesus after Jesus\u2019 departure, and the account of Jesus\u2019 appearance to the disciples after the resurrection do make reference to the disciples\u2019 \u2018seeing\u2019 Jesus, but there is little else in those passages to suggest ASCs. Furthermore, the sayings about the Paraclete, through whom Jesus returns to them \u2018to abide\u2019, say nothing about the disciples \u2018seeing\u2019 the Spirit-Paraclete.
\nACSs have been generally defined as<\/p>\n
conditions in which sensations, perceptions, cognition and emotions are altered. They are characterized by changes in sensing, perceiving, thinking, and feeling. They modify the relation of the individual to the self, body, sense of identity, and the environment of time, space and other people (Bourguignon, cited by Pilch 1993: 235).<\/p>\n
More specifically, the following elements characterize ASCs, or trances, as they are sometimes called:<\/p>\n
\u2022 The trance or ASC often follows upon focused concentration on something\/things, or hypnosis. Pilch points out that \u2018the key defining characteristic of a trance [or ASC] is its intensely focused attention which reduces awareness of the experience-context, namely, objects, stimuli or environment outside the specific focus\u2019 (1995: 53).
\n\u2022 ASCs are usually induced by some intense physical deprivation (i.e. sleep, food), fear or tension, dissociation, biochemical agents, or illness (Pilch 1995: 53).
\n\u2022 A person in trance or ASC usually experiences heightened arousal (i.e. intense emotional alterations).
\n\u2022 A person in ASC usually experiences physical manifestations, such as perspiration, trembling, twitching, extremely rapid motion, or a catatonia-like rigidity (Goodman 1988: 38).
\n\u2022 A person in trance may speak with a voice different from their own.
\n\u2022 In an ASC, a person may see a vision. People in these visions may appear altered, most notably they may appear to be surrounded by bright light.
\n\u2022 A person in trance may become possessed by a spirit.
\n\u2022 The aftereffect of trance is usually intense euphoria.
\n\u2022 ASCs are occasional, transitory experiences.<\/p>\n
The foregoing characteristics of ASCs are largely absent from the Farewell Discourse sayings about Jesus\u2019 return to the disciples after his death, as well as from the Paraclete passages. And neither do the accounts of Jesus\u2019 resurrection appearances seem to exhibit the above characteristics, with the exception of the account of Jesus\u2019 appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:11\u201318), which could exhibit some. It could be argued that her vision of Jesus comes on after her focused concentration on the tomb, and that it is induced by her fearful and weeping state. Furthermore, she does see angels clothed in white, which could indicate they were seen as \u2018glowing\u2019, and the subject of her vision, Jesus, does seem to have an altered appearance. Therefore, it could be argued that the Evangelist portrays Jesus\u2019 appearance to Mary as an ASC experience. However, when Jesus appears to the other disciples, they are in a state of fear, as would be expected under the circumstances, and they see a person who has been dead, but there are no ASC characteristics mentioned besides these. These two features do not constitute enough evidence to warrant an interpretation of these resurrection appearances as ASC experiences.
\nBut because ASC experiences were a commonplace in ancient Mediterranean culture, it is likely that some members of the Johannine community experienced them. Yet the Fourth Gospel betrays little interest in ecstatic manifestations or of ecstatic experiences of the spirit, in comparison with the other Gospels (McPolin 1978b: 117; Schnackenburg 1980\u201382: III, 149). This could mean that spiritual ecstasy (including ASCs) was uncommon among Johannine Christians for reasons we cannot know, or it could mean that ecstatic experiences occurred normally (according to the \u2018norms\u2019 of their culture) among Johannine Christians, and for some reason the Evangelist purposely avoids alluding to them. Could it be that the Evangelist is moving counter-culturally in his understanding of how human beings can experience the spirit realm? In other words, could he have envisaged another way than through trances and ASCs? Aspects of John\u2019s pneumatology compel us to answer affirmatively.
\nMost importantly, the Evangelist portrays the spirit as an \u2018abiding\u2019 presence. People of ancient Mediterranean culture believed that interaction with spirits happened via trances or ASCs through which people could experience spiritual \u2018possession\u2019. Such trance or possession states are always occasional and temporary. Furthermore, they are usually marked by intense physical agitation and, in the case of possession, usually require the temporary \u2018absence\u2019 of the person while the spirit takes control over them (see Lewis 1971). In contrast to this phenomenon, the Gospel of John portrays the spirit as \u2018remaining\u2019 on Jesus, presumably throughout his ministry. The spirit does not temporarily possess Jesus, taking over his person, but abides on him. Similarly, it is promised that Jesus, through the Paraclete, will not come sporadically to the disciples, but will \u2018make a home\u2019 with them. This indicates an abiding experience of Jesus through the spirit, not the fleeting trance or possession experience one would commonly confront in the Evangelist\u2019s culture.
\nThe Evangelist likely envisages the disciples\u2019 experience of Jesus\u2019 presence through the Paraclete in terms familiar to him from his culture, in terms of possession. He does say the Paraclete will be \u2018in\u2019 the disciples, instructing them and revealing to them what he hears from Jesus. But the Paraclete\u2019s \u2018possession\u2019 of the disciples as delineated in the Johannine Farewell Discourses contrasts markedly with the possession experiences of his culture. This would indicate that the Evangelist moves counter-culturally in his pneumatology. In John, the disciples are promised a \u2018new and better\u2019 experience of the spirit than the typical, transitory experiences of spirits by people in his culture. They are not promised a spirit that will possess them temporarily and violently, but one which will be in them \u2018forever\u2019 (14:16). And through the Spirit-Paraclete, Jesus and the Father will dwell with them. In conceptualizing the disciples\u2019 experience of the spirit in this way, the Evangelist may be subtly posing a alternative to other ways in which disciples of Jesus were claiming to experience his presence and that of the spirit.
\nJohn\u2019s first Farewell Discourse contains one other Paraclete saying, at 14:25\u201326:<\/p>\n
I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.<\/p>\n
Again we read that the Paraclete will be sent to believers by the Father, but at the request of Jesus (14:16) and in his name (14:25). This language suggests Jesus brokers the Spirit-Paraclete to believers, though ultimately it constitutes a benefit from the Father. Therefore, the wording of 14:16 and 25 are not in contradiction to subsequent Paraclete passages that say that Jesus will send the Paraclete (15:26; 16:7). In 15:26 Jesus says he will send the Paraclete \u2018from the Father\u2019. All of these verses can be interpreted as promises that the Paraclete will be given by the Father, through the means of Jesus\u2019 brokerage.
\nThis second Paraclete saying also states that the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, will perpetuate the teaching of Jesus after his departure. This is the only occurrence of the traditional term \u2018Holy Spirit\u2019 in the Farewell Discourses. Why does the Evangelist substitute \u2018Holy Spirit\u2019 for \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 in this instance? Perhaps he is here attempting to draw a connection between the Paraclete whom Jesus promised would be sent upon his departure, and the \u2018Holy Spirit\u2019 that Jesus conferred to the disciples upon his resurrection in 20:22. The use of the \u2018peace\u2019 greeting in 20:19\u201321 provides another connection between the two scenes, since in 14:27 Jesus says, \u2018My peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.\u2019
\nThe context of the Paraclete saying at 14:26, especially the foregoing words, \u2018I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But \u2026\u2019 reveals that the teaching that the Paraclete will bring continues Jesus\u2019 teaching. The disciples need not fear that Jesus\u2019 revelation from the Father will come to end after he is no longer with them. Moreover, Jesus promises that the Paraclete will remind the disciples of all he has already said to them; the Paraclete will keep active and alive the words of the earthly Jesus. These promises seem to address an underlying concern that Jesus\u2019 words would become irretrievable remnants of a distant past, a concern most likely issuing from the Evangelist\u2019s time and place rather than that of Jesus. Perhaps some among the Johannine Christians were tempted to seek God\u2019s revelation through some other broker now that Jesus had been \u2018silenced\u2019. Perhaps they viewed Jesus\u2019 brokerage as time-limited. Verses 14:25\u201326 provide reassurance that Jesus\u2019 brokerage is not limited by time and space. Jesus, though departed, will remain active as broker among believers through the teaching of the Paraclete who continues Jesus\u2019 proclamation by brokering access to his continuing revelation, and by recalling his words, which were spoken to them while he was physically present. The intrinsic fear behind this first Farewell Discourse noted earlier, the fear that Jesus could no longer fill the role of broker for believers because of his absence, likely constitutes the key issue addressed by the Paraclete promises within it. In the discourse, Jesus promises the disciples that his presence among them will be perpetuated by the presence of the Paraclete, whom the Father will send to them at Jesus\u2019 request. Through the Paraclete, Jesus will \u2018come again\u2019 to them. And most importantly, he will continue to provide them with a \u2018way\u2019 to the Father.
\nAccording to 14:25\u201326, the Paraclete will not only perpetuate Jesus\u2019 presence among believers, but he will also teach them \u2018all things\u2019, recall the words of Jesus to them, and declare to them the things that are to come. The larger context of the promise suggests the Paraclete does not teach the disciples \u2018all things\u2019 independently of Jesus, but rather continues \u2018these things\u2019 that Jesus has said in their presence (v. 25). This does not mean, however, that the Paraclete does not teach the disciples anything new, supplementing the teachings of the earthly Jesus, only that the new things the Paraclete will illumine to them will be what he hears from the glorified Jesus. The fact the Paraclete teaches the disciples \u2018new\u2019 things does not contradict Jesus\u2019 statement in 16:13 that the Spirit of Truth \u2018will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears\u2019. The Paraclete will proclaim to the disciples the words he hears from the glorified Jesus (16:12\u201314). Clearly the Evangelist believes the Paraclete will further the insights of the disciples beyond the level that Jesus was able prior to his glorification. Throughout the Gospel the Evangelist alludes to the partial understanding of the disciples before Jesus\u2019 glorification, and how they would one day remember and comprehend Jesus\u2019 words fully (2:17, 22; 8:28; 12:16; 14:26; 15:20; 16:4; cf. 16:20\u201321; 20:8\u20139). Their greater comprehension is to be facilitated by the Paraclete, who will bring about the fundamental change that will enable them to do so. But the Paraclete will not merely explicate to them what Jesus had already said. Verses 14:25\u201326, as well as 16:12, imply Jesus is unable to say everything to the disciples while on Earth. There is more to be revealed, and when the Paraclete comes he will provide them with access to Jesus\u2019 continuing revelation. The Evangelist does not allow one to limit the Paraclete\u2019s revelation to what Jesus had already revealed. He does, however, insist that the Paraclete\u2019s revelation ultimately emanates from Jesus and will not belie his teaching (Burge 1987: 213). Significantly, the verbs in 16:13 are future tense. The Paraclete-Spirit will speak to the disciples what he will hear from Jesus. The words of the Paraclete are therefore not limited to what Jesus said in the past, but include what the Paraclete will receive from Jesus in the future.
\nEssentially, the Paraclete\u2019s teaching is claimed to be the teaching of Jesus, just as it is said in John that Jesus\u2019 words are in actuality the words of the Father, since Jesus says only what the Father has given him to say. To take this construct further then, ultimately the Paraclete\u2019s words are those of the Father as well (Becker 1971: 499; Barrett 1978: 489\u201390; Franck 1985: 42). If this is not made explicit in the text, it is because the Evangelist\u2019s focus is primarily on Jesus in the Farewell Discourses, and on addressing the problems of his departure. The thrust of the promise that the Paraclete will teach all things and recall Jesus\u2019 words is not primarily that the Paraclete perpetuates Jesus\u2019 revelation, but that the Paraclete makes Jesus continually present to the disciples. The Paraclete-Spirit of Truth continues Jesus\u2019 presence and function by brokering access to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus can continue to be \u2018available\u2019 as broker for the disciples and his brokering of instruction from the Father can continue. It is actualized through the Paraclete\u2019s work of teaching all things (by speaking the words of Jesus which emanate from the Father) and recalling all that Jesus had already taught them (in his speaking the words of the Father).
\nThe Paraclete also declares the things that are to come. Here the Paraclete fulfills one of the key roles of a prophet. Interestingly, it is not said that the Johannine Christians will in turn declare to the world \u2018the things that are to come\u2019. In fact, nowhere in John does the Evangelist say the believers will be prophets. Could it be that the Evangelist is limiting the role of prophet to the spirit? Could it be that the Evangelist does not envisage a human being as a prophet since in Israelite tradition a prophet is essentially a direct broker between God and God\u2019s clients? When Jesus has returned to the heavenly realm, only another figure who can move between the heavenly and earthly realms (i.e. the Spirit-Paraclete) can provide human beings with access to the heavenly realm. No human being fits that description; therefore, no human being can be a prophet in the sense of providing direct access to God. Nonetheless, Jesus does allow the disciples to function as witnesses and as subordinate brokers in providing access to Jesus. In this limited sense, they may appear to have prophetic functions, though the disciples\u2019 access to Jesus is also mediated, by the Paraclete.
\nSince in John\u2019s first Farewell Discourse the Paraclete\/Spirit of Truth\/Holy Spirit brokers access to Jesus for believers, so that Jesus can continue to broker access to the Father, can continue to be the \u2018way\u2019 to the Father (14:6), then \u2018broker\u2019 would indeed be warranted as a translation for \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 here, as in several of the Greek examples studied. In this examination of the Greek usage of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 it was found that the word usually denotes someone (or something) who mediates access to certain benefits from a patron who possesses those benefits. In ch. 14 of John, we find that the Paraclete does just this. He provides believers with access to Jesus, to Jesus\u2019 presence, to his past instruction and to his continuing revelation. But we have also apprehended that, since the words Jesus speaks are not ultimately his own, but come from the Father, the Paraclete brokers access to another broker. Jesus is the broker who ultimately brokers the benefits of the Father\u2019s patronage. This sort of network of brokers occurs regularly in patronal relationships. Most brokers provide their clients with connections only to another broker, who is able to provide them with access to the patron who possesses the benefits they seek. There can be many rungs on such brokerage \u2018ladders\u2019. An important conclusion of this analysis of the Paraclete passages in the First Farewell Discourse is, then, that Jesus\u2019 brokerage continues. This seems to be the issue for the Evangelist. Jesus continues to be the way to the Father. Consequently, Jesus continues to be a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. He does not cease to be a broker when he returns to the Father, but continues to be the only one able to provide believers with access to God. Therefore, the Paraclete is described as \u2018another\u2019 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, not only because Jesus was a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but because he still is.<\/p>\n
b. The Remaining Paraclete Sayings (15:26\u201316:15)<\/p>\n
I have chosen to exegete the Paraclete sayings at 15:26 and 16:7\u201315 in one section. I acknowledge that, structurally speaking, there are divisions within 15:26\u201316:15. Still, the themes dealt with in this unit form a contiguous progression, moving from the theme of the Paraclete\u2019s\/disciples\u2019 witness to the world and resulting persecutions (15:26\u201316:4a) to that of the Paraclete\u2019s \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of the world (16:4b\u201311), to that of the Paraclete\u2019s relationship to the disciples (16:12\u201315), and therefore presents us with enough continuity to deal with the entire unit together.
\nIt should be noted at the outset that striking similarities exist between Jn 14 and 16. Like ch. 14, ch. 16 centers on the theme of Jesus\u2019 departure and the disciples\u2019 despair. The two chapters share several parallel verses, and 16:16\u201324 mirrors the technique of statement-misunderstanding-clarification that was noted in the first Farewell Discourse. Moreover, both units contain two Paraclete passages. Why the similarities between chs. 14 and 16? The compositional history of the Farewell Discourses occasions much debate, and here I am unable to present the breadth of issues involved. Yet the issue of the authorship of chs. 14 and 16 proves significant for this study and cannot be bypassed. More pointedly, we are concerned to know whether the pneumatology of ch. 16 is that of the Evangelist.
\nI wish to discuss two of the possibilities which confront us with regard to the authorship of chs. 14 and 16. It is possible that chs. 14 and 16 represent different \u2018drafts\u2019 of a discourse, both composed by the Evangelist, which both came to be incorporated into the Farewell Discourses, either by himself or by an editor. Or it is possible, as Schnackenburg contends, that the discourses have different authors, with the later author imitating the style of the earlier author in his \u2018new\u2019 discourse. Schnackenburg\u2019s reasons behind this contention are, however, unconvincing as evidence for different authorship. Some of Schnackenburg\u2019s evidence cited in support of his theory could be explained if the Evangelist was facing\/addressing different concerns when he composed the later \u2018draft\u2019. In other words, the Evangelist may have been emphasizing different issues at different stages in his community\u2019s experience. For instance, in response to one of Schnackenburg\u2019s arguments, in the ch. 16 \u2018draft\u2019 he could be more concerned to emphasize the activity of the Paraclete with regard to the world because at that time his community was experiencing a more acute degree of conflict with the \u2018world\u2019. Schnackenburg\u2019s other arguments include: (1) ch. 14 mentions one \u2018little while\u2019 until Jesus withdraws from the disciples and then is present with them again, but ch. 16 mentions \u2018a little while\u2019 until he leaves and then \u2018again a little while\u2019 until they see each other again (16:16); (2) in ch. 16 the disciples\u2019 relationship to the Father is more direct (16:26) than in ch. 14; and (3) ch. 14 is concerned with strengthening the disciples\u2019 vulnerable faith, while in 16:30 they declare their faith openly. In response to Schnackenburg I note, regarding (1), it could be asserted that the second \u2018little while\u2019 between Jesus\u2019 departure and return (through the Paraclete) is implied and taken for granted in ch. 14 though it is not stated. Certainly in the passion narrative of John a lapse occurs between Jesus\u2019 departure (i.e. death) and his conferral of the Spirit (i.e. Paraclete) after his resurrection. Regarding (2), the disciples\u2019 relationship to God is still brokered through Jesus in ch. 16. They must make requests to the Father \u2018in Jesus\u2019 name\u2019 (16:26a) just as in ch. 14 (14:13\u201314). Finally, regarding (3), even without ch. 16 the Farewell Discourses would display a deepening of the disciples\u2019 loyalty for Jesus, the culmination of which is expressed in the strongly affective language of Jesus\u2019 prayer in ch. 17, where the disciples are starkly contrasted with the perfidious world. This progression in faith might account for the disciples\u2019 declaration at 16:30, which, even then, is shown to be inadequate (16:31\u201332). All in all, Schnackenburg\u2019s evidence fails to sustain a strong enough case for different authorship.
\nChapters 14 and 16 of John appear to be separate drafts of the same discourse, while ch. 15 is linked to 16 by similar themes, as will be seen below. In the following it will be assumed the three discourses share the same author. John 15:18\u201316:11 provides the counterpart of its preceding section. Verses 15:1\u201317 spotlights the disciples\u2019 relationship vis-\u00e0-vis Jesus and one another. These relationships are marked by love and \u2018abiding\u2019, or loyalty. In sharp contrast to this complex of relationships stands the relationship between the disciples and the world, the theme taken up at 15:18. However, this theme is foreshadowed in 15:6 with the reference to the pruning and burning of \u2018disloyal\u2019 branches. The shift from the theme of love between Jesus and his disciples to that of the hatred of the world for both is abrupt, yet the two sections are flip-sides of a broader theme. Both units express the integral unity between Jesus and believers. This unity constitutes the foundation on which the disciples\u2019 love for one another rests: the disciples are to love one another because Jesus has loved them, and by loving one another they remain faithful to Jesus (i.e. \u2018keep his commands\u2019, 15:12, 14, 17). Likewise, the unity between Jesus and the disciples constitutes the cause of the world\u2019s hatred of the disciples: the world will hate them and persecute them because the world did the same to Jesus. Within the Mediterranean cultural context, \u2018love\u2019 signifies loyalty to a person or group, while \u2018hate\u2019 denotes disloyalty or \u2018indifference\u2019 to a person or group. \u2018Love\u2019 and \u2018hate\u2019 are primarily associated with external actions rather than inward emotional states (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998: 86\u201388). The world hates the disciples because they belong to Jesus and the world does not believe in him, they do not love or show loyalty to him, and will therefore not do so to his followers. Disloyalty to Jesus, or failure to accept him epitomizes the world\u2019s sin (15:22\u201324).
\nAgainst this backdrop the Paraclete enters into the discourse, and it is revealed that the Paraclete, whom Jesus will send from the Father, will testify to the world on Jesus\u2019 behalf. Though the word \u2018world\u2019 does not appear in 15:26\u201316:4a, the context of the unit makes it apparent that the world is being discussed here (cf. 15:18\u201319, 25; 16:2). The continuity between those identified as the \u2018world\u2019 in 15:18\u201325 and those opposed to the disciples\u2019 in 15:26\u201316:4a stands out. Verses 15:18\u201325 begins with direct references to the world, which remains the primary focus of the subunit though the designation \u2018world\u2019 drops out, and by the end of the subunit, in v. 25, the world comes to be identified as those whose hatred of Jesus and the Father fulfills \u2018the word that is written in their law\u2019. Apparently then, the \u2018world\u2019 denotes \u2018religious\u2019 Israelites. Moreover, the references to expulsion from the synagogues in 16:2 indicates they are also in view in the subunit of 15:26\u201316:4a. Those characterized as Jesus\u2019 and the disciples\u2019 opposition in this part of the Farewell Discourses are the same group who bore that characterization throughout the Gospel. It is interesting, however, that the opponents of Jesus are generally called \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 outside of Jn 14\u201317, whereas the term \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 is used rarely in the Farewell Discourses (it appears in 13:33). Ashton makes the cogent suggestion that this variation in the author\u2019s terminology merely reflects his desire to maintain a distinction between those who opposed Jesus during his ministry and those who would be in conflict with the Johannine community. Ashton sees \u2018no rigid distinction\u2019 between the terms \u2018world\u2019 and \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (Ashton 1991: 136\u201337).
\nJesus says the Paraclete will testify to the world \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 (15:26), presumably because Jesus will no longer be physically present in the world and thus no longer able to testify for himself. The NRSV translation of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 as \u2018on my behalf conveys well the meaning of the verse. The Paraclete does not witness \u2018about\u2019 Jesus, providing his own information about Jesus, rather he provides a way for Jesus to continue his own witness. This interpretation comports with the picture of the Paraclete as the means through which Jesus is made available, or \u2018present\u2019, after his return to the Father. The Paraclete\u2019s witness does not simply recapitulate Jesus\u2019 earthly witness, rather the Paraclete makes available the continued witness of the glorified Jesus. The theme of witness to the world follows naturally upon the theme of the world\u2019s sin and hatred in 15:18\u201325. During his ministry, Jesus bore witness to the world, and its rejection of Jesus\u2019 witness epitomizes sin. After Jesus\u2019 departure, his witness continues through the Paraclete. The Paraclete perpetuates Jesus\u2019 witness because he provides a \u2018connection\u2019 to Jesus after his departure (Beare 1987: 117). And in as far as the world continues to jettison Jesus\u2019 testimony through the Paraclete, they linger in sin, manifesting their ignorance of and disloyalty toward God. Witness to the world and \u2018sin\u2019 are interrelated concepts in John.
\nIt is also said the disciples will witness. Their witness relies on their having been with Jesus \u2018from the beginning\u2019 (v. 27). The distinction between the Paraclete\u2019s witness and that of the disciples is significant. The Paraclete testifies on behalf of Jesus because Jesus will be departing from earth. The disciples\u2019 witness pertains specifically to what they saw of Jesus \u2018from the beginning\u2019, in other words, what they experienced of Jesus\u2019 earthly ministry (see 1 Jn 1:1). This description functions to set the Paraclete\u2019s witness apart as something other than this. The disciples witness to their experience of Jesus. The Paraclete witnesses for Jesus. This becomes more apparent in 16:12\u201313, which states that the Paraclete will not speak on his own, but will speak only what he hears from Jesus.
\nYet how does the Paraclete go about witnessing to the world for Jesus? The Paraclete is not sent to the world, but to the disciples. In fact, in 14:17 it was stated that the world could not even receive, see, or know him, which seems appropriate since the Paraclete functions as a broker to Jesus and the world does not accept or receive Jesus. But then how can the world apprehend the Paraclete\u2019s (and thus Jesus\u2019) witness at all? The Paraclete is not sent to the world and cannot guide the world into the truth, the way he does the disciples. It would seem then that the only way the Paraclete\u2019s witness could reach the world is through the disciples. This is why many interpreters conclude that the Paraclete witnesses to the world through the proclamation of believers. The Paraclete\u2019s witness to the world on Jesus\u2019 behalf is apprehended by the disciples, who in turn proclaim Jesus\u2019 testimony to the world. But the content of the disciples\u2019 own witness (v. 27) is what they experienced of the earthly Jesus. In other words, the witnessing ascribed to the disciples in v. 27 pertains only to the disciples who were eyewitnesses of Jesus\u2019 life and ministry.
\nMany scholars have noted a parallelism between the conception of the Paraclete as witness in our passage and the portrayal of the spirit\u2019s work, namely, to witness for the disciples before the courts, in the Synoptic \u2018Eschatological Discourse\u2019 (Mt. 10:17\u201325; 24:9\u201310; Mk 13:9\u201313; Lk. 21:12\u201317). The affinities between the two could suggest that the Evangelist knew the Synoptic tradition and freely reformulated it to suit his unique purposes, rather than suggesting a genuine similarity of thought. Indeed, the only substantial difference between the Synoptic formula and the Johannine is that in the Synoptics the spirit witnesses on behalf of the disciples, not on behalf of Jesus, as in John. Mk 13:11 states, \u2018When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit\u2019 (cf. Mt. 10:19\u201320; in Lk. 12:11\u201312, the Holy Spirit teaches the disciples what to say). This could indicate the Evangelist\u2019s reworking of the tradition.
\nSome scholars reckon that the Evangelist\u2019s incorporation into the Farewell Discourses of the \u2018Eschatological Discourse\u2019 tradition, which attributes a forensic role to the spirit, was the impetus for the Evangelist\u2019s introduction of the title \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (esp. Brown 1966\u201370: II, 699\u201370; Burge 1987: 206\u2013208). This theory rests on the assumption that the title has primarily a forensic meaning, an assumption I have countered. Those who view the Paraclete primarily as a forensic figure adduce as key evidence the Paraclete sayings at 15:26 and 16:7\u201311. I wish to argue, however, that though the spirit sometimes bore a forensic role in Christian tradition (Mt. 10:20; Mk 13:11; Lk. 12:12), in John\u2019s Farewell Discourses the forensic \u2018task\u2019 of the Spirit-Paraclete falls within his patronal function. The only Paraclete saying that attributes a forensic task to the Paraclete appears at 15:26, and I will argue that even here the \u2018witnessing\u2019 work of the Spirit-Paraclete is concomitant to his role as Jesus\u2019 loyal broker\/client and as a support to the disciples in their work of witnessing. Furthermore, I will argue below that Jn 16:7\u201311, which is usually taken as definitive proof of the Paraclete\u2019s forensic function in the Fourth Gospel, does not in fact evidence a forensic function for the Paraclete and does not fit into the \u2018trial story\u2019 fashioned by the Evangelist.
\nIn 15:26 we read that the Paraclete will \u2018witness\u2019 on behalf of Jesus. \u2018Witnessing\u2019 does seem to be conceptualized as a forensic task in John. The metaphor of a trial pervades the Fourth Gospel (Lincoln 1994: 29), and Jesus is there depicted as a defendant on trial before the world. Jesus, along with several other witnesses, testifies throughout the Gospel. Furthermore, as both Harvey (1976: 103\u201322), Trites (1977: 78\u2013127) and, more recently, Lincoln (1994) have asserted, this trial of Jesus does not end with his departure from earth, but continues in the trial of both Jesus and his disciples in his absence (Harvey 1976: 112; Lincoln 1994: 10\u201312). Consequently, the disciples are commissioned to bear witness of their experiences with Jesus (15:27) after he has returned to the Father. Within this context, the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth too will witness (15:26), on behalf of Jesus. Yet I submit that the Paraclete is not defined by this \u2018forensic\u2019 task of witnessing. Even Harvey and Lincoln, who uphold the view of the Paraclete as a primarily forensic figure, note that the point of 15:26 is that the Paraclete will act as a support to the disciples when they witness before the world (Harvey 1976: 107; Lincoln 1994: 10). Lincoln writes, \u2018By being present with the disciples in their trial \u2026 [the Paraclete] will aid them in their witness to the truth, because, as the Spirit of truth, he will guide them into all truth \u2026\u2019 (1994: 10). By witnessing on behalf of Jesus the Paraclete stands alongside the disciples, undergirding their testimony with the more powerful testimony of Jesus himself. This activity of the Paraclete falls within his work as a broker. Patrons frequently provide their clients with support during times of need, as clients do for their patrons; support in times of need constitutes a key \u2018benefit\u2019 of the patronal relationship (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 57). A patron or client will often lend his support when one of the parties finds himself in court (Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984: 62). In our passage the Paraclete fills the role of a broker for the disciples in brokering to them the support of Jesus\u2019 corroborating witness alongside their own witness. Trites elucidates the \u2018supportive\u2019 function of the Paraclete in the post-resurrection trial context, though she misses the patronal meaning: \u2018When the apostles are witnessing for Christ in the face of antagonism and hostility, they do not witness in their own strength but rather in the convincing power of the Holy Spirit (Jn 15:26f.)\u2019 (Trites 1977: 121).
\nYet the Paraclete also fills the role of a loyal broker\/client of Jesus who witnesses on his behalf as part of the ongoing trial of Jesus. Interestingly, Harvey draws parallels between this trial and the Israelite legal background, noting that in Israel the only courtroom players were the judge and the witnesses. There were no \u2018lawyers\u2019. Apparently without being cognizant of the fact, Harvey describes the witnesses in patronal terms: \u2018The greater number of reputable persons a man could gather on his side to corroborate his own testimony the better \u2026\u2019 (1976: 108). Furthermore, he notes that in rabbinic literature, the loanword \u2018paraclete\u2019<\/p>\n
\u2026 did not mean an advocate in the sense of a lawyer. [It] meant rather a man who would appear in court to lend the weight of his influence and prestige to the case of his friend, to convince the judges of his probity, and to seek a favourable verdict.<\/p>\n
This practice aroused concern among those who wanted strict impartiality in the courts (Gen. R. 18.33). In patronage societies, such as the societies of the ancient Mediterranean, the \u2018reputable persons\u2019 and \u2018influential friends\u2019 a person would hope to rely upon for support in the courtroom would likely be patrons and\/or clients. Such persons would not primarily function as legal or forensic figures, but they would first and foremost be linked to the defendant by the reciprocal ties of patronage and\/or kinship and would function as reliable \u2018friends\u2019 of the defendant. As such they would take on a forensic task, but only for a time, and only because of the patronal and\/or kinship relationship they shared with the defendant, a relationship that would continue long after the trial had ceased. John 15:26 does not provide evidence of a \u2018forensic\u2019 spirit, but provides further evidence of a supportive, patronal spirit. As Franck writes, \u2018The [Paraclete] will respond to all the needs of the disciples, giving assistance where the disciples have shown their own insufficiency\u2019 (1985: 66). Consonant with the responsibilities of patrons\/brokers in patronage societies, the Paraclete is portrayed as rallying to his clients\u2019 defense when they find themselves before a judge. The Paraclete stands alongside the disciples as they bear witness to their experiences of Jesus before the world. Ironically, the analyses of Harvey, Trites and Lincoln that illustrate that the spirit functions to provide support for the disciples during the crisis of their trial before the world can just as well support my interpretation of the spirit as broker as they can support their forensic interpretations. Nonetheless, I will argue below that their interpretations prove unhelpful with respect to 16:8\u201311, the only other Paraclete passage that they can adduce as possible evidence of a \u2018forensic-spirit\u2019.
\nJust as Jesus\u2019 witness during his ministry had resulted in his persecution and death, so will the continued witness of the Paraclete and the disciples result in persecution and death for the disciples. The specific contours of these events make up the theme of 16:1\u20134a. At 16:7 attention turns to the sorrow the disciples are experiencing as a result of Jesus\u2019 disclosure about his departure and their impending persecutions. In response to this, Jesus tells them that \u2018it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the [Paraclete] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you\u2019 (16:7). This passage raises two questions: (1) Why is it only possible for the Paraclete to come after Jesus had departed? and (2) Why is it more advantageous to the disciples for Jesus to leave and the Paraclete to come than for Jesus to remain with them? I believe the answer to the first question is to be found in the characterization of the Paraclete. In other words, to answer that question, it is necessary that we first discern what is the Paraclete\u2019s purpose, according to his characterization in the Farewell Discourses. If the purpose of the Paraclete can only be fulfilled after Jesus has gone away, that would explain why it was necessary that Jesus must depart before the Paraclete could come to fulfill its purpose. I have argued that the Paraclete\u2019s purpose is one of brokerage. The Paraclete functions to provide believers with access to Jesus after he was no longer immediately available to them (14:16\u201318, 25\u201326; 16:7, 12\u201314), in order that Jesus could continue to provide believers with access to God. The goal for believers is God\u2019s patronage. And if that is the goal, and they have access to it through Jesus, they do not need the Paraclete while Jesus is with them.
\nThe second question proves to be a bit more complex. If the Paraclete\u2019s purpose is to provide access to Jesus, would not it be just as well for the disciples if Jesus did not leave and they continued to have unmediated access to him? Why was it more advantageous to have the Paraclete come and provide them with mediated access to Jesus? Could not Jesus have functioned as the broker between God and humanity while remaining on Earth, or by going back and forth between the realms? The problem with these questions is that the Evangelist probably would not have asked them. The historical fact of Jesus\u2019 return to the Father constrained him to account for Jesus\u2019 departure and physical absence. He does so by focusing on the continuing presence of Jesus with the believers through the Paraclete. What was important from the Evangelist\u2019s perspective was that Jesus revealed himself to be the true broker to God, and his brokerage would continue to be available to believers through the Paraclete\u2019s brokerage to Jesus.
\nReturning to the discourse, we find that at 16:8\u201311 Jesus says, \u2018And when [the Paraclete] comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment \u2026\u2019 (v. 8). The verb translated \u2018will prove wrong\u2019 in this passage, \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b5\u03b9, has received prodigious attention from biblical scholars. \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 can mean: to disgrace or put to shame, to cross-examine, to prove guilty or wrong, to convince or to condemn. Scholarly interpretations of 16:8 have utilized several of these meanings. A consensus as to the Evangelist\u2019s meaning clearly eludes us. Nevertheless, scholars\u2019 views can largely be summarized as dividing into two main groups, those supporting the translation \u2018to prove the world wrong\u2019 (or variants of this) on one side, and those supporting the translation \u2018to convince the world of its guilt\u2019 (or variants of this) on the other. Still, interpretations of the passage vary even among those who translate \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 similarly. For example, among those who choose the first translation mentioned, some believe the \u2018proving wrong\u2019 of the world is directed at the disciples: the Paraclete proves to them that the world is wrong. Others of them believe the \u2018proving wrong\u2019 is directed at the world by way of the disciples\u2019 proclamation. The Paraclete, via the disciples, proves to the world that it is guilty. This meaning closely approximates that of the second translation mentioned, \u2018to convince the world of its guilt\u2019. But Brown, who opts for the translation \u2018to prove the world wrong\u2019 argues that this activity must be directed at the disciples. For to say the Paraclete proves to the world that it is guilty, or to say that he \u2018convinces\u2019 the world of their guilt, would contradict the Evangelist\u2019s view of the world and the Paraclete\u2019s relationship to the world (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 711).
\nI concur with Brown\u2019s view. The Paraclete\u2019s mission is not directed to the world; he is not sent to the world in order to \u2018persuade\u2019 them of their guilt. Rather he comes to the disciples in order to continue Jesus\u2019 work and to make Jesus\u2019 presence perpetually available to them. Although, just as in Jesus\u2019 ministry, a \u2018remnant\u2019 from the world will accept Jesus\u2019 witness through the proclamation of the disciples, and be \u2018chosen out of the world\u2019 as were the disciples (15:19; 17:6, 20), the world as a whole will be as hostile to the disciples as they were to Jesus (15:18\u201316:4a). The broader context of 16:8\u201311 cautions one against the interpretation that the Paraclete will \u2018convince the world of their guilt\u2019. Verses 15:18\u201316:4a vividly describes the world\u2019s hatred of God and Jesus; the world does not know God and because of their rejection of Jesus\u2019 witness from God they have sin (15:21\u201324). The Paraclete continues Jesus\u2019 witness (15:26). Predictably, Jesus does not say the world will respond to the Paraclete\u2019s witness by being convinced of its guilt; rather he goes on to say that as a result of the Paraclete\u2019s and disciples\u2019 witness for Jesus, the \u2018world\u2019 will expel the disciples from the synagogues and put them to death (16:2). The world will continue to respond to the Paraclete, Jesus\u2019 broker, and to the disciples in the way they responded to him. In light of this context, there is little cause for accepting that 16:8 means the Paraclete will persuade the world of its guilt. I adopt the translation \u2018to prove wrong or guilty\u2019 for \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9, but I contend that this activity of the Paraclete is directed at the disciples, to whom the Paraclete is sent (16:7). The Paraclete will prove to the disciples the guilt of the world just as Jesus, during his ministry, exposed the wrongness of the world \u2018so that those who do not see may see\u2019 (9:39). Brown\u2019s interpretation of 16:8 commends itself to me in part because it squares with the characterization of the Paraclete as continuing the work of Jesus. The Paraclete will no more be able to \u2018convince\u2019 the world of its guilt than was Jesus. The world could not even hear Jesus\u2019 words, because they are not of God (8:47; cf. 10:4\u20135). The turpitude of the world appears more indomitable in John than in any of the other Gospels and is not lessened with the arrival of the Paraclete. But the Paraclete will continue Jesus\u2019 work of exposing the world\u2019s disloyalty to those who believe in him.
\nI take a hiatus from the exegesis of 16:7\u201311 at this point to address a potential criticism of my interpretation of the Paraclete as a broker figure. As already stated, those who view the Paraclete as primarily a forensic figure contend that the Paraclete\u2019s role in 16:8\u201311 constitutes a forensic role. Harvey (1976: 113\u201314), Trites (1977: 119) and Lincoln (1994: 10\u201311) suggest that the \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd activity of the Paraclete in this passage is part of the continuing trial of Jesus and the disciples after Jesus\u2019 departure. Yet there are some serious problems with this interpretation. If the defendants in the trial are Jesus and the disciples, what would be the purpose of the Paraclete\u2019s \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (proving wrong) the world? According to the Johannine trial story, the world is no longer on trial. The verdict against the world has been passed and \u2018the ruler of this world\u2019 stands condemned (16:11). But in their blindness, the world continues its trial against Jesus and his disciples, as Harvey, Trites and Lincoln point out (Harvey 1976: 103\u2013104; Trites 1977: 114; Lincoln 1994: 10\u201311). Who is the judge in this trial? The world is the judge, just as in the trial during Jesus\u2019 lifetime the judge was the world as represented by the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (Harvey 1976: 4\u20135) and Pilate (Ashton 1991: 226\u201329; Lincoln 1994: 8\u20139):<\/p>\n
As Christ is the advocate of the disciples before the Father in heaven (14:16; cf. 1 Jn 2:1), so the Spirit is the earthly advocate of Christ and his disciples before the world (emphasis added) (Trites 1977: 119).<\/p>\n
\u2026 Christianity\u2014is on trial before the world (emphasis added) (Harvey 1976: 115).<\/p>\n
Lincoln does not bluntly state the identity of the judge in the post-resurrection \u2018trial of truth\u2019, the continuing trial of Jesus and the disciples, but he aligns the trial of the earthly Jesus and that of his followers after his departure so closely, that it is apparent he sees the latter as an extension of the former, as a trial in which the world is judge. Thus he writes of the \u2018two-storey story\u2019 where \u2026<\/p>\n
Sometimes the two perspectives are clearly distinguished and sometimes they are compressed. This applies to the trial of Jesus and the trials of his followers \u2026 The issues about Jesus\u2019 identity and its implications are formulated in the light of what his witnessing followers have had to face in their own trials (Lincoln 1994: 19).<\/p>\n
What would be the purpose of the Paraclete\u2019s \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd the world if the world is the judge of the trial? Whether one translates \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 as \u2018to condemn\u2019, \u2018to convict\u2019, \u2018to persuade of guilt\u2019 or \u2018to prove wrong\u2019, the Paraclete\u2019s activity does not seem to \u2018fit\u2019 the trial context of the Gospel. A witness does not condemn, convict, persuade of guilt, or prove wrong the judge as a representative of the defendants. Harvey interprets the Paraclete\u2019s activity in 16:8\u201311 as \u2018counter-accusing\u2019 the accusers. He points out that in the Israelite forensic context, witnesses not only provide evidence, but they also attack the accuser in order to destroy his or her credibility before the judge (Harvey 1976: 113\u201314, 119). However, such a scenario is not analogous to that in Jn 16:8\u201311. The world is indeed the accuser of Jesus and the disciples. But the world is at one and the same time the judge of the trial. Before whom would the Paraclete counter-accuse the world? Presumably before the judge of the case. Yet in this case the world is the judge. Harvey has the Paraclete counter-accusing the judge! Trites, on the other hand, insists one should translate \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 by \u2018to convince\u2019. She draws on Old Testament forensic scenes, and cites occurrences of the verb \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 in LXX to support her forensic argument. Yet her Old Testament allusions do not really parallel Jn 16:8\u201311. The Old Testament passages Trites cites depict someone \u2018convincing\u2019 their opponent, or, as she explains, \u2018elicit[ing] a surrender from one\u2019s legal adversary\u2019 (Trites 1977: 118). In these cases, the defendant \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 (convinces) his opponent in an effort to cause his opponent to capitulate. Again, the proposed analogy does not match up with Jn 16:8\u201311. As argued above, the Paraclete does not \u2018convince\u2019 the world of its wrongness in order to elicit the world\u2019s surrender, for the Paraclete functions in relation to Jesus and the disciples, not the world. Furthermore, the world is more than just the disciples\u2019 accuser and opponent in the forensic context of 16:8\u201311. The world is also the judge of the case. Trites\u2019s analogy demands that the Paraclete as witness\/advocate \u2018convinces\u2019 in order to elicit a surrender from the judge; here her analogy gets muddy (see Trites 1977: 118\u201320). Is the Paraclete\u2019s role to put an end to the world\u2019s continuing trial of Jesus and the disciples by causing the judge to surrender to the defendant and throw out the case? This conclusion seems incompatible with the Johannine conception of the \u2018world\u2019. Trites cites Job 13:3, where Job says he desires to \u2018convince\u2019 God of his case. In this scenario God serves, at least from Job\u2019s perspective, both as Job\u2019s opponent and as the judge of Job\u2019s case. On the surface, this appears to parallel Jn 16:8\u201311, in that the defendant strives to \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9 his opponent\/judge. But the Paraclete\u2019s activity in 16:8\u201311 is not that of convincing Jesus and the disciples\u2019 opponent\/judge of their case. The Paraclete \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 the world regarding its false conceptions of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Job parallel does not stand.
\nThe forensic interpretation of 16:8\u201311 as asserted by Harvey, Trites and Lincoln just ends by getting one in a mess or leaving key questions unanswered. John 16:8\u201311 simply proves incoherent as part of the continuing trial of Jesus and the disciples. A further critique of the forensic interpretation of 16:8\u201311 stems from its failure to account for all of the Paraclete sayings. At best, a scholar can claim that it illuminates two, 15:26 and 16:8\u201311, though I have argued that the trial context of the Gospel only has a bearing on the former. But those who wish to push a forensic interpretation of the spirit have misinterpreted the forensic significance of 15:26. The forensic context of the saying has occasioned interpretations of the Paraclete as a forensic figure. But the role of the Paraclete in the passage is not primarily forensic. Harvey, Trites and Lincoln rightly perceive the forensic context of the passage, and properly understand its significance in relation to the continuing trial of Jesus and the disciples by the world after Jesus\u2019 departure, however, they mis-assess the role or function of the Paraclete within that context and how it fits into their \u2018trial\u2019 model. In 15:26 we find a non-forensic figure functioning within a forensic context, an all-too-likely scenario in the Mediterranean context where \u2018friends\u2019 of an individual were expected to rally to her support if ever she found herself before a judge. This does not make the Paraclete a forensic figure any more than the disciples of Jesus are forensic figures in 15:27! Whereas the forensic interpretation of the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourses does not explain the role of the Johannine Paraclete, the interpretation of the Paraclete as a broker can explain all of the passages.
\nAs argued above, something other than a \u2018cosmic trial\u2019 is going on in 16:8\u201311 I have argued that the \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd work of the Paraclete is directed at the disciples. The Paraclete proves to the disciples the world\u2019s wrongness regarding sin, righteousness and judgment. How does this activity align with the Paraclete\u2019s brokerage function according to our model of brokerage? To begin with, we recall that exclusivity is a key feature of brokers. A broker needs to be the only means by which her clients can attain access to a certain patron. For if her clients can attain access to that patron through another broker, the value of her brokerage diminishes substantially. The Evangelist portrays Jesus as the exclusive broker to the Father, and throughout the Gospel we find Jesus toppling all other purported brokers to God. This strategy of the Evangelist seems to betray a competitive context in which the Evangelist\u2019s own community was under pressure to forego Jesus\u2019 brokerage for another form of brokerage. Such passages as 9:22, 12:42 and 16:2, where it is hinted that John\u2019s readers were under the threat of expulsion from the synagogue if they confessed Jesus (to be the Messiah, 9:22), suggest that the synagogue authorities likely viewed Jesus as a rival broker and were using threats of violence and expulsion to pressure the Johannine Christians to stay in the synagogue and deny their loyalty to Jesus. It is in just such a situation that a broker will need to vie for clients. When a patron\/broker desires either to win more clients, or to secure the ones he already has, he will sometimes use his broker to persuade the clients to adhere to his patronage. John 16:8\u201311 relays that the Paraclete will prove to Jesus\u2019 clients that the synagogue Israelites, who seem to be identified with the \u2018world\u2019 (see 15:26; 16:2\u20133), are not the true brokers to God. They are wrong about sin, righteousness and judgment. The context of this \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd work of the Paraclete is that of a competition between brokers, where the Paraclete, as a loyal broker\/client of Jesus, demonstrates to Jesus\u2019 disciples the unworthiness of the rival broker, the synagogue. By proving this broker wrong, the Paraclete implicitly proves the disciples right in their loyalty to Jesus as God\u2019s broker.
\nIncidentally, in our study of the usage of the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 prior to John, we noted how a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 sometimes employs persuasion. In these situations, persuasion is a tool used to help him gain access to a patron\u2019s benefits on behalf of his client. And in Philo\u2019s De specialibus legibus (1929: I, 237) \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 (conviction) itself is the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 that persuades God, the patron, to grant forgiveness to his client. Does this passage provide a parallel to Jn 16:8\u201311? Not likely. In Jn 16:8\u201311 the verb \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used, not the noun \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, and the context of the two \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 sayings is quite different. In Philo\u2019s saying \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 (conviction) serves to make access to a particular benefit available from a patron for a client by propitiating the patron, God. In Jn 16:8\u201311 a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 does the activity of \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, persuading his clients of the guilt of rival brokers and encouraging them to remain loyal to God the patron. The two passages cannot be viewed as parallels. In 16:8\u201311 the Paraclete is not persuading the patron, God or Jesus, to make available certain benefits for the clients, the disciples, rather he is using persuasion to convince the disciples of the world\u2019s wrongness so that they will not give in to pressures to abandon Jesus\u2019 brokerage for that of the synagogue.
\nThose who view \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 as primarily a forensic term, and who apprehend Jn 16:7\u201311 as evidence of the forensic function of John\u2019s Paraclete, will likely note that 16:7 is the only instance where the Evangelist uses the title \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 on its own, without the accompanying title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019. Does the Evangelist spotlight the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 title in this passage because of the specifically forensic nature of the passage, as some might suggest? Our interpretation would lead to a negative answer to this question. We have asserted that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 primarily means \u2018broker\u2019 or \u2018mediator\u2019, not \u2018legal advocate\u2019. The Paraclete\u2019s activity in 16:8\u201311 is that of a broker.
\nI submit that of the five Spirit-Paraclete sayings in John\u2019s Farewell Discourses, only one saying, 15:26, attributes a potentially forensic task to the Paraclete, in the sense that the Paraclete witnesses on behalf of Jesus in a forensic setting, yet this task falls within his function as a broker. Indeed, every saying about the Spirit-Paraclete serves to characterize the Paraclete as a broker to Jesus. As Jesus\u2019 broker he provides his (and Jesus\u2019) clients with access to Jesus. Moreover, as a broker he exhorts Jesus\u2019 clients to remain loyal to their patron\/broker, Jesus, despite the fact that rival brokers are claiming to be the true brokers to God and pressuring Jesus\u2019 clients to reject him in favor of the Israelite religion.
\nThis brings us back to our exegesis of 16:8\u201311. Three aspects of the world\u2019s \u2018wrongness\u2019 or guilt are highlighted in 16:8\u201311: the world is wrong about sin; it is wrong about righteousness; and it is wrong about judgment. First, the Paraclete will prove to the disciples that the world is wrong about sin (v. 9) \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 (because) the world does not believe in Jesus, and this is truly what constitutes sin. In 16:9\u201311, the \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, is causal rather than explicative and should be translated \u2018because\u2019. The \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 clauses explain why the Paraclete proves the world to be wrong about sin, righteousness and judgment. The preferability of the \u2018causal\u2019 interpretation is more clear in vv. 10\u201311, as we will see below.
\nSecondly, the Paraclete will prove to the disciples that the world is wrong about \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (righteousness) because Jesus is going to the Father and the disciples will no longer be able to see him (v. 10). This perplexing clause has occasioned multiple interpretations. Specifically, various theories exist as to whose righteousness the world is wrong about. It could be argued that the verse cannot be saying the world is wrong about their own righteousness (as in v. 9 they are wrong about their own sin) because (1) how can anyone\u2019s \u2018righteousness\u2019 be wrong? and (2) the \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 clause does not seem to make sense if the world\u2019s \u2018righteousness\u2019 is denoted. Some scholars resolve some of the confusion by suggesting the righteousness of Jesus is in view in v. 10, not the righteousness of the world. So according to these scholars the verse should be understood as saying that the Paraclete will prove the world wrong about Jesus\u2019 righteousness because Jesus is going to the Father, which obviously vindicates his righteousness. But such an interpretation disrupts the symmetry of 16:9\u201311, since v. 9 obviously refers to the world\u2019s own sin, and v. 11 refers to the world\u2019s wrong judgment. I believe this constitutes a significant flaw, and that one should take seriously the issue of symmetry in 16:9\u201311. The most natural reading of the three clauses is one in which the person\/persons belonging to sin, righteousness and judgment are the same. In other words, if 16:9 says the world is wrong about sin, meaning their sin, and 16:11 says the world is wrong about judgment, meaning their judgment, then it is natural to read 16:10 as referring to wrongness about their own righteousness. Such a reading would demand that \u2018righteousness\u2019 in v. 10 is ironic, indicating a \u2018false\u2019 righteousness appropriate to the world. This interpretation, which has been submitted by D.A. Carson, has much to commend it.
\nCarson outlines several points in favor of interpreting \u2018righteousness\u2019 ironically in our passage, and I will briefly summarize them (Carson 1979: 558\u201360). (1) The Evangelist has a penchant for irony. Even the word\u2019 belief in John can bear a negative or positive connotation. (2) One can adduce two passages from the LXX where \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 takes on a negative meaning: Isa. 64:6 and Dan. 9:18. (3) Such an interpretation proves thematically consistent with the Gospel of John, in which the sacred ways of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (their \u2018righteousness\u2019) are repeatedly challenged. (4) Though 16:8\u201310 presents the only occurrence of \u2018righteousness\u2019 in John, the Pauline corpus offers two instances where a negative \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 is implied: Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6\u20139. (5) In Mt. 5:20, Jesus tells his disciples that unless their \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Here Jesus implies that such a \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 brings condemnation rather than salvation. (6) This interpretation establishes a convincing symmetry throughout 16:9\u201311.
\nThough these points may not be convincing in themselves, they evidence that it is certainly possible to speak of a false righteousness. The question that now must be addressed is whether the interpretation of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 as a negative, \u2018false\u2019, righteousness makes sense within the entire clause. Indeed it does. Jesus, throughout his ministry, was proving the world\u2019s righteousness to be wrong, to be \u2018false\u2019. Jesus\u2019 witness, inclusive of both his words and his works, casts in sharp relief the obduracy of the world and served to shed light on their hypocrisy. In rejecting Jesus they proved that their true allegiance was not to God but to \u2018the ruler of this world\u2019, their true patron. Their \u2018guilt\u2019 was not brought to light for the world to see, as I have already argued, it was made visible to those who would believe, to those \u2018given\u2019 to Jesus by the Father (17:9, 24). With this in mind, the meaning of v. 10 becomes more clear: the Paraclete proves the world wrong about righteousness because Jesus is going to the Father and the disciples will not see him anymore, in other words, because Jesus will no longer be around to expose the falseness of the world\u2019s righteousness to the disciples himself. This interpretation accords with the characterization of the Paraclete as sharing a functional unity with Jesus. The Paraclete continues Jesus\u2019 work: just as Jesus proved the world guilty about righteousness, so shall he. This aspect of Jesus\u2019 work will not cease because of his return to the Father.
\nFinally, v. 11 foretells that the Paraclete will prove the world wrong about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. Just as the world has a false understanding of sin and righteousness, so too they have a false understanding of judgment. The \u2018trial\u2019 of Jesus, which runs through the Gospel of John, will soon climax in Jesus\u2019 death. By putting Jesus to death, the world will believe it has succeeded in condemning him. According to the world\u2019s mistaken wisdom, justice will have been served. But the ironic scheme of the Gospel demands that in death, Jesus triumphs. And his ignominious crucifixion ironically constitutes the final, absolute condemnation by God of the world\u2019s true patron, the ruler of this world. Because Jesus\u2019 \u2018glorification\u2019 is conceived of as an event stretching from Jesus\u2019 betrayal to his resurrection, during his farewell speech Jesus can tell his disciples that the ruler of this world has already been condemned, and thus so has the world. Even as it prepares to judge Jesus, the world already stands judged.
\nThe final Spirit-Paraclete saying of John\u2019s Gospel appears at 16:12\u201315. Jesus still has many things to say to the disciples that they can presently not bear. But when the Spirit of Truth comes<\/p>\n
\u2026 he will guide them into all the truth; he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you (16:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
The integral unity between Jesus and the Spirit-Paraclete stands out quite plainly in this passage, but so too does the Spirit\u2019s subordination to Jesus. Everything that the Spirit-Paraclete will proffer to believers will have its source in Jesus. And as v. 15 suggests, all that Jesus has comes from the Father: \u2018All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he [the Spirit of Truth] will take what is mine and declare it to you.\u2019 Verses 16:12\u201315 perspicuously sums up the brokerage relationship between the Father, Jesus, the Spirit-Paraclete and the disciples, so that one scholar notes, \u2018That the [Paraclete\u2019s] activity was here construed in terms of a mediator is very likely\u2019 (Franck 1985: 67). The use of the title \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 in this passage, without the accompanying title \u2018Paraclete\u2019, may signal the Evangelist\u2019s desire to emphasize the benefit of \u2018truth\u2019 that the Spirit will broker (16:13a). The Spirit-Paraclete brokers truth by providing access to Jesus, the truth. That the Paraclete provides access to Jesus has been a theme all through the Farewell Discourses. Yet the contrast emphasized in 16:12\u201315 is that between the truth that Jesus\u2019 faithful clients will receive and the falsehood of the world. In 16:8\u201311 it was implied that those who remain loyal to the world will not receive the truth. They are led in the way of falsehood. Those who remain loyal to Jesus, on the other hand, will be guided in the way of truth by the Spirit of Truth.
\nThe verb employed in 16:13a, \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (to guide), bears an affinity to the word used by Jesus in his \u2018I am\u2019 statement at 14:6, \u2018I am \u1f21 \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 [the way].\u2019 As \u2018the way\u2019 Jesus provides believers with access to the Father; and as the one who \u2018guides\u2019 believers into all truth, the Paraclete provides access to Jesus, who is \u2018the truth\u2019, as well as to the words which he will hear from the glorified Jesus. The future tense verbs in these verses reveal that the Paraclete will disclose to the disciples \u2018new\u2019 revelations from the glorified Jesus and will not merely recapitulate and explain to them the teachings from Jesus\u2019 earthly ministry. These new revelations will include information about \u2018things that are to come\u2019. Though this is traditionally a task of a \u2018prophet\u2019 the Evangelist emphasizes the Paraclete\u2019s dependence on Jesus for this information (v. 13b); therefore the Paraclete is portrayed as a prophet only in a limited sense.<\/p>\n
3. Summary<\/p>\n
The Farewell Discourses reflect a period(s) when Jesus\u2019 seeming absence was troubling members of the Johannine community. Within the narrative itself, the disciples\u2019 anxiety over Jesus\u2019 departure mirrors such a situation. Their anxiety is addressed in various ways, including through Jesus\u2019 promises to return to them. The deep concern of the community centered on whether Jesus could continue to broker access to God when he was no longer on the Earth. This concern seems to be behind the emphatic reassertion of Jesus\u2019 role as the exclusive \u2018way\u2019 to the Father (14:6). It is dealt with through the introduction of the Paraclete, who continues Jesus\u2019 work and presence among the disciples. The Spirit-Paraclete and Jesus share a functional unity in that many of the tasks that the Paraclete is said to fulfill are earlier ascribed to Jesus. It becomes clear in the Discourses that the Paraclete does not act independently of Jesus, nor is he identical with Jesus in some way. Essentially, the Paraclete perpetuates the presence of Jesus by brokering access to Jesus after he has departed. The Paraclete teaches the disciples by speaking to them what he hears from Jesus (14:26; 16:12\u201315), he reminds the disciples of what Jesus said to them (14:26), he witnesses on behalf of Jesus in Jesus\u2019 trial before the world (15:26), he continues Jesus\u2019 work of proving to the disciples the wrongheadedness of the world (16:8\u201311), he guides the disciples into all truth by taking \u2018what belongs to Jesus\u2019 and declaring it to the disciples (16:12\u201315), and he glorifies Jesus by providing the means for Jesus to continue in his role as their patron\/broker to the disciples. The Paraclete provides disciples with access to the glorified Jesus, allowing Jesus to continue his work of revealing God to the disciples, of witnessing alongside them, of exposing the darkness of the world. In other words, the Paraclete makes it possible for Jesus to continue to be \u2018the way\u2019 to the Father, even when he is out of sight of the believers. He provides a way for Jesus to continue to be a paraclete.
\nThe \u2018oneness\u2019 of Jesus and the Paraclete is not to be understood as identity. The Paraclete is not the spirit of Jesus or the presence of Jesus, for the Paraclete is clearly subordinated to and dependent on him (16:13\u201315). Burge\u2019s interpretation, which melts pneumatology into Christology, is not necessary. Just as the oneness of Jesus and the Father in John can be explained by the fact that Jesus provides access to God, so that from the perspective of believers it is as if they are hearing God\u2019s words and seeing the Father himself when they see Jesus (10:37\u201338; 14:8\u201311), so when they experience the Paraclete it is as if they are experiencing Jesus. For it is only through Jesus that believers can know\/hear\/see God, and it is only through the Paraclete that they can continue to know\/see\/hear the glorified Jesus. The Paraclete continues Jesus presence and work not as Jesus\u2019 alter ego, but as a broker.
\nAs the spirit is in the Gospel proper, so the Spirit-Paraclete is a benefit that Jesus will broker to believers. But as with the other benefits Jesus provides, the source of the Paraclete is with God. The Father sends the Paraclete via Jesus. Ultimately, the Paraclete is sent to perpetuate the availability of access to God\u2019s patronage. This constitutes the real issue the Evangelist seeks to address. For if Jesus, after his departure, were no longer able to function as the way to the Father, then the Johannine Christians might need to think twice before forfeiting their ties to the synagogue. But the Evangelist makes clear that in a little while Jesus will come back! He and the Father will make a home with them, and it is the brokerage of the Paraclete that will bridge the distance between the disciples and the place to which Jesus goes.
\nThe Evangelist\u2019s dualistic perspective likely accounts for the designation \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 for the Spirit-Paraclete. As the true Spirit, the Paraclete stands apart from the false spirits of the world. Consequently, to call the Spirit-Paraclete the truth is to make a competitive claim against those opponents. While the Spirit-Paraclete is the true broker, the brokers they rely on are impostors. Furthermore, the Paraclete is the Spirit of Truth because he guides disciples on the way to truth (16:13), that is, the way to Jesus \u2018the Truth\u2019 (14:6).
\nIn this study on the Paraclete as broker, I have extended the work of scholars such as Bultmann, Mowinckel, Betz, Johnston and Franck, who have appreciated the Paraclete\u2019s function as a mediator. The key function of the Paraclete is indeed to bridge the divide between the disciples and Jesus. The advantage of this study is that it does not require a direct link between the Evangelist\u2019s concept of \u2018mediation\u2019 and a specific mediator figure in the history of religions. The religious-historical explanations of John\u2019s Paraclete have failed to convince or to build a relative consensus in scholarship. The brokerage model resides on a higher level of abstraction, however, and can be shown to be a social phenomenon throughout Mediterranean culture, and to have been practiced widely in the ancient Mediterranean region. It is very likely the Evangelist, like others in his culture, frequently experienced and observed brokers who functioned to provide people, their clients, with access to the benefits of some patron(s) who was out of their reach. Furthermore, it is likely that people in his culture, who believed that access to the higher orders had to be mediated, conceived of God as out of reach save for the brokerage of mediator figures. It is therefore likely that he drew on these general experiences and assumptions in characterizing the Paraclete as the one who provides access to Jesus, as well as in characterizing Jesus as the way to the Father, with both figures bridging the divide between disparate spheres. It is not necessary to pinpoint a particular manifestation of brokerage in the history of religions as the origin of John\u2019s brokerage concept. The mediator figures in Old Testament tradition, the angels of intertestamental literature (i.e. Michael), and the Mandaean helpers likely were all understood as brokers. But we cannot know if any of these figures served directly as a model for the Evangelist.<\/p>\n
Chapter 5<\/p>\n
SPIRIT IN 1 JOHN<\/p>\n
1. Exegesis of Spirit Passages in 1 John<\/p>\n
The focus of this study now shifts to the pneumatology of 1 John, as I hope to demonstrate what development took place between the Epistle and the Gospel with regard to pneumatology. Understanding the pneumatology of the different writings helps us to discern whether one developed out of the other, whether one was a reaction to the other, or whether they are incongruous and address different circumstances. My intention is to demonstrate the interrelationship between the contexts of the Gospel and the Epistle.
\nI postulate that the opponents behind 1 John understood Jesus\u2019 brokerage to climax in his giving over of the spirit, who in their view took over as permanent broker between God and believers. The opponents likely understood spirit to be the ultimate benefit that Jesus was sent to broker. Perhaps they felt Jesus \u2018took on\u2019 the Christ at the moment when the spirit came to abide on him, and perhaps they even viewed the abiding presence of the spirit on Jesus, as well as his brokering of the spirit to the disciples after his resurrection, as the ultimate and only significance of his life as a man.
\n1 John has been broadly deemed a \u2018polemical\u2019 piece. Even those who view the polemical purposes of the document as subordinate to other purposes (e.g. Lieu 1991; Edwards 1996) acknowledge that portions of the document were written to counter views inimical to those of the author and his community. The spirit passages of 1 John correlate to these polemical sections. Therefore, we begin our study of 1 John by outlining the contours of the opponents\u2019 views in order to equip us to interpret how the spirit sayings function in the author\u2019s polemic against them. Defining the views of the 1 John opponents proves risky, however. Any information we have about them comes solely from 1 John, a decidedly partial witness. But if we are unable to know about the opponents firsthand, at least we can know something of what the author of 1 John thought of them.
\nCertain verses in 1 John seem to hint at the beliefs and actions of the opponents. For example:<\/p>\n
Whoever says,\u2019 I have come to know [God]\u2019, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar (2:4).<\/p>\n
whoever says, \u2018I abide in [God]\u2019, ought to walk just as he walked (2:6).<\/p>\n
Whoever says, \u2018I am in the light\u2019, while hating a brother, is still in darkness (2:9).<\/p>\n
Those who say, \u2018I love God\u2019, and hate their brothers, are liars \u2026 (4:20).<\/p>\n
Most scholars accept that the quoted statements in these verses indicate assertions of the opponents. In these verses the author seems to be confronting his opponents\u2019 hypocrisy, since their behavior does not measure up to their claims (Whitacre 1982: 134). Many scholars also take 1:6, 8 and 10 as indications of the opponents\u2019 claims, yet Judith Lieu (1991: 50, 58\u201360) and Ruth Edwards (1996: 58, 67) justifiably contend that these verses are warnings to the community. Unlike the sayings above, 1:6, 8 and 10 begin \u2018If we say \u2026\u2019 (emphasis added), and are probably addressing moral confusion within the community itself. Yet even if these statements are addressed to moral waverers within the community, the opponents are probably not far from view, since they are the ones competing for the loyalty of the waverers within the group. Besides the aforementioned sayings, other verses insinuate views that the author is seeking to refute, or provide other information about the opponents. Verse 2:19 tells us the opponents were once a part of the community but \u2018went out\u2019 from them. Verse 2:22 implies the opponents deny \u2018that Jesus is the Christ\u2019, and thus deny \u2018the Father and the Son\u2019. Verse 3:17 insinuates they possess \u2018the world\u2019s goods\u2019 yet refuse to help brothers and sisters in need. Verses 4:1\u20136 suggest the opponents claim to prophesy via the spirit. Verses 4:2\u20133 imply they do not confess Jesus Christ having come in the flesh (v. 2), and in v. 3 just do not \u2018confess Jesus\u2019. In 4:5 we learn \u2018the world listens to them\u2019. Verse 5:1 infers the opponents do not believe Jesus was the Christ. And finally, 5:6 implies the opponents believe Jesus Christ came by water only, not by blood, probably meaning they deny the significance of Jesus\u2019 death (see below). Summarily, the 1 John opponents (1) claim to know, abide in and love God, and to \u2018be\u2019 in the light, yet they lack probity and, most importantly, fail to \u2018love\u2019 their brothers, which is probably a way of saying they are disloyal to the community; (2) they seem to claim the mediation of the spirit; and (3) they uphold a false Christology, which involves a denial of the significance of Jesus Christ\u2019s \u2018blood\u2019.
\nThe opponents\u2019 erroneous Christology must have been of great moment, for the author of 1 John places substantial weight on the need for proper confession of Jesus Christ. What, specifically, was wrong with the opponents\u2019 view? Some of the inimical beliefs inferred in 1 John, such as the denial that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and that Jesus Christ came by blood, have led many scholars to conclude that the opponents believed the Christ was revealed or incarnated in Jesus, but did not believe the human life of Jesus the Nazarene was of significance. And so, while they accepted that Jesus was used by God to reveal the Messiah, they denied that Jesus, the man who died on a cross, was the Messiah come in the flesh, and thus denied that Jesus\u2019 death bore salvific importance. Therefore, the author of 1 John insists one must confess that Jesus is the Christ (2:22, 5:1), that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (4:2), and that Jesus Christ came by blood (5:6). Part of the strategy of 1 John\u2019s teaching on Christology involves the compounding of the names \u2018Jesus\u2019 and \u2018Christ\u2019 (1:3; 2:1; 3:23; 4:2; 5:6, 20) (Rensberger 1997: 112), as well as the joining of the name \u2018Jesus\u2019 with the title \u2018Son of God\u2019 (4:15; 5:5, 20). These locutions challenge those attempting to separate the Christ from Jesus or Jesus from the Christ. The opponents\u2019 Christology does not evince a simple docetism, the belief that Jesus Christ \u2018seemed\u2019 human while not being human at all. Rather in 1 John the opponents seem to draw a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ (see 2:22). Neither can the opponents be identified as \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 who deny that the Messiah was somehow revealed in Jesus. Not only does this proposal lack evidence in 1 John, but the 1 John opponents were once a part of the Johannine community, and it is rather inconceivable that someone could have been a member of that community without accepting Jesus\u2019 messiahship in some sense (Schnackenburg 1992: 18).
\nThat the opponents accept Jesus Christ came \u2018by\/in water\u2019 but not \u2018by\/in blood\u2019 (5:6), probably means they deemed Jesus\u2019 baptism as salvifically important, but not his death. Perhaps they viewed the baptism of Jesus as the point when the Christ came to be revealed\/incarnated in him. Though the Fourth Evangelist does not narrate the baptism of Jesus, the baptism tradition was likely known to the 1 John community and one can understand how the opponents could have interpreted the meeting between Jesus and the Baptist at the Jordan River as a crux in the life of Jesus Christ. In all four Gospel accounts, the spirit from heaven descends on Jesus at that meeting (see Mt. 3:13\u201317; Mk 1:9\u201311; Lk. 3:21\u201322; Jn 1:29\u201334). Furthermore, the Synoptics tell us a \u2018voice from heaven\u2019 witnesses to Jesus\u2019 identity as the \u2018Son\u2019, and the Fourth Gospel has John, who was sent that Jesus might be revealed to Israel, testifying to Jesus\u2019 identity as the \u2018Son of God\u2019. Still, though the opponents seem to believe that the Christ \u2018came by water\u2019 at the baptismal event of Jesus\u2019 life, they are not necessarily \u2018Cerinthians\u2019. The proto-Gnostic Cerinthus of the early second century did teach that the Christ came upon Jesus at his baptism and departed from him before his death (R. Brown 1982: 65\u201366). Yet others of his principal views are not evidenced in 1 John. The most that can be said with confidence is that the 1 John opponents share a view in common with the Cerinthians, the view that Jesus\u2019 baptism was crucial to the revelation of the Christ, while his death carried no significance for salvation.
\nAs we have noted, the author of 1 John challenges the views of the opponents, encouraging his readers to stay true to the teachings they had \u2018heard from the beginning\u2019 (cf. 2:7, 24; 3:11), the kerygmatic proclamation of the community (Lieu 1991: 29\u201330). 1 John betrays a concern that some within the community were vulnerable to the opponents\u2019 teachings and needed reassurance that the community and its traditions were true (Whit-acre 1982: 140). Therefore, the author teaches that those who keep the \u2018commandment\u2019 they received through the tradition of the community and do not sin, those who maintain the christological confessions of the community, and those who \u2018love one another\u2019 by remaining loyal to the community, have fellowship with God and are God\u2019s children (cf. 1:1\u20133; 2:3\u20137, 20\u201327; 2:29\u20133:2a; 3:9\u201315, 18\u201324; 4:2\u20134, 7, 15; 5:1\u20135, 9\u201312, 18\u201320). They actively love God through keeping the commandment and through proper confession, maintaining the covenantal relationship characterized in 1 John as \u2018abiding\u2019 (see Malatesta 1978: 289, 304\u2013307). The author of 1 John also adduces the spirit, albeit guardedly, as evidence of the community\u2019s faithful relationship to God. With this, we turn to the spirit passages of 1 John.
\nThough the first occurrence of the word \u2018spirit\u2019 in 1 John appears at 3:24, many commentators take the \u2018anointing\u2019 mentioned in 2:20 and 27 as a reference to the Spirit. So that is where we shall begin. In the context of warning the community about the \u2018antichrists\u2019 who have gone out from them, and reassuring them that such defectors could not have \u2018belonged\u2019 to them, the author of 1 John writes, \u2018But you have a \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (anointing) from the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge\u2019 (2:20). These words serve as an exhortation to those who have remained faithful to the community: they have a \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, and thus can have confidence in relation to the anti-\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9. They are the antithesis of these betrayers. It seems the author uses \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 in this passage to effect a word-play: those who do not confess Jesus are \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, but the faithful have received a divine \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (Smalley 1984: 105). One need not postulate that the word \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 was borrowed from the practice of a sacrament of anointing. \u2018Anointing\u2019 language can be found in both the Old and New Testaments (1 Sam. 16:13; Isa. 61:1; Lk. 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Cor. 1:21). But what is the meaning of the 1 John 2:20 \u2018anointing\u2019? The biblical references cited all associate \u2018anointing\u2019 with the spirit. Does anointing in 2:20 denote a gift of spirit?
\nThe \u2018anointing\u2019 features in the following verses:<\/p>\n
2:20 you have an anointing from the Holy One
\n2:27a the anointing that you received from him abides in you
\n2:27b his anointing teaches you about all things<\/p>\n
It is often noted that \u2018abiding with you\u2019 and \u2018teaching you all things\u2019 are activities of the Johannine Spirit-Paraclete (Jn 14:16\u201317, 26). But it is methodologically unsound to directly interpret 1 John through the nexus of the Fourth Gospel, despite their apparent affinity. In 1 John, \u2018the word of God\u2019 is said to abide in believers (2:14); so is \u2018God\u2019s seed\u2019 (3:9), \u2018eternal life\u2019 (3:15), \u2018God\u2019s love\u2019 (3:17) and \u2018God\u2019 (3:24; 4:13\u201316). Yet nowhere is it stated that the spirit abides in the faithful. In fact, in 3:24b and 4:13, we read that possession of the spirit evidences God\u2019s abiding in believers. There the spirit constitutes a \u2018proof\u2019, not an abiding presence. Also significant are the striking parallels between 2:27a, which mentions the \u2018anointing\u2019, and 2:24a. The following word-for-word translation of the Greek makes this evident (Grayston 1984: 87):<\/p>\n
27a You\/the \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 which you received\/from him\/remains in you.
\n24a You\/what you heard\/from the beginning\/in you let it remain.<\/p>\n
These parallels seem to align the community\u2019s \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 with \u2018what you heard from the beginning\u2019. And in 2:7, what they had heard from the beginning is called \u2018the word\u2019, just as in 1:1 the declaration of \u2018what was from the beginning\u2019 concerns \u2018the word of life\u2019. All in all, evidence suggests that the anointing that the community is told abides in them, denotes the \u2018word\u2019, not the spirit. The \u2018word of God\u2019 is said to abide in them (2:14), as is the anointing. The anointing teaches them, just as the message of 1 John itself (the declaration of what was from the beginning [1:1; 2:7; 3:11]) teaches them. God, God\u2019s seed, God\u2019s love, God\u2019s \u2018word\u2019 and \u2018eternal life\u2019 are all said to be abiding in the faithful; therefore, they have knowledge of the truth (2:20\u201321). These statements function to encourage a community in their opposition to those who claim to know, abide in and love God and who claim to have the spirit, yet who reject their fellowship. The author exhorts his audience to be secure in their faith despite this abandonment, for only those who affirm the tradition of the community truly have God\u2019s spirit (4:2) and abide in the Son and the Father, thus having eternal life (2:24\u201325).
\nThat the author claims a \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 for his community without associating it with spirit, though anointing language traditionally denotes spirit, could signal a deliberate avoidance of spirit on his part. Verses 4:1\u20133 imply that his opponents claimed to prophesy via God\u2019s spirit. Perhaps they even claimed to have a \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 of spirit. It could be, then, that the author of 1 John must carefully avoid spirit-language that could be taken as fodder for the opponents\u2019 position, while still confirming that his own group is divinely anointed. He seems to do this by aligning the community\u2019s divine \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 with exactly what his opponents do not have: God\u2019s \u2018word\u2019, in the form of the tradition that the community had heard from the beginning. I will further discuss the author\u2019s avoidance of spirit-language later in this study.
\nThe first use of \u2018spirit\u2019 in 1 John does not appear until 3:24b. I already mentioned 3:24b and 4:13 above. These spirit sayings are nearly verbatim:<\/p>\n
3:24b \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.<\/p>\n
4:13 \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7<\/p>\n
The context of these sayings deals with the themes of love for one another and legitimate christological confession (3:23; 4:7\u201315). More specifically, the author here explicates who abides in God: in 3:23\u201324, those who obey God\u2019s commandment to believe in the name of Jesus Christ and to love one another abide in God, and God in them. And in 4:13\u201315, those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God abide in God, and God in them. The author seems to be reassuring his readers that they share an abiding relationship with God because they do these things. But he goes even further than this and tells them how they can be sure of God\u2019s abiding in them and their abiding in God. He writes that they can know God abides in them \u2018by the Spirit\u2019 that he has given them; their possession of the spirit provides evidence of this abiding relationship. Because they have this spirit, they can know that they experience covenantal unity with God. It is important to distinguish between the conditions of the abiding and the evidence of it. The author does not say the believers abide in God, and God in them, if they have the spirit. Rather, they abide in God if they have believed that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and if they have loved their brothers (3:23\u201324; cf. 4:15). Other conditions of abiding include remaining in what they heard from the beginning (2:24). These are the conditions of the abiding (R. Brown 1982: 482). Those who meet these conditions receive God\u2019s spirit, the possession of which provides concrete evidence of their status as those who abide. Possession of spirit is nowhere depicted as the substance of the abiding relationship. It is the evidence of it.
\nIf having the spirit provides evidence of abiding, how does one know or perceive one has it? The very fact that possession of the spirit is adduced to reassure the community of their abiding relationship with God implies that that possession will be evident to them. How is it evident? The verses following 3:24 give some indication (Brown 1982: 483). But they also reveal that the \u2018evidence\u2019 of the spirit proves difficult to discern. At 4:1a the author of 1 John sounds a caveat, \u2018Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.\u2019 He associates the spirits not \u2018from God\u2019 with false prophets (4:1b). Furthermore, he says the spirit of God is known by proper confession of Jesus: \u2018every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God\u2019 (v. 2), while the spirit of the antichrist does not confess Jesus (v. 3). The allusions in this passage to prophets and verbal confessions infers that the evidence of whether or not a spirit comes from God emerges in the form of speech or teaching. 1 John\u2019s test of the spirits bears an affinity to the Deuteronomy 18 test of prophets (Brown 1982: 488). According to Deut. 18:15\u201322, the true prophet like Moses speaks the words of God, while false prophets speak the word God has not commanded. To determine whether a prophet is false or true, the Israelites are instructed to observe whether his prophecy takes place or proves true. If it does not, the prophet is deemed false. He has presumptuously claimed to bear information from God, yet his information has proved to be untrue. Similarly, the spirits of 1 Jn 4:1\u20136 are evaluated by the confession that they inspire. A proper confession of Jesus confirms a spirit as \u2018from God\u2019 and serves as evidence that one possesses God\u2019s spirit (R. Brown 1982: 483), while not confessing Jesus demonstrates a spirit\u2019s origin in the antichrist. The two spirits are named the \u2018spirit of truth\u2019 and \u2018the spirit of error\u2019 in 4:6b, terms that have their precedent in Israelite literature, but which, in 1 John, fit the dualistic framework of the author\u2019s thought.
\nWith the majority of interpreters we understand the \u2018spirits\u2019 in 4:1\u20136 to be of an incorporeal nature; they do not seem to be \u2018human spirits\u2019 or tendencies. For one thing, \u2018the spirit that [Jesus] has given us\u2019 in 3:24 and \u2018the spirit of God\u2019 in 4:2 seem to be related, and 3:24 clearly does not refer to the human spirit or soul. It refers to the divine spirit. And there is no indication in 4:1\u20136 that the author of 1 John shifts from talking about divine spirits to talking about human spirits, and back and forth again. It is fair to assume consistency on his part unless there exists a lucid reason not to. The author of 1 John seems to assume that people are under the influence of spirits (R. Brown 1982: 489), either the spirit of God or the spirit of the antichrist, and that spiritual powers inspire human confession. But apparently the community must discern whether or not different spirits confess Jesus based on the confession of the persons under their power. If a person confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the community will know the spirit influencing that person confesses Jesus and is \u2018from God\u2019. The only way one can know what a spirit confesses is through the persons under that spirit\u2019s control. Verses 4:1\u20133 imply that false prophets who \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (have gone out) (cf. 2:19) into the world are claiming to speak by the spirit of God (Brown 1979: 138; Whitacre 1982: 144), and the world is listening to them (v. 5b). Against this background, the author must encourage his community to trust that despite what these false prophets might claim, they themselves are the ones truly speaking by God\u2019s spirit. The community can know this because they confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. In other words, because their confession measures up to the traditional confession of the community, they can know they possess God\u2019s spirit (4:2). And this possession of the spirit can reassure them of their abiding relationship with God (3:24; 4:13\u201315).
\nThe suggestion in 4:1\u20133 that the opponents in 1 John claim to speak by God\u2019s spirit bears significance for how we understand the author\u2019s approach to spirit. We already noted his use of \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 to denote the \u2018word of God\u2019 that the community had heard \u2018from the beginning\u2019, despite the fact that \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1-language usually pointed to the spirit. In his reference to \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, could the author be skirting around spirit because his opponents place undue emphasis on the spirit? Such a scenario would not demand that the author borrowed the word \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 from them; this we cannot know. However, 4:1\u20133 suggests that the opponents claimed the mediation of the spirit, whether or not they described it as a \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1. The way the author perspicuously points his readers to the tradition of the community as that which truly legitimates them as children of God, implies that he is crafting an alternative to the opponents\u2019 reliance on spirit. He manages to make it halfway into the letter before even mentioning the word \u2018spirit\u2019, instead placing great stress on the centrality of tradition, \u2018what you heard from the beginning\u2019. When he does eventually get around to breaching the topic of spirit he does so in a markedly guarded and ambivalent fashion. He adduces spirit as evidence of the community\u2019s abiding relationship with God, but then cautions readers not to misread the \u2018spirits\u2019. This is an interesting tactic. Apparently, the author cannot avoid mentioning spirit altogether. In fact, he believes spirit to be crucial for salvation, since spirit facilitates the proper confession of Jesus upon which salvation is contingent. He is in quite a dilemma, then. His opponents probably claim to prophesy via God\u2019s spirit, a claim he seems to refute. Yet he cannot dismiss spirit altogether, for it apparently plays an important role in his own theology. Therefore, he skirts around the issue of spirit while stressing tradition (Brown 1979: 140\u201341). Only after he has established the importance of tradition does he bring in the spirit. But then he must justify the claim that his community is the true bearer of the spirit by staking that claim on tradition. They know they have God\u2019s spirit because they make the proper confession of the community.
\nThe author\u2019s teaching in 3:23 to 4:1\u20136 betrays both polemical and reassuring purposes. He refutes the spirit-claims of the opponents who do not \u2018confess Jesus\u2019 but he does so in order to inspire confidence in those whose confession is pure. However, his argument turns out to be circular. The author\u2019s argument can be summarized as follows.<\/p>\n
1. if they believe in Jesus Christ (i.e. make a proper confession of Jesus) and love one another, then they abide in God, and God in them (3:24a).<\/p>\n
2. And the possession of the spirit (of God) is the evidence of this abiding relationship (3:24b). In other words, possession of the spirit of God is evidence that they have made a proper confession of Jesus and that they love one another.<\/p>\n
3. but one must test the spirits, since there exist two spirits, the spirit of God and the spirit of the antichrist (4:1\u20136).<\/p>\n
4. And the proper confession of Jesus is evidence of a spirit being the spirit of God (4:2). In other words,<\/p>\n
5. if someone makes a proper confession of Jesus, then they will know that person has the true spirit of God (4:2).<\/p>\n
In the end, the author\u2019s argument in this section does not seem to be going anywhere. He adduces the possession of the spirit as evidence of the abiding relationship that results from proper confession of Jesus and from love, but has to qualify his teaching since there exists more than one spirit. A claim to have the spirit is not adequate evidence, since even false prophets can claim to speak by the spirit of God. Therefore he must address the question, How does one know someone has the right spirit? His answer brings him back to where he started: one knows someone has the right spirit if that person makes the proper confession. Apparently, the spirit serves as evidence of one\u2019s abiding in God, and God in oneself, because the spirit facilitates the proper confession that is a precondition of that abiding. But in the end the proper confession itself seems to be the only reliable evidence of that abiding, since it is only in the pure confession of Jesus that the \u2018evidence\u2019 of God\u2019s spirit can be discerned.
\nA claim to speak by the spirit would not demand that the 1 John opponents are \u2018ecstatics\u2019 or \u2018spiritual enthusiasts\u2019. 1 John proffers no evidence in support of such a characterization of the opponents. The implicit references in 1 John to the views and actions of the opponents give no indication of ecstatic behavior. They are faulted for their doctrines and lack of moral uprightness (or disloyalty), but not for exhibitions of spiritual enthusiasm. They do seem to claim the mediation of God\u2019s spirit, and the author of 1 John attempts to refute this claim. But a group can claim to speak by the spirit without being ecstatics. In his polemic in 4:1\u20136, the author does not oppose the idea that people speak via different spirits. If he meant to challenge an objectionable claim to ecstatic, spirit inspiration then he likely would not have done so by teaching that all people are under the control of spirits (4:1\u20136). What he does challenge is the assertion that the spirit inspiring the teaching of the opponents emanates from God (4:2\u20133). He wishes to prove, though, that God\u2019s spirit lies behind the christological confession of his community. Yet there is nothing in 1 John demonstrating either group envisions their interaction with the spirit in ecstatic terms. Though spiritual \u2018ecstasy\u2019 may have been prolific in ancient Mediterranean culture, it cannot be assumed in view of the lack of evidence that the 1 John community or their opponents were ecstatics.
\nI submit that the opponents\u2019 claim to prophesy by the spirit is not an issue of spiritual enthusiasm, but is rather a claim to have the brokerage of God\u2019s spirit. 1 Jn 4:1\u20133 implies the opponents claim to be prophets speaking by the spirit \u2018from God\u2019. This construct suggests they believe themselves to be prophets connected to God through the brokerage of God\u2019s spirit. It is likely they believe the Holy Spirit makes available to them words from God, which they in turn \u2018prophesy\u2019. Such a situation proves intriguing in light of the ubiquitous Johannine emphasis on the brokerage of Jesus, and in the Farewell Discourses, on the brokerage of the spirit. Could it be that the opponents\u2019 emphasis on the spirit\u2019s brokerage somehow issues from the Gospel\u2019s emphasis on brokerage as a theological concept? We are compelled to postulate a possible scenario to explain the interrelationship between what appears to be happening in the context of 1 John, and issues addressed in John\u2019s Gospel.
\nFirst of all, we must ask: could the opponents\u2019 conception of the spirit as broker have developed out of the belief reflected in the Farewell Discourses that the spirit serves as broker after Jesus\u2019 departure? In those discourses, the Evangelist does cast the spirit in a brokerage role. In one passage the Evangelist does state that the Paraclete-Spirit will lead the disciples into all truth (16:13). Is this the sort of spirit mediation being claimed by the opponents? There does appear to be some similarity between the spirit\u2019s brokerage as characterized in the Farewell Discourses and the spirit\u2019s brokerage as adduced by the opponents. However, there are key elements of the Evangelist\u2019s teaching on the spirit\u2019s brokerage in the Farewell Discourses that the opponents seem not to heed. As was noted above, the brokerage of the Paraclete is inextricably bound up with the brokerage of Jesus. Nowhere in the Farewell Discourses does the Evangelist state that the Spirit-Paraclete brokers benefits directly from God. Every benefit he makes available to believers emanates directly from Jesus, and the spirit\u2019s work of brokerage continues the work of Jesus as broker in that the benefits Jesus provided in his ministry continue to be made available to the disciples from the glorified Jesus, only now through the mediation of the Paraclete. The Spirit-Paraclete will indeed lead the disciples into all truth, but he will speak only what he hears from Jesus (16:13\u201315). According to 1 John\u2019s polemics, the opponents of the community disparage the importance of the earthly Jesus. They reverence the \u2018Christ\u2019 who was revealed in Jesus but fail to confess that Jesus, the man from Nazareth, is the Christ. This christological belief, or misbelief as the author of 1 John argues, does not comport well with the construction of brokerage presented in the Farewell Discourses. Those Discourses insinuate that Jesus will \u2018return\u2019 to the disciples through the mediation of the Paraclete, and they state that the tasks of the Paraclete include recalling to mind what the earthly Jesus has said. The Paraclete will \u2018glorify\u2019 Jesus by perpetually making available what is \u2018his\u2019 to believers (16:14). In the Farewell Discourses we find a degree of emphasis on the continued significance and presence of Jesus that would seem to contradict the opponents\u2019 views on Jesus. Consequently, it does not seem that the opponents derived their understanding of the spirit as broker directly from the Farewell Discourses (against Brown 1979: 139).
\nUrban von Wahlde, who summarizes the perspective of the 1 John opponents as a \u2018radical pneumatology\u2019 consisting of the belief that the spirit provides direct access to God thus rendering Jesus superfluous (Von Wahlde 1990: 114\u201315), likewise concludes that the Farewell Discourses could not have formed the basis of the opponents\u2019 views. I agree. However, the brokerage theology of the Gospel proper may have formed the basis for their views. It is possible that the opponents\u2019 spirit-as-broker pneumatology stems from the brokerage theology of the Johannine tradition which is so evident elsewhere in John. The Gospel of John teaches that access to the Father, God, must be mediated by a heavenly being, and that Jesus was sent as such a mediator. As we noted in our study of the Farewell Discourses, which betray an interest in asserting Jesus\u2019 continued role as broker even after his departure (i.e. 14:6), there seems to have developed within the Johannine community a fear that Jesus could no longer broker access to God after he had left the Earth. The Evangelist addresses that concern by reasserting Jesus\u2019 status as the only broker to God, and constructing a brokerage network by which access to the glorified Jesus is mediated through a second broker, the Paraclete. Perhaps the same \u2018fear\u2019 that served as an impetus for the Evangelist\u2019s brokerage-pneumatology, that is the fear that Jesus might no longer be effective as a broker to God, occasioned the 1 John opponents\u2019 emphasis on the mediation of the spirit. Unlike the Evangelist, they seem to contend that the spirit directly connects them to God, and they discount the significance of the earthly Jesus. That both the author of the Farewell Discourses, and the opponents in 1 John conceive of the spirit as a broker could point to a common dilemma within the Johannine community, a dilemma over brokerage. If the Gospel of John can be viewed as a reflection of the tradition of that community, then we know that the brokerage of Jesus was central to their Christology. So the dilemma behind both the Farewell Discourses and the opponent\u2019s theology is likely this: in both cases people were dealing with the question of whether they could continue to have access to God in Jesus\u2019 \u2018absence\u2019. In the Discourses, the Evangelist introduces the Paraclete as a subordinate broker who provides a connection to Jesus so that he can continue to function as the ultimate broker to God for believers. But the 1 John opponents take a different route. They stress that the spirit had taken over a direct broker to God, and play down the continued importance of Jesus.
\nYet one might ask how the opponents of 1 John could have reconciled their beliefs that the life of the earthly Jesus was not of consequence for salvation and their implied belief that the spirit brokered direct access to God, with the portrait of Jesus as broker to God in the Gospel? I submit that the opponents understood Jesus\u2019 brokerage to climax in his giving over of the spirit, who in their view took over as permanent broker between God and believers. This study of the Gospel revealed how pivotal was the brokering of the spirit by Jesus, since spirit was said to be necessary for entrance into God\u2019s kingdom (3:5) and, thus, eternal life. The opponents may have understood spirit as the ultimate benefit that Jesus was sent to broker. Their apparent emphasis on the event of Jesus\u2019 baptism, the event of Jesus\u2019 meeting with John at the Jordan, when the spirit came upon him, may support this suggestion. They likely believed that Jesus \u2018took on\u2019 the Christ at that moment, and perhaps even viewed the abiding presence of the spirit on Jesus, as well as his brokering of the spirit to the disciples after his resurrection, as the ultimate and only significance of his life as a man. This idea was proposed by von Wahlde, who writes, \u2018Once the Spirit has been given, it could be argued, the believer had no more essential need of Jesus since possession of the Spirit united the believer directly to God\u2019 (1990: 118).
\nWhatever the precise nature of the 1 John opponents\u2019 beliefs about Jesus as broker, they did apparently attribute more significance to the broker-spirit than they were willing to attribute to Jesus. In response to this, the author of 1 John does two things. First, he plays down the role of the spirit while elaborating on Jesus\u2019 significance. His conceptualization of the spirit differs from that of the Gospel and places great stress on the spirit\u2019s legitimation of the community\u2019s traditions about Jesus. The author of 1 John does not characterize the spirit as a broker, though he does teach that it facilitates a true confession of Jesus. Whether he understands this to be a result of the spirit brokering access to words from God remains unclear. His words in 4:1\u20136 seem to be aimed at countering his opponents\u2019 false claims to the mediation of God\u2019s spirit; therefore the passage may not be intended to promote the notion of the spirit as broker. Secondly, the author of 1 John starkly portrays Jesus as a broker, a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The spot-lighting of Jesus\u2019 direct brokerage relationship with God in 2:1\u20132, and the emphasis on the death of the earthly Jesus (\u2018atoning sacrifice\u2019) as integral to his efficacy as as broker before God, likely counters the opponents\u2019 views that the spirit, not Jesus, mediates direct access to God, and that Jesus\u2019 death was unimportant.
\nTo return to our exegesis, we recall the emphasis on the spirit as \u2018evidence\u2019 in 1 Jn 3:24\u20134:6 and 4:13, for in our next and last spirit passage, 5:6\u20138, the spirit is portrayed as \u2018testifying\u2019, in other words as giving evidence. Beginning at 5:5 we read:<\/p>\n
Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not \u1f10\u03bd [in] the water only but \u1f10\u03bd [in] the water and \u1f10\u03bd [in] the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree (5:5\u20138).<\/p>\n
As indicated above, this passage reveals the opponents\u2019 view that Jesus\u2019 baptism was significant for salvation, but not his death. I contend that they probably believed that the Christ came to be revealed or incarnated in Jesus at his baptism but did not believe that the human life of Jesus of Nazareth, and thus his human death, were salvifically important. Therefore, the author of 1 John stresses that Jesus\u2019 baptism and death were both crucial for salvation. Jesus \u2018came in\u2019, probably meaning \u2018effected salvation through\u2019, both water and blood (v. 6b). Obviously, we take \u2018water\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 in 5:6 to indicate the events of baptism and crucifixion in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as do the majority of interpreters. Von Wahlde, on the other hand, takes \u2018came in water only\u2019 to mean that Jesus came to give the spirit, and does not associate \u2018water\u2019 specifically with the event of Jesus\u2019 baptism (von Wahlde 1990: 117\u201318). He bases this judgment on the association of water with spirit in the Gospel of John, and in doing so goes too far in interpreting 1 John directly through a specific feature of the Gospel. The author of the Epistle nowhere hints that he uses water to symbolize spirit. Moreover, when the Evangelist uses water symbolically to designate spirit, he usually uses the term \u2018living water\u2019.
\nAgainst R. Brown (1982: 573, 578), I do not believe the anarthrous construction of the phrase \u2018water and blood\u2019 in v. 6a demands that \u2018water and blood\u2019 must refer to one composite event that, in his view, is the effusion of blood and water from Jesus\u2019 side in Jn 19:34 following his death. This interpretation allows him to maintain that anarthrous nouns form a unit, but has little else to commend it. The terms are in reverse order in the two passages cited, and the water and blood have a different point of reference in the two passages. In the Gospel, the blood establishes the reality of Jesus\u2019 physical death, and the water symbolizes the spirit that became available upon Jesus\u2019 death. In the Epistle, the water and the blood support the significance of the baptism and death of the incarnate Christ (Hiebert 1990: 223). Brown acknowledges that the opponents believed the incarnation took place at the baptism of Jesus and that nothing further was necessary for salvation (1982: 578), and he believes v. 6b must refute this view (p. 578). Thus, he finds it inconceivable that the author would have emphasized baptism in v. 6a. But what could the author of 1 John have meant when he wrote that Jesus \u2018came by\/in water\u2019? Could he have acknowledged that Jesus\u2019 baptism was of consequence for salvation in a way that would not provide fodder for the opponents\u2019 false Christology? This question can be answered affirmatively.
\nVerse 5:6c emphasizes that the spirit testifies. To what does the spirit testify? Presumably to Jesus\u2019 having come both by\/in water (baptism) and by\/in blood (death) (v. 6b), or effecting salvation through both. How does the spirit testify that Jesus effected salvation through both his baptism and his death? This question is not even answered obliquely in the text, which forces interpreters to propose theories about how the author envisioned the spirit testifying to the significance of these events. I propose that the spirit testifies through the very fact that the community possesses the spirit. The spirit\u2019s affirming presence among them, which is evidenced in their proper confession of Jesus Christ, serves as a witness that Jesus\u2019 baptism and death were necessary for salvation, since Jesus received spirit at his baptism and made spirit available to believers upon his death. The very fact that they have the spirit testifies that this really happened. In other words, if Jesus\u2019 baptism and death had not happened, they would not have the spirit, and furthermore, they would not have salvation!
\nAccording to the tradition reflected in all four Gospels, the spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism (or in the Fourth Gospel, at his meeting with John since his baptism is not narrated there). The Fourth Evangelist expounds this tradition stressing that the spirit \u2018remained on\u2019 Jesus (Jn 1:32). And in the Fourth Gospel the presence of the spirit with Jesus identified him as the one who would later baptize with the holy spirit and allowed John to testify to his identity as the Son of God (Jn 1:31\u201334). This tradition implies that Jesus received the spirit during his meeting with John and possessed the spirit throughout his ministry, and that the spirit\u2019s abiding presence on Jesus legitimated or identified him as the one sent from God. The Fourth Gospel also stresses that believers were to receive the spirit after Jesus\u2019 glorification (7:39), and that spirit opened up the possibility for believers to enter God\u2019s kingdom (3:5). Moreover, it was argued above that according to John the spirit was made available to them upon Jesus\u2019 death. It was at the crucial event of Jesus\u2019 death and glorification that Jesus released the spirit, at which point in the narrative the Fourth Evangelist tells that water (symbolizing spirit, cf. 7:39), along with the expected blood, came out of Jesus\u2019 side (19:34). So according to the tradition of the Fourth Gospel, a tradition that the author of 1 John seems to share (even though he might not make reference to specific features of the Fourth Gospel in his Epistle), the events of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death when Jesus received and released the spirit were pivotal for allowing future believers to have the spirit.
\nI have asserted that it is unsound to interpret 1 John through the lenses of the Fourth Gospel, explaining features of the Epistle through specific features from the Gospel. That is not what I wish to do here. Rather, what I am suggesting is that certain general beliefs explicated in the Gospel may have been an established part of the tradition shared by the authors of the two writings. The belief that Jesus received the spirit at his baptism and released the spirit upon his death may have been a part of that established tradition familiar to both authors. And if the author of the Epistle and his audience are aware of these general Johannine traditions associating spirit with Jesus\u2019 baptism and death, then it could be that by drawing the spirit into the discussion of the significance of both these events the author can point to the salvific importance of the baptism in a way that inextricably links its significance with the death of Jesus. This would allow him to preserve the importance of the baptism without proffering support for the opponent\u2019s idea that the Christ became revealed and incarnated in Jesus upon his baptism. According to the author of 1 John, the baptism is not significant for this reason. It is significant because the baptism and death together functioned to make spirit available to believers. The two events worked together to make this possible.
\nThe author of 1 John uses the spirit as evidence of the significance of Jesus\u2019 death for salvation. Jesus\u2019 death must be significant, for it was the point at which spirit became available to believers. The very fact that believers have the spirit testifies to the importance of Jesus\u2019 cross where it was poured out. And the witness of God\u2019s spirit is the \u2018true\u2019 and trustworthy witness (5:6). This is not to say the author of 1 John sees the cross as important solely because it allowed the spirit to be made available. To this the opponents might fully agree. Obviously, the atoning work of the cross holds prominence in 1 John (see 1:7; 2:1\u20132; 4:10). But he has already asserted this elsewhere. In 5:6 he intends to show that Jesus\u2019 death bears significance not only because it atoned for sins, but because it allowed the spirit to be imparted to Jesus\u2019 followers. And in 1 John the spirit plays a crucial role in salvation. Those who are under the inspiration of the spirit of God \u2018confess Jesus\u2019; those who are not, who are instead inspired by the spirit of the antichrist, will not confess Jesus and will not be saved. It was thus salvifically important that potential believers receive God\u2019s spirit. And both Jesus\u2019 baptism and death played a key role in making it available to them. Therefore, the community\u2019s possession of the spirit testifies that Jesus effected salvation through both his baptism and his death.
\nIt could be suggested that in 5:6 the author means the spirit testifies to the significance of both \u2018the water and the blood\u2019 through some sort of \u2018inward\u2019 enlightening. Perhaps the spirit inwardly \u2018inspires\u2019 believers, enabling them to understand the meaning of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death and thus their eternal importance, just as the spirit is portrayed as facilitating proper confession in 4:2\u20133, this presumably not through an outwardly perceptible process. The problem with this interpretation is that the spirit\u2019s functions in the two passages are not analogous. In 4:2\u20133 the spirit does not testify to Jesus\u2019 identity, thereby inspiring a proper confession. In 4:2\u20133 the spirit inspires true confession, and does not testify to historical events in Jesus\u2019 life. But in 5:6\u20138, the emphasis centers on the historical baptism and death of Jesus and their role in salvation, and the spirit there functions as a witness to those concrete events. Yet could it not be argued that the spirit inwardly testifies to believers of Jesus\u2019 having \u2018come by\u2019 the historical events of his baptism and death? Not really, since a testimony by nature must be publicly perceptible, not inward. The community\u2019s possession of the spirit serves as a discernible testimony to them that Jesus\u2019 death, as well as his baptism, was efficacious for salvation. An inward, subjective witness within each believer would hardly constitute an effective witness to the significance of \u2018the water and the blood\u2019. Some might counter, however, that in 5:10a it is said that believers have the testimony of God in themselves. But this cannot mean that God\u2019s testimony is confined to the hearts of believers, for if it was how could the author accuse the opponents of making God \u2018a liar by not believing in [God\u2019s testimony]\u2019 (5:10b)? According to 5:10 it would seem that God\u2019s testimony is both in believers as well as being an external witness, since non-believers can apparently perceive and reject it. It is externally perceivable through the confession of faith in Jesus Christ that the spirit inspires. In what way does the testimony of God reside in believers? Schnackenburg interprets 5:10a to mean that believers accept and receive God\u2019s testimony; thus it is \u2018in\u2019 them. When they accept the divine testimony it becomes interiorized in them. He draws parallels with passages in Revelation that tell of believers \u2018holding\u2019 the testimony of Jesus (cf. Rev. 12:17; 19:10). All in all, one cannot sustain the argument that the author means the spirit\u2019s witness in 5:6 to be that of a subjective, inward \u2018enlightening\u2019.
\nOur interpretation of 5:6c, that the community\u2019s possession of the spirit serves as a witness to Jesus\u2019 death because the spirit could not have been given without it, raises the question of why the linking together of the bestowal of spirit with Jesus\u2019 death is not made more explicit in 1 John. The expiatory function of the cross clearly comes to the fore in the letter, while the function of the cross in allowing spirit to be made available to believers receives only latent mention. I propose that this is because the opponents overstressed the importance of Jesus\u2019 brokering the spirit, and saw no purpose for his death other than departure. For this reason the author of 1 John repeatedly asserts the necessity of Jesus\u2019 death for procuring forgiveness of sins, and thus allowing eternal life for believers. Only after he has soundly established this argument does he allude to a further function of the cross: its importance in making the spirit available. This latter point may have been intended as a mockery of the opponents. They may have claimed to have the spirit, yet they disparage Jesus\u2019 death, saying Jesus only brought salvation \u2018by water\u2019. The author of 1 John in turn points out the shortsightedness of their beliefs by reminding his readers that no could have the spirit were it not for Jesus\u2019 coming \u2018by blood\u2019, that is, were it not for his death.
\nJust as the author of 1 John says the spirit testifies to Jesus\u2019 having come by both water and blood, so he says in vv. 7\u20138 that the water and the blood also testify. And the testimony of the spirit, the water and the blood all agree. I submit that \u2018water\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 have the same meaning in this verse as in v. 6. They signify Jesus\u2019 baptism and death. However, some scholars think the meaning in this verse must be different. How could the water and blood (i.e. Jesus\u2019 baptism and death) be said to testify to the salvific importance of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death? This is aperplexing question. Yet it is not made easier by a complicated answer, that is, that \u2018water\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 change meaning in the latter verses. Those who accept this view commonly assert that \u2018water\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 refer to the sacraments of baptism and eucharist in vv. 7\u20138. But nowhere else in the New Testament does \u2018blood\u2019 alone refer to the eucharist (Smalley 1984: 277, 282; Rensberger 1997: 132). Furthermore, the author of 1 John is concerned in 5:6\u20138 with the significance of the historical events of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death (\u2018the one who came by\u2019, 5:6 [emphasis added to stress past tense]) not with the continuing manifestations of the Christ in the sacraments (Smalley 1984: 277). \u2018Water\u2019 and \u2018blood\u2019 likely bear the same connotation in vv. 7\u20138 as they did in v. 6, that is, they signify historical events in the life of Jesus the Nazarene. I suggest that these events \u2018testify\u2019 to the salvific efficaciousness of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death through the retelling of the stories of those events. Every time one hears the proclamation of the stories of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death, and of how the spirit was made available through them, the significance of those events for salvation receives confirmation. And the fact that the community possesses the spirit corroborates the witness of those stories. \u2018The spirit and the water and blood\u2019 are all in agreement; the spirit, along with the retelling of the historic events of Jesus\u2019 baptism and death, all work together to confirm and reaffirm that the human life of Jesus, and his very human death, were of great consequence for salvation.<\/p>\n
2. Summary<\/p>\n
By this point we have examined all of the spirit sayings in 1 John. Key features of the pneumatology of 1 John are the role of the spirit as evidence of an \u2018abiding\u2019 relationship with God, as well as the role of the spirit in inspiring the true christological confession of believers. It has been asserted that the secessionists behind the Gospel seem to believe, among other things, that they prophesy through the brokerage of God\u2019s spirit, who provides them with direct access to God. They discount the salvific importance of Jesus\u2019 death and likely view his brokering of the spirit as the pinnacle of his work. After Jesus had given the spirit, the spirit took over as broker to God, in their view. This study has also demonstrated that such a view likely developed out of the emphasis on brokerage in Johannine tradition, as seen in the Gospel. The secessionists adopted this emphasis on brokerage while making the spirit the ultimate broker instead of Jesus.
\nBecause of the opponents\u2019 emphasis on the spirit\u2019s brokerage, the author of 1 John plays down the spirit. He does not characterize the spirit as a broker, but rather calls Jesus a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or broker, depicting him as direct mediator between believers and God (2:1\u20132). Still, the author of the Epistle believes that the spirit of God inspires proper confession of Jesus and is important for salvation. He cannot, then, dismiss a discussion of spirit altogether. He too wishes to claim that his group has spirit. Consequently, he makes spirit possession and proper confession of Jesus inextricably linked: only those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God have the spirit (4:13\u201315; cf. 3:24); only those who have the spirit of God confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2). The two are inseparable. Apparently the polemical context of 1 John was highly influential in shaping its pneumatology.
\nThis study of 1 John has illuminated the nature of the secessionist problem behind that epistle. Though scholars like von Wahlde (1990) and Grayston (1984: 19) have already argued that the secessionists were claiming to have the direct mediation of the spirit, our understanding of the centrality of brokerage in the Gospel and our use of the brokerage model has allowed us to go farther than they in understanding how the crisis over brokerage developed in the first place. Furthermore, our conclusion that the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 can mean \u2018broker\u2019 has allowed us to recognize the significance of the author calling Jesus a Paraclete in 1 John. He calls Jesus a Paraclete in order to reaffirm Jesus\u2019 role as ultimate broker to God.
\nMy suggestion that the opponents of the community claimed to have the direct brokerage of the spirit explains why the Evangelist associates \u2018anointing\u2019 with the tradition of the community while dissociating it from spirit, despite the fact that it typically refers to spirit. The Evangelist deliberately avoided allusions to spirit that might have been misconstrued as support for the secessionists\u2019 position. Yet this study shows that the opponents were not necessarily \u2018ecstatics\u2019. Evidence that the opponents were ecstatics is hard to find in the Epistle. Their pneumatological beliefs are rather interrelated with their conception of brokerage. The issue of contention between the author and the opponents is not one of spiritual ecstasy, but is the issue of whether Jesus is necessary for access to God. According to the tradition of the author, the answer is clearly \u2018yes\u2019. The secessionists, on the other hand, believe the spirit can provide them with direct access to God, making Jesus superfluous.<\/p>\n
3. A Comparison of the Pneumatology of John and 1 John<\/p>\n
We are now in a position to analyze the pneumatology of 1 John in relation to that of John. According to Rudolf Schnackenburg, \u2018The doctrine of the Spirit in 1 John is to a great extent in agreement with the Gospel of John\u2019 (1992: 195). Yet while the pneumatology of 1 John does not fundamentally contradict that of John, Schnackenburg\u2019s statement sounds overly optimistic. 1 John\u2019s perspective on the spirit varies substantially from that of John. The emphases of the pneumatology of the two writings are almost completely different. In the Gospel\u2019s spirit sayings outside of the Farewell Discourses, \u2018spirit\u2019 is indicative of the realm of God. And \u2018spiritual birth\u2019 allows human beings to be able to pass from the earthly realm into the heavenly and receive eternal life. This spiritual birth only becomes possible through Jesus\u2019 brokering of the spirit to believers. Within the Farewell Discourses, the spirit comes to bear the role of a subordinate broker, allowing believers to have access to Jesus after he has returned to the Father. As a subordinate broker, the Spirit-Paraclete perpetuates Jesus\u2019 presence, and thus his work of teaching, witnessing and proving the world wrong.
\nLike John, 1 John portrays the spirit as a divine gift. But in the latter, the spirit does not receive mention until halfway through the letter. In 1 John, the spirit functions to enable a proper confession of Jesus and serves as evidence of the community\u2019s abiding relationship with God. Further, there the spirit fills the role of \u2018witness\u2019 in that the community\u2019s possession of God\u2019s spirit evidences that both Jesus\u2019 baptism and death, the events when Jesus received and released the spirit, were necessary for salvation. The characterization of the spirit as a mediator\/broker in John\u2019s Farewell Discourses is absent in 1 John. The spirit does not provide believers with access to the benefits of a patron, either God or Jesus. On the other hand, in one verse Jesus bears the characterization as a broker, though the contours of that role are somewhat different from those in the Gospel. In 1 John 2:1 Jesus is a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 who mediates between believers and God. The sense of that passage seems to be that Jesus\u2019 atoning sacrifice expiated believers\u2019 sins before God the patron, allowing him to be able to go to God on behalf of his followers and to mediate to them God\u2019s forgiveness of their sins.
\nIf we accept, as we do, that 1 John and the Gospel of John share a close affinity, how do we account for the very different emphases in their pneumatology? Brown suggests that the author of 1 John plays down the role of the spirit much more than the Gospel of John because some of his opponents claimed to be guided by the spirit in their teaching (Brown 1979: 140). In agreement with von Wahlde, I have argued that the opponents believed the spirit mediated direct access to God, and that they therefore did not need Jesus. But though the author of 1 John wished to refute this, at the same time he wanted to make it clear that the spirit was important and that his community was the one who had it. In other words, both groups valued the spirit and both contended that they had it. It is likely then that \u2018spirit\u2019 was an especially sticky issue for the author of 1 John, and may have compelled him to shirk any unnecessary mentions of it (Brown 1979: 140). But the contention about spirit between the groups also likely shaped what he did write on the subject. Perhaps this is why 1 John\u2019s perspective on spirit appears quite different from that of John, because it was fashioned to undergird his polemic against secessionists who were not a significant factor for the author of John. The author of 1 John draws in the spirit at points specifically to counter false claims and beliefs of his opponents. For example, he portrays the spirit as evidence that his community, not the opponents, is actually the one sharing an abiding relationship with God (3:24; 4:13). Further, he teaches that the spirit of God inspired the community\u2019s confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2\u20133) (which amounts to true belief). Finally, the author of 1 John teaches that the spirit testifies to the salvific importance of both Jesus\u2019 baptism and death (5:6\u20138), a key point of dissonance between his group and their opponents. The \u2018point\u2019 that the author of 1 John was striving to make in his references to the spirit was a polemical point, and was determined by the disagreements between his community and the secessionists. And the point he was trying to make is different from the point the Evangelist was trying to make in his use of spirit since the Evangelist was apparently facing different challenges. Therefore, the pneumatologies of the two writings are distinct. Nonetheless, both authors employ spirit as \u2018legitimation\u2019 to some degree. In the Gospel, the spirit legitimates Jesus, and secondarily the believers. In the Epistle, the spirit serves as evidence of right relationship with God, and thus serves to legitimate those who have it.
\nIn summary, I note that my comparison of the portrayals of the spirit in John and 1 John does not clearly indicate a sequence of the composition of either writing in relation to the other. However, the 1 John notion of Jesus as a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (2:1) was likely borrowed from the Gospel of John, rather than the other way around. Brokerage Christology is ubiquitous and elaborate within the Gospel of John and was likely developed by the Fourth Evangelist; it proves integral to his theology. In 1 John the characterization of Jesus as a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 receives only a passing mention and the brokerage view of soteriology seems subordinate to the author\u2019s view of salvation as \u2018expiation\u2019 (cf. 1:7; 2:1\u20132; 3:8; 4:10). I have argued that the 1 John opponents\u2019 claim to have direct access to God through the brokerage of the spirit (4:1\u20133), coupled with their discounting of Jesus, compelled the author of 1 John to characterize Jesus as the direct mediator (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) to God because of his atoning death. The probable adoption of the term \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 from the Gospel of John persuades me to conclude that 1 John was written later than the Gospel. Moreover, the probability that the opponents were motivated by the brokerage-Christology in the Gospel of John to develop their brokerage-pneumatology, lends further support to this conclusion.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
Early in this study I asserted the importance of attempting to interpret written texts with a view to their own socio-cultural contexts. I also stressed the utility of employing suitable analogical models for assistance in understanding socio-cultural phenomena unfamiliar to the interpreter, and in this study of Johannine pneumatology I have employed the social-scientific model of patron-client relations, or brokerage, as a heuristic tool for understanding the relationship between God, Jesus, the spirit and believers in John and 1 John. Through an exegesis of the Johannine spirit passages the choice of model has proved warranted, as it seems clear that the Fourth Evangelist considered brokerage an important theological concept. The data from this study has, in many ways, been shown to \u2018fit\u2019 the model in use. Yet we have also noted where data from John and 1 John does not fit the model, for instance, in the characterization of the spirit in the Gospel passages outside of the Farewell Discourses. In these passages, the spirit is not conceptualized as a broker. However, though the spirit is not portrayed as a broker there, we have seen how vital Jesus\u2019 possession of the spirit is to his ability to broker access to God the Father, and thus to his role as heavenly broker, and this is accentuated in those passages. So even outside of the Farewell Discourses, our model has been illuminating. And in 1 John, though it seems the author does not care to portray the spirit as a broker, he is in conflict with those who do and he does choose to allude to Jesus\u2019 brokerage role (1 Jn 2:1). In this sense the model proves helpful. After exegeting the spirit passages in John and 1 John we are now in a position to reflect back on some of the questions proposed in Chapter 1 and to explore the answers that have emerged in our interpretation of those writings. After doing so I will also highlight the significance of our findings for Johannine studies.
\nThe question I wish to recall here is the why question posed in Chapter 1. Why was spirit important to the Fourth Evangelist? Another way of posing the same question might be, How did spirit function for the Evangelist and his community? Why was it beneficial for them to think of the spirit in the unique ways they did?
\nEssentially, the spirit recurrently signifies and identifies that which is of the realm of God in John. This aspect of John\u2019s pneumatology predominates outside of the Farewell Discourses. The spirit, then, functions to associate various characters in the Gospel with God and thus serves a legitimating function. Most importantly, the spirit identifies Jesus as the \u2018Son of God\u2019 and as the representative of the spirit-realm who will bestow spirit on his followers that they might become members of God\u2019s family. The spirit \u2018abides\u2019 on Jesus, Jesus has the spirit \u2018without measure\u2019, and Jesus alone provides access to the spiritual birth that brings eternal life for those who are faithful to God. The unparalleled Johannine emphasis on Jesus\u2019 unique ability to mediate eternal life, or salvation, is likely motivated by the contentious relations between the Johannine community and the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. The spirit proves pivotal in the Evangelist\u2019s portrayal of the gospel because the abiding of the spirit was, in his view, what set Jesus apart from all other broker figures and what legitimated Jesus as God\u2019s unique Son, who was sent down from the realm of God to mediate access to the patronage of God. As we have seen, the spirit passages of John outside of the Farewell Discourses often coincide with the Johannine broker contests where Jesus is held up to some of the most revered brokers of the Israelite religion, most notably Moses. The spirit functions in these sections to mark Jesus as less \u2018earthly\u2019 than these brokers. Whereas they are \u2018from below\u2019, Jesus is a man sent \u2018from above\u2019, and he bears the abiding presence of the spirit to prove it. What could better qualify him to bridge the divide between humanity and the eternal God than the fact that he has been sent from the realm of God? By sending Jesus, God graciously extends patronage to all who will believe in his Son, and reveals the inefficaciousness of earthly attempts to broker access to the God realm.
\nNot only does the spirit legitimate Jesus himself in John, but it is also used by the Fourth Evangelist to legitimate himself and his community. As faithful followers of Jesus, they view themselves as those who have been \u2018born of spirit\u2019 and who \u2018worship in spirit and truth\u2019. They are children of God. The teaching of the Evangelist on the spirit would have served to embolden his community in their resistance to the pressures of the synagogue. They were taught to stay loyal to Jesus despite potential persecution because only Jesus could provide them with a way to the Father. Despite the estrangement from the Israelite religion that would result from their decision to confess Jesus, the Evangelist encouraged his community to endure in their faith because, despite its claims, the Israelite religion and its broker-figures were unable to mediate access to God. According to the Evangelist, these were \u2018earthly\u2019, and he and his followers were \u2018of the spirit\u2019.
\nBesides bearing the legitimating function of aligning certain persons in the Gospel with the realm of God, spirit opens up the possibility of receiving eternal life (3:5). Spirit is a benefit that Jesus brokers to believers from God. Once they have received it and experienced new birth in spirit, have become members of God\u2019s family, then believers are able to receive the full range of benefits of God\u2019s patronage. Most importantly, they receive eternal life. Jesus bore spirit not only as a sign, but in order that he might be able to confer the benefit of spirit to those who accepted him as God\u2019s broker sent from above.
\nWe have pondered why the Evangelist may have come to portray the spirit itself as a broker, or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, at a later stage in the Gospel\u2019s composition, when the Farewell Discourses were written. I submit that at this point in the community\u2019s history, some within the community had come to doubt whether Jesus was able to broker access to God when he was no longer on the Earth. Perhaps these followers were tempted to separate from the community and return to the synagogue in lieu of forfeiting the brokerage they believed they could have through it. In response to such a concern, the Evangelist developed a conception of the spirit as a broker providing access to the glorified Jesus, who had returned to the realm of the Father. Because the Paraclete mediated access to Jesus, it was as if Jesus remained perpetually present with them despite his departure. The Evangelist fashions this characterization of the Paraclete as a broker figure in order to address concerns about Jesus\u2019 continued efficacy as a broker and to inculcate continuing loyalty to Jesus despite the threat of synagogue expulsion or even martyrdom. The Paraclete makes it possible for Jesus to continue to function as broker to God for the disciples. Because of the Paraclete, Jesus can continue to be a paraclete himself, the ultimate broker between God and his clients.
\nThe \u2018oneness\u2019 of Jesus and the Paraclete is not to be understood as identity. The Paraclete is not the spirit of Jesus or the presence of Jesus. Just as the \u2018oneness\u2019 of Jesus and the Father in John points to Jesus\u2019 role as broker to God, so that from the perspective of believers it is as if they are relating to God when they relate to Jesus, so when they experience the Paraclete it is as if they are experiencing Jesus. The Paraclete continues Jesus\u2019 presence and work not as Jesus\u2019 alter ego, but as a broker. The Spirit-Paraclete is a benefit that Jesus will broker to believers. But as with the other benefits Jesus provides, the source of the Paraclete is with God. The Father sends the Paraclete via Jesus in order to perpetuate the availability of access to his patronage.
\nThe Evangelist\u2019s dualistic perspective likely accounts for the designation \u2018Spirit of Truth\u2019 for the Spirit-Paraclete. As the true Spirit, the Paraclete stands apart from the false spirits of the world. The title Spirit of Truth constitutes a competitive claim against the opponents of the Johannine Christians. Moreover, the Paraclete is the Spirit of Truth because he leads disciples on the way to truth (16:13), that is, the way to Jesus \u2018the Truth\u2019 (14:6).
\nOne of the advantages of our thesis over other explanations of Johannine pneumatology, is that it does not blur the distinction between Jesus and spirit. Furthermore, it does not test one\u2019s credulity by asserting that John\u2019s pneumatology originated in a specific figure(s) from the history of religions. Nonetheless, we have appreciated the integral link between Jesus and spirit and given due attention to the importance of pneumatology to Christology in John. And we have built on the work of those who find the Paraclete to be a mediator figure. By delineating the mediatorial relationship of Jesus and the Spirit-Paraclete as it would have been understood within the culture of the Johannine Christians, utilizing the model of brokerage, we have attempted to clarify issues that other scholars have not addressed satisfactorily, namely, the relationship between Jesus and the spirit and the nature of their mediation.
\nThis thesis does not require that the Fourth Gospel predominantly reflect either Hellenistic or Hebraic origins. The Fourth Gospel certainly evinces both Israelite and Hellenistic influences. But brokerage does not demand that the Evangelist adopted his concept of mediation either from a Hellenistic context or a Hebraic context. I have argued that brokerage was widespread in Mediterranean culture and is evidenced both in Palestine during the Early Roman Empire, as well as in the surrounding Mediterranean world. Therefore, the model has explanatory power regardless of whether the Evangelist was more Hebraic or more Hellenistic, or whether the majority of the Gospel was written for an audience in or outside of Palestine. The model of brokerage is not a \u2018Hellenistic\u2019 model. In fact, I submit that brokerage would be illuminating for the analysis of Israelite mediator figures, such as Wisdom, the logos, the prophets and angels, who are all brokers between God and his clients. I hope such work will be forthcoming.
\nThis study of Johannine pneumatology, and specifically the thesis that brokerage markedly influenced the Evangelist\u2019s portrayal of both Jesus and the spirit, has important implications for the field of Johannine studies. It bears importance for John\u2019s Christology. Brokerage clarifies much about the figure of Jesus and his work among humanity. It illuminates the Gospel\u2019s soteriology in fruitful ways, for it helps one to understand why Jesus was sent from above only to return to the Father from whence he came. He was not sent primarily to be a revealer who incidentally had no revelation, contra Bultmann or Porsch. He was not sent primarily to inaugurate a pneumatic religious experience, as Burge suggests. Nor was he sent as an authoritative messenger of God who primarily offered God\u2019s words, as the proponents of \u2018agency\u2019 Christology imply. In the Gospel of John we find that Jesus was sent as the representative of the patron God uniquely and solely qualified to serve as a bridge between the disparate spheres of God and humanity. Jesus\u2019 main purpose in doing the works of his Father on earth and in speaking God\u2019s words \u2018from above\u2019 was to make known what God was doing in sending him, and what God was doing was making the benefits of divine patronage available as never before. In Jesus, God was graciously extending an invitation of inclusion in the spiritual family of God to all who would accept his Son Jesus and live lives faithful to God.
\nNoting Jesus\u2019 role as God\u2019s broker sent from above also bears implications for how one understands the depiction of Jesus as both equal to God and subordinate. As broker to God Jesus functions as God\u2019s client, though he is also God\u2019s son. As a client and son, Jesus is under the authority of God and required to give God both his obedience and his honor. Yet from the perspective of humanity, Jesus makes available all the benefits of divine patronage. Jesus makes available birth into the spiritual family of God. Those in the Mediterranean world in the first century did not believe direct access to the realm of God was possible. Access to such higher orders needed to be mediated, according to their dualistic world-view. Therefore, persons in that time and place believed they experienced God\u2019s good gifts only through various forms of mediation. From their perspective, Jesus claimed to represent God, to be the \u2018way\u2019 to know God the Father, to see and hear him, and to receive gifts from him. Thus to believers Jesus is God, according to the Fourth Evangelist. Or at least Jesus is all people can know of God. From the perspective of believers, to know Jesus is to know God, making Jesus and God essentially equal. Yet Jesus\u2019 unique ability to broker direct access to God results from his role as the only begotten Son of God who came down from above. And as God\u2019s Son, Jesus is naturally subordinate to his father. Viewing the relationship between God and Jesus according to the known characteristics of patron-client, or patron-broker, relationships thus allows us to reconcile two seemingly contradictory elements of their relationship: equality and subordination.
\nSimilarly, noting the role of brokerage in the theology of the Fourth Evangelist allows us to make sense of the relationship between Jesus and the Paraclete. Like God and Jesus, Jesus and the Paraclete, at points in the Farewell Discourses, seem to collapse into one character. This to the point that one interpreter has called the Paraclete Jesus\u2019 \u2018alter ego\u2019 (Windisch 1927: 129). The striking unity shared between Jesus and the Paraclete has occasioned many fuzzy interpretations, some of which stress the unity of Jesus and the Paraclete at the expense of the references to the Paraclete\u2019s subordination and dependence on Jesus. For example, Burge claims that John has identified the believer\u2019s experience of the spirit with his experience of Jesus, but Burge does not satisfactorily explain how this works. He also states that to have the spirit means the same thing as to have Jesus dwelling within (Burge 1987: 148). Burge notes that Jesus and the Spirit are not indistinguishable for the Evangelist (p. 146), yet his interpretations suggest an identification of the two figures. Brown contends that the Paraclete is depicted as the presence of Jesus among the disciples in answer to the challenge of the delayed parousia (Brown 1966\u201370: II, 1142\u201343). And Porsch clouds the picture with his theory that the spirit comes through Jesus\u2019 word (1974: 200\u2013201). Yet the unity shared by Jesus and the Paraclete is a functional unity. Just as Jesus provides access to God, so that from the perspective of humanity Jesus and the Father are one, so the Paraclete provides access to the glorified Jesus so that from the perspective of the believers, Jesus and the Paraclete are one. The Paraclete functions to provide access to Jesus after Jesus has returned to the Father so that it is as if Jesus continues to be with the disciples, continues his work among them: work that includes witnessing alongside them, teaching them, providing them with a way to the Father. It is the sending of the Paraclete, who bridges the divide between believers and the glorified Jesus, that makes it possible for Jesus to continue his work of brokering access to God, or bridging the earthly realm and the heavenly realm. The Paraclete makes it possible for Jesus to continue to be a paraclete. The Paraclete is said to testify, but it is on Jesus\u2019 behalf that he testifies (Jn 15:26). The Paraclete is said to lead the disciples into truth, but it is Jesus\u2019 words he speaks (Jn 16:13). The tasks of the Paraclete are those of Jesus, for the Paraclete is sent to Jesus\u2019 disciples precisely in order that Jesus can continue to work among them through the brokerage of the Paraclete.
\nBrokerage proffers further clarification of the Paraclete\u2019s function in that the seemingly divergent tasks of the Paraclete are subsumed in his role as broker. The Paraclete\u2019s tasks of teaching, testifying and \u2018proving wrong\u2019, are not separate, unrelated tasks of a multi-faceted spirit-figure. There is no bifurcation of the Paraclete\u2019s role, with revelatory functions on one side and witnessing functions on the other. Rather, all the tasks attributed to the Paraclete-Spirit of Truth in the Johannine Farewell Discourses fall within his role as broker to Jesus.
\nFurthermore, brokerage assists one in deciphering the role of key characters in the Fourth Gospel. For example, we have explored the significance of the characters John and Nicodemus. Brokerage bears implications for how both are understood. The role of John is strictly delimited by the Evangelist to that of a broker to Jesus. John receives special status as the one who makes manifest Jesus\u2019 identity as the Son of God, yet the Evangelist allows no association of John with a heavenly broker figure like the Messiah, or the Prophet, or Elijah. Such an association would place him in competition with Jesus. Nicodemus, on the other hand, fares far worse than John the Baptist. As a Pharisee and a ruler of the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, he represents human means of brokerage. When he comes to Jesus challenging his significance as a broker, Jesus turns the tables on him. Jesus both shames Nicodemus for not comprehending even basic spiritual truths and seizes the initiative, turning Nicodemus\u2019s positive challenge into an opportunity to explain his importance as the divine broker and the only means of access to God.
\nFuture studies of John could build on the implications of this study for the interpretation of Johannine discipleship. The Evangelist stresses the crucial role of loyalty and love in the relationship between Jesus and his followers. I believe that an interpretation of Jesus\u2019 followers as \u2018clients\u2019 and fictive kin in John could prove fruitful for explaining why the ethics of John are dominated by this emphasis on faithfulness. The Fourth Evangelist seems to be far more interested in inculcating loyalty in Jesus\u2019 followers than in teaching them how to live righteously in the world and avoid moral impurity. This is likely because his primary concern was that Jesus\u2019 followers, specifically those in his own community, recognize Jesus\u2019 unique role as broker to God and not forfeit that brokerage for what he would deem the \u2018pseudo-brokerage\u2019 of the Israelite religion.
\nThough the implications of this study of brokerage for the field of Johannine studies perhaps range wider than the points I have raised, I lastly wish to note how the emphasis on brokerage in John helps to explain the situation that arose within the 1 John community. The tensions evident in 1 John make sense as stemming from a rivalry over mediators. Because the opponents of the author have asserted the brokerage role of the spirit at the expense of Jesus\u2019 significance, the author himself wishes to draw attention back to Jesus and to re-emphasize Jesus\u2019 importance for salvation. Evidently the community behind 1 John were being faced with a choice of brokers: either the spirit or Jesus. The opponents apparently taught that the spirit provided them with direct access to God. The author in response holds firmly to the traditions about Jesus that had been handed down to him and his community, and he strives to teach his followers of the indispensability of Jesus\u2019 life and death. Yet the author cannot disparage the spirit either. Therefore, he fashions a theology according to which the significance of the spirit lies in its work of affirming the Jesus traditions.
\nI wish to end this study by expressing my concern about the way that the caustic tone of John and 1 John has been adopted by some Christians through the centuries in engaging those whom they oppose. It is my hope that understanding the socio-cultural contexts of these writings will allow readers to appreciate their value as texts without embracing their tone. In this work I have asserted that the impetus for the vehement Johannine stress on the exclusivity of Jesus\u2019 brokerage can be found in the polemical fronts on which the Fourth Evangelist and the author of 1 John were fighting. Both authors found themselves struggling against forces that directly threatened the unity and survival of their communities, and in response to those forces, tightened up the lines of demarcation identifying their own groups as God\u2019s true children or clients. Befitting the circumstances that motivated their writings, the tenor of their polemic is often cutting and unrelenting. This makes it all the more crucial that readers who esteem these writings and find in them enduring truths fully acknowledge the contextualized nature of their words. The writers of John and 1 John were reacting to formidable problems in their specific communities. They presumably were not seeking to set a permanent precedent for how Jesus\u2019 followers would relate to those in disagreement with them.<\/p>\n
title Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective<\/p>\n
author Brown, Tricia Gates<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
INTRODUCTION 1. The Problem Scholarly research devoted to the comprehensive study of Johannine pneumatology has been meager in recent years. This in spite of a surging interest in John that has led to numerous investigations into aspects of the Gospel, such as its Christology and literary content. A tendency to focus on the historical situation … <\/p>\n